The point of this thread, from the beginning, was to learn about Kirkhams. The talk about FFRs and how close it came to the price of a Kirkham, was only background of how I got here. I could care less what people say about my time frame, that I'm in college, there's no way a FFR could reach the price of a Kiirkham, etc. I just want to talk about Kirkhams and any powered by a SOHC.

I now understand the tone of Mr. Mustang's post early-on in this thread.:JEKYLHYDE

FWIW, I came very close to having a Contemporary Classic built in the early 1980s, when I was fresh out of school -- it was just a little too expensive, along with being newly married, mortgage, etc. Twenty years later I wrote a check to ERA for my Cobra. If Contemporary Classic was still in business today they would probably be the equivalent of an ERA. In those twenty years the price to get what I wanted more than doubled. I would guess that trend will probably continue.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what others are saying here, but I don't understand why someone, anyone, who's interested in learning more about Cobras (and hopefully interior taste :LOL:), is being called a troll just because he's years away from his dream.

A bunch of dream killers you. :p :)

A SOHC in a Kirkham is my dream too, but another $30-50K isn't in the cards for me. But I can still dream and ask questions. Again, I may not be reading between the lines somewhere here.

I am with you Rodney. Not sure why people are getting their panties in a wad. If we could only talk about reality on this board, it wouldn't be much fun. Hell, some people have spent years talking about wheels that don't exist.

Hex, is that:

a) magnesium Halibrand wheel humor,
b) aluminum Sunburst wheel humor, or
c) all the above.

Because you're right! :LOL:

Ok, I'll go out on a limb, and speak on behalf of everyone...

For what its worth everyone agrees that a "Kirkham powered by a SOHC" are "the duck's guts!!!" ;)

(Google it if you have too...)


:):):)

Quite. But Motorhead27 should also be cautioned that the prudent Cobra purchaser does not buy his toy unless he can afford to take that money and throw it off the side of a cliff and still meet his obligations to those for whom he is responsible.:cool:

PS: I think I might put an LS7 in mine though...?
:eek::eek::eek:

Not sure yet...! :rolleyes:

Flame-suit on!
%/%/%/

Is that the same as "the dog's bollocks"? :LOL: :LOL:

You can Google that as well if you want. ;)

Paul

Motorhead27, surprising how many don't get your question, pretty obvious to me the logic in your thinking. If it were me, no question I would go with a Kirkham - considered the most authentic of all cobra replica builders out there and which command the most money on resale. You already know that return on investment is a losing proposition, but consider this - now you have the money to burn, it will always get spent - if not on a Kirkham, then some other toy most likely. Should the future hold some unpleasant surprise and you need to sell, no question the SOHC/Kirkham will command top dollar in the used cobra market. (And you might be surprised just how much someone might pay for that absolute top of the line cobra). The way I look at it - it's like putting X amount of money in the bank with no interest and inflation devaluating the balance over time. But when you need to pull that money out, you will have more of it with a SOHC/Kirkham than any other cobra replica.

As a footnote, no one likes to see components that go together poorly matched (from either a quality or value standpoint). If you are going to buy a sizable AAA diamond - you don't put it in a sterling silver setting.

So we are using Australian expressions I see. I'd have to agree mate, a cammer Cobra is the king of the crocs in these waters.

Machiavelli, as right as you are, most would say Machiavelli wasn't easy to understand at times either. I wonder how many on here even know who he was.

Most of the folks around here would no doubt confuse him with the Marquis de Sade.:rolleyes:

I should probably look him up on the Internets because people keep saying I'm Machiavellian.

Well that just proved my point....:cool:

Though that is a bit difficult, Machiavelli was Italian, not French. However it looks like they both were out spoken about their political beliefs. Machiavelli however did not end up becoming the basis for the word Sadistic though.

Rodney, the adjective Machiavellian became a pejorative term describing someone who aims to deceive and manipulate others for personal advantage. To understand this, read The Prince by Machiavelli. It is one of the best works ever written to describe power, how to gain power, how to wield power, and how you'll die if you abuse power. It goes into depth about manipulation of the masses. I'd have to say personally if someone were to call me Machiavellian, it would be like saying I speak like Hitler. He is a man I'd call Machiavellian. The term isn't exactly a bad thing, though. It's like saying your cunning and conniving.

I read the Cliff Notes version in high school. :LOL:

... and I've always thought of you as a princely type of a guy.;)

"In today’s society, if someone is to accuse a person of being Machiavellian, they would conjure up images of a cunning and reproachable type of human being. This infamous reputation is attributed to Niccolo Machiavelli, who penned The Prince in 1513. Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language defines Machiavellian as being that which is “characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty.” This definition is not entirely warranted or true to the message Machiavelli intends for his advice to convey. The Prince is not written to excuse the actions of those in a position of power, but to be a persuasive and practical handbook for officials to unite Florence and Italy, and ultimately maintain authority over her. Machiavelli’s main concern, which is evident in The Prince, is the stability of his homeland.

Machiavelli places a considerable amount of weight on the factions of war. In fact, he states a prince must not have any other “profession but war” (“Prince” 37). However, his emphasis on military superiority does not perpetuate the idea that Machiavelli is unscrupulously cunning. In a very practical way, he points out the necessities of having leaders who preceded him. A competent military is a way to ensure his state’s longevity, and should not be seen as Machiavellian.

Having a skilled and ready military. We only have to look as far as our own military to see the benefits of having strong and resourceful branches able to deploy or defend at a moment’s notice. Machiavelli stresses the importance of military preparedness, but does not condone frivolous wars or acts of violence towards passive states. On the contrary, he wants the prince to know his history thoroughly, so he would not be doomed to repeat it, and to follow in the honorable footsteps of the esteemed.

In conclusion, the term “Machiavellian” when used to describe someone, or something as being unscrupulous, dishonest, and crafty, is a misrepresentation and distortion of the facts. Niccolo Machiavelli was a statesman deeply concerned with the country in which he lived."

And why he had that fixation on Mrs. Brady I'll never know.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YqLiiwLKPS...derson_2_3.jpg