Continuation CSX a "Kit car"?

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Of course to follow this up a little further I'll take a section of the actual CSX purchase agreement and post it here as it needs no further clarification as to what SAI itself views these cars as:

"It is expressly understood and agreed that it shall be Purchaser’s or Purchaser’s retail customer’s responsibility to assemble the parts and components of The Shelby Cobra Series Component Vehicle and if any engine and drive-train is installed therein at Purchaser’s or Purchaser’s retail customer’s option, it is not at the request or under the direction of Shelby Automobiles. It is also understood and agreed that it shall be Purchaser or Purchaser’s retail customer’s sole responsibility to direct any independent assembler engaged by Purchaser or Purchaser’s retail customer to complete the final assembly of The Shelby Series Cobra Component Vehicle. It is understood and agreed that Shelby Automobiles is not responsible for any errors, omissions or construction defects of or by the Purchaser, Purchaser’s retail customer or independent assembler."


Bill S.

I don't think anyone ever disputed that it's a component vehicle (plus we've already covered this). Obviously, for Shelby to sell a Cobra that's the same design as the original cars, it would never meet modern standards as a finished vehicle.

Let us not forget, that original comp and S/Cs were component vehicles too. They rollers were made by AC, and shipped to Shelby, minus drivetrain (and paint). Shelby added the drivetrains, and then sold them as complete cars. But that was the 60s, and the Cobra could be sold back then as a completed car in it's design. Today, to sell the same car, it has to be sold to the public as a component car.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

Today, to sell the same car, it has to be sold to the public as a component car.

Sal,

My point exactly, as what is another name for a "component car" , we all know it's a kit car, whether it is sold as a roller or not. So why is it that most new CSX owners (no, not you) cannot except that as a fact.



Bill S.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Sal,

My point exactly, as what is another name for a "component car" , we all know it's a kit car, whether it is sold as a roller or not. So why is it that most new CSX owners (no, not you) cannot except that as a fact.



Bill S.

Bill, I think the ongoing debate stems from people's different definitions of the terms.

To some people, a kit car is anything that wasn't built in the 60s. To others, a kit car is just that... as car sold as a kit (unassembled).

To some people, a replica is anything that wasn't built in the 60s. To some CSX guys, a replica is any Cobra NOT sold by Shelby.

To some people, a real Cobra is one that was built in the 60s. To others, a real Cobra is any one sold by Shelby.

Unfortunately, until the entire Cobra world is on the same page as to what the definitions mean, this debate will never end.

[fostereast]

Posted by Power Surge: "Let us not forget, that original comp and S/Cs were component vehicles too. They rollers were made by AC, and shipped to Shelby, minus drivetrain (and paint). Shelby added the drivetrains, and then sold them as complete cars. But that was the 60s, and the Cobra could be sold back then as a completed car in it's design. Today, to sell the same car, it has to be sold to the public as a component car.[/quote]



The original Cobras were "Cars" they were not "Component Cars" By the definition you are implying you would have to call many modern day cars "component cars"

[Power Surge]

Posted by Power Surge: "Let us not forget, that original comp and S/Cs were component vehicles too. They rollers were made by AC, and shipped to Shelby, minus drivetrain (and paint). Shelby added the drivetrains, and then sold them as complete cars. But that was the 60s, and the Cobra could be sold back then as a completed car in it's design. Today, to sell the same car, it has to be sold to the public as a component car.

Originally Posted by fostereast

The original Cobras were "Cars" they were not "Component Cars" By the definition you are implying you would have to call many modern day cars "component cars"

Try reading it again.

[fostereast]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

Try reading it again.

What am I missing?

[A-Snake]

Originally Posted by fostereast

What am I missing?

What Sal is saying is that cars of yesteryear can not be produced and sold as complete cars by a manufacturer today as they would not meet present day safety and emission standards.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by A-Snake

What Sal is saying is that cars of yesteryear can not be produced and sold as complete cars by a manufacturer today as they would not meet present day safety and emission standards.

Exactly.

[patrickt]

Another problem, and we all know it, is that the term "kit car" leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and conjures up visions of the dune buggies we made out of barely-functional VWs. It's very easy to turn up a nose and snidely remark "Oh, it's a kit car?" A lot of us would like to avoid that (CSX owners and non-owners alike).

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by fostereast

What am I missing?

Without splitting hairs here

I believe was Sal was alluding to (wrongfully so in this case, sorry Sal) was that the cars were sent from AC to SAI sans drivetrain, thus making them a component vehicle. Where the logic goes astray is that AC was just a supplier of parts in roller form, and that SAI (at least here in the states) was the official "Manufacturer of Record". Just like GM orders parts from different suppliers, but does final assembly in it's own plants as the official "Manufacturer of Record". AC did not send along "AC" MSO's, (except the very, very early cars), but instead sent along assigned CSX numbers (or at least was supposed to send them) in which SAI could import and issue their own MSO's ....Not as confusing as it sounds, really.


Bill S.