AC Owners Club Forum
AC Owners Club Forum => Mk IV, Superblower, CRS and other Continuation Cars Forum => Topic started by: French Frie on December 10, 2012, 08:45:05
-
beautiful, but ... ouch [B)] ! £168.000 ...
http://www.redlinepe.co.uk/ac-cobra-lightweight
(http://www.redlinepe.co.uk/images/galleries/sales/ac-cobra-9a.jpg)
-
3.5 times the number of the car recently offered in Germany. Lightweight prices seem to be somewhat heterogeneous these days...
-
This one comes under the heading of "Yes, but..." as it is one of the 26(?) pukka Lightweights with the 345hp Motorsport engine. It's not a true MkIV, more a modern MkIII and retailed circa £120,00 when new. Nice.
-
thanks for the input... but it's not one of the COX car reedited either, is it ?or is it a AKL ?
-
yes its a AKL car what was delivered with the original MK III dash, without heater and with the MK III stearing columm and the SVO engine, the car in Germany which i know very well was also a AKL car but with modern dash, heater, modern steering columm and EFI engine (it was converted to Edelbruck carb). The car in Germany was the personal car of Helmut (Auto) Becker the AC Importer Nr. 1 of the 80tees and 90tees. The pricetag on the car in 1994 was 320000 german marks.
-
Hello,
As a prospective Lightweight buyer, can anyone offer any guidance on what features an 'original lightweight' has compared with other (later?)'non-original' but still AKL XXXX numbered cars?
Much appreciated
-
As Trevor says the original Lightweights were built to have a more 60's period look and feel.
Looks wise they are the specification that everyone wanted. Added to that a more powerful engine.
Although the later cars claimed a similar spec engine allegedly it seems that they weren't. Considerably less grunt, but still plenty.
60's dash is one of the nicest upgrades and gives a whole different look to the car. They also ride on 15' wheels and not 16". It's a nicer ride and a better look in most peoples opinion.
A heater is fitted to the later cars and that can be useful in the uk.
There are though cars that have been upgraded that are similar to the "26", and in some cases better spec's than those. Well sorted and high specification cars are worth there money, upgrading costs are considerable and people don't always realise the costs involved. Fitting a 60's dash with steering column and wheel is a lot of work.
Suggest you go and look at a few to see whats about and get a feel for the car that suits you. Study the pictures of both types of car and you will see the differences.
The above car seems an outrageous amount, but try bringing one to that spec and you'll be surprised. As Trevor says "Nice"..... It looks pristine.
Best wishes,
Nick
-
Nick,
Thank-you for the above. I'm still left wondering if there are any definitive clues to identify one of the 'original' run of Lightweights. For example, is it the lack of demister vents under the windscreen (as in the car above)? Is it the lack of side repeater indicators? I’m not aware of a definitive list of 'originals' by chassis number so the little clues help.
The differences between a Lightweight and a MkIV are very clear to me but I'm still at a loss to separate 'original' from other AKL XXXX Lightweights.
Many thanks
-
I remember that the issue 'true' Lightweights vs. 'other' Lightweights was discussed in some detail in a thread of this forum some time ago, but I did not succeed in retrieving that thread. Maybe anyone else can help?
-
quote:
Originally posted by 302EFI: I remember that the issue 'true' Lightweights vs. 'other' Lightweights was discussed in some detail in a thread of this forum some time ago
I started THIS THREAD (http://"http://www.acownersclub.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=556&") way back in 2007, but there was no definitive answer.
-
Can I take a first stab at my understanding of what the constituent elements of a true Lightweight are.
Not all are exclusive to a Lightweight ( eg short nose) but I presume all should be present to qualify as the "real thing"?
This is based on my observations and also on discussions with the AC engineers when I was ordering my Superblower. At the time they made clear to me that a number of cars purporting to be Lightweights were not entirely "correct". They referred to these as Semi Lightweights - though I am not sure if they left the factory in this state or were modified later?
Am happy to be challenged on this and appreciate that the list may not be exhaustive. It is thus just a start point for others ( Nik, Trevor?) to add to. As always with hand built cars that are individually specified ( my own car had over a dozen factory modifications to the standard Superblower spec) the potential variations are manyfold. So here goes:-
Obvious Ones:-
Flat Dash with VW steering column, etc.
Fuel filler frenched in on right hand wing
Twin tube bumper mounts rather than the 5 mph telescopic ones
15 inch wheels ( very easy to replicate)
No headrests or mounts
No lip on rear wheel arch
Doors without impact bars and trim
Door latches as per original cars
Short nose
Engine mods ( difficult to determine visually and easy to replicate)
More Subtle Ones:-
Roll bar tubes ahead of rear bulkhead and visible behind seats
Dash support bars rising from transmission tunnel
AC pedals
Even more subtle ones:-
Smaller cabin - leading to less aggressive coke bottle profile in rear wing
Underfloor fuel tank
Rear tube of roll bar slightly canted toward the centre line
I'm not sure if all came without a heater - and certainly would not recommend this for UK use.
-
I suggest to add the following items to the above list:
- no leather cabin edging,
- two rather than three windshield wipers
- rear mirror mounted on top of the dashboard rather than glued to the windshield,
- no demister vents.
The first three items are probably 'obvious ones', the fourth may come under the 'more subtle' heading.
-
I think this is getting quite confusing.
Many of the above suggestions are both the specification of the original 26 and the later lightweights.
Here is a picture of my original interior which is a later lightweight.
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/AKL1408003.jpg)
Notice the modern steering column, Nardi wheel, heater controls, headrests on seats, screen mounted mirror, and screen heating vents. None of those were on a 26.
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/AKL1408001.jpg)
This picture shows the internal roll hoop position, only on lightweights. The tank filler position again only on lightweights, but (I believe) both are on all lightweights.
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/AKL1408004.jpg)
Here you can see the 16" rims and the Hex nuts that hold them on. On the 26 there were 15" wheels and spinners. Also both cars have two wipes, not three. My previous MKIV though also had only two wipers, so this is no indication of lightweights.
The 15" rims are on the Red Line Car.
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/ac-cobra-9b.jpg)
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/AKL1408042.jpg)
My car after being painted and restored. Here you can see the roll hoop better, but also the door pockets and door catches. Note the seats no longer have headrests and the seat belts are 4 point harnesss and no longer inertais. Then look at the inertia belts on the 26 car. They are centrally mounted. I have seen this on other MKI's so no indication again.
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/AKL14080641.jpg)
Above you can see my dash which has been modified to 60"s style. Below is the dash from the £168,000 car. Totally different and again with the 60's column. Notice no screen vents on the car below and no heater. My car still has the heater with the controls concealed.
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/ac-cobra-9j.jpg)
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt244/ak1023/ac-cobra-9i.jpg)
I hope that helps a little, but at the end of the day all these modifications are easily possible, and in most cases the cars are altered along the way to peoples tastes.
The Redline car has quick lifts. These were never standard, but are a nice addition if thats what you like.
The most important thing is to buy a good and sorted car. They were not always the most sorted vehicle when leaving the factory, so a good cherished and driven car is often to be desired.
:-)
-
I suppose the only way to know what you really have is to look at the factory build records and scrutinise the ownership history of each car carefully. It seems the later Ltwts. were desirable and perhaps safer spec. watered down versions of the famed 26. I have heard them refered to as 'Japanese Lightweights' before. The '26' are the most valuable ones to watch for the future no doubt.
-
If the car had a Motorsports 345hp engine from new, plus the standard, non-US Federal 'safety' interior and proper bumpers, then it's a 'Lightweight'. All others are not.
I guess the term 'Japanese Lightweights' refers to the infamous batch of cars that the dealer in Japan defaulted on. He went broke as he had paid for the cars but was unable to get them into the country. So 'AC' sold them twice! Happy days (and unlikely to be repeated methinks)
-
Does anybody know which significance the 'AKL' (rather than 'AK') prefix of the chassis number has for a MkIV to qualify as a Lightweight? The background of my question is as follows: Originally I thought AKL = Lightweight, AK = standard MkIV. I recently found out that in the Club's MkIV register some 80 cars are listed as AKLs, while all other sources which I am aware of indicate that only 40 to 50 Lightweights were produced (see, e.g., Alan Faulkner-Stevens' article on Lightweights in the July 2012 issue of ACtion).
-
The name lightweight conjures up an image of a vehicle that weights less than a standard car of the model (in this case a mkiv)
Was the lightweight actually lighter ,or was it just styled & engined differently?
Does anyone have the kerb weight of a "lightweight" mkiv & a standard mkiv?
Graham
-
And how much lighter was a CRS?
-
Barrie,
As a starting point a CRS is 1120kg kerb weight in standard form from the chassis instruction book.
The October 19th 2000 press release technical sheet states 1050kg kerb weight.
Graham
-
I already started a thread about AK/AKL weight difference here : http://www.acownersclub.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2346
But to answer to your question, tech data sheet gives 2250lbs for the MKIV, and it was said that the AKL was 200lbs lighter ... But I'm looking for the detail, and may think that there may be some marketing magic there !
-
Nothing but a weighbridge really means a great deal...
-
I suspect that lightening an already light car is a difficult job. The 80/20 rule probabaly applies here.
If a lightweight lost 200lbs is that a good job without resorting to throwing way everything not needed?
Were there any changes to the unsprung weight?
A look at a lightweight marketing brochure may clear things up if such a thing exists.
Your thoughts FF were along the same lines as mine,being part marketing exercise,but I dont know how much more weight could have been lost eaisly with out detracting from the overall package.
Graham
-
The genuine '26' Lightweight is very similar indeed to the standard Mk1V under the skin.
The weight saved will mainly be as follows :
No heater or plumbing
No door safety bars or door cards
Lighter VW steering column and switch gear
Lighter dash assembly
No seat head rests
Ally heads
Lighter different rear chassis tubing design and boot floor arrangement
However, the roll over bar will cancel out some of the saved weight above.
-
To get any sense from this we need real weights: Sales brochures and technical specifications do not mean much. The Alan Turner chassis and coupé body of A98 weighed 2,482 lbs. at scrutineering in 1964. When rebuilt the weight was 2,365 lbs ready to go, but with zero fuel. The scrutineering in 1964 probably included a spares and tools package which would have been included in the race specification.
Has anyone actually weighed a CSL, AK or AKL Mk. IV ? Worth a run to the weighbridge to sort this out for once and for all.
Any weight has to be defined as to the state of the vehicle weighed. Petrol, oil and lubricants, spare wheel, tools and any additional equipment and so forth. The problem with brochure weights is that there is rarely any specification issued for the time of weighing.
-
A little light research within the pages of 'Cobra - The Real Thing' reveals that some kind, thoughtful author (ahem) reproduced the factory specification sheet for the 1992 production 'AC-Autokraft Lightweight' and the figure is: 2520 lb! Page 250 since you ask.
-
AK1137 is a US Spec Mark IV with the folowing modifications that would effect the weight. Ford Racing Aluminum cylinder heads, Weber Carburetors, European Exhaust headers and system, Complete with spare tire, tools, jack and all fluids except NO fuel, the car weighs 2,480 lbs on our race scales.
-
Based upon my experience of the Lightweight, which is always improving as i see and inspect more cars, there does not appear to be a definitive specification. There is a basic spec. vehicle, from which a original owner may wish to have their car built, much of which is discussed in earlier posts, however dependent upon where the car was to be sold the car when new, it would have to be a minimum Certified Specification, for that Country. This is the problem, if you look at the manufacturing date of the cars they often do not meet the Certification criteria. I know of early UK Lightweights, being sold as a Kit of Parts, to get around UK certification requirements. Engines and lighting fittings do not meet the required laws, not always but often. Later cars, sold into different Countries have many Lightweight features, but carry an EFI engine to meet a that Countries emission requirements.
Seat head-rests may have been fitted, and things such as hazard flashers all may have been required by Law to allow a new car to be sold in that Country.
So, based upon my experience there are alot more than 26 cars, for some people these later produced cars may not be true Lightweights, i disagree. They are Lightweight variants, based upon a basic Factory build specification.
-
Alan: Is an 'AKL' chassis no. (rather than an 'AK' one) denotative of a Lightweight as per your definition? I am somewhat confused about the large number of AKL designated cars (some 80) in the MkIV register.
Best wishes,
Jürgen
-
Given the increasing values of the genuine '26' Lightweight cars and the fact that this is likely to be an ongoing trend for the future, perhaps it may one day be a case of 'MK1V Lightweight - which are the orignal's?'. Rod Leach has for many years regularly advertised Ligtweights as being 'one of only c.26 cars made' and, Trevor Legate has effectively confirmed this as being the case i.e. limited numbers/very tight specification to qualify. Therefore, it does seem strange that the Register shows around 3 times this '26' on its books. These gentlemen I would have thought are very reliable sources of both the original factory description and historical output.
Whilst I am sure that we all admire the 'Lightweight looking' AC Mk1V's and that Brian Aglis would build you whatever you wanted if you were prepared to place your deposit, the Lightweight itself was a very limited edition car with perhaps some 'lesser spotted' factory brethren. I am sure that whilst we would not wish to decry or de-value anyone's machine in any way whatsoever, the facts should really not be distorted going forward by we guardians and custodians of later AC history.
-
Because of the hype around "Lightweight" cars, i think the interest about the definitive numbers will continue. All i can say in addition to what i have already stated is this, the cars i have shown in the on-line list the information comes from three places. Firstly, the copy of the AC Build book the Club holds, secondly, notations against a chassis number made my previous Registrars and thirdly, from the photographic records of the cars the Registry is slowly building.
Again i state, the Lightweight, is a MkIV variant, a version based upon a basic format and which varied dependent upon the Country it was being sold into.
The standard MkIV long-nose is the car from which a Lightweight is derived, it is also mostly certified and legal for sale in the Countries where it was built for. It is the Lightweights early shape and lesser specification that seems to appeal, however the early CRS models have the same bodyshape as a Lightweight, as the body of one was used for the buck when the Carbon was laid up.
However, things are never clear with the Cobra, as there are three variants of the CRS body shape, all subtle in difference but different never the less. To add another oddity into the mix, perhaps we could discuss all the early build CRS cars, year 1999/2000 manufacture, having 302 engines produced in 1994.
It still comes down to this, a low volume car manufacturer would sell what ever the customer wanted, as he had the ability to change the cars to meet any requirement/request, body-shape, colour, engine, trim.
For this reason alone, until the Club has photographs and details of every MkIV built, things will change.
-
Amen to that. The expression "knitting with fog" comes to mind
-
Dear all,
please find below an extract from the official 1993 press release for the AC Lightweight.
As you can see the ’93 modell has been equipped with an EFI and catalytic converters.
Moreover what is interesting out of my view is the following:
• The description of the warning lights clearly refer to a “modern dash” not a SC427-style
• With the suspension no antiswaybars are mentioned
• A Monza-cap is mentioned not a Le-Mans-cap
• The detailed specification still includes a 780 cfm Holley
* Wheels are 15"
* Heating is mentioned indirectly under "coolant"
May be you will find more interesting points.
(Sorry for the bad quality of the copies – I can’t do better)
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii485/df920bluebird/Pressrelease1_zps74a40dbb.jpg)
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii485/df920bluebird/Pressrelease2_zps60b7d4bc.jpg)
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii485/df920bluebird/Pressrelease3_zps5a4ea3bf.jpg)
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii485/df920bluebird/Pressrelease4_zps2ff3ca3b.jpg)
-
Thank you very much for sharing that, "Hobo" (even if you seem wealthy [;)]) !
-
And don't forget that by the end of the year, the ex-works price was reduced to £68,000. Three guesses why....
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hobo
Dear all,
.... Heating is mentioned indirectly under "coolant"
cannot read anything about heating, not even indirectly
- are these four pictures really originating from the same period, i.e. 1993.... I have some doubts about that....
EFI engines definitely had less power and torque than the carburettor version
- so would the AC press department (if it existed) in 1993 have pushed out a press release and technical data that were incomplete?
-
Look under „capacities“
there is mentioned under coolant:
„coolant (inc. heater) 28.49 pints (16,19 litres)“
It is a press release only - doesn't mean that AC needs to have an own press department and such is not mentioned in the shown documents.
-
- Martin, you are right about the heater, I missed that line (oups)
- my point on the press department (or none) was that I question whether AC released these docs together in 1993. It looks like the two middle documents could stem from 1991 when Lightweights were produced (with heater) a.o. for customers in Japan.
-
The comment about power being less on an EFI engine in comparison to a carb engine was interesting. I believe the Factory SVO conversion offered and often fitted into Lightweights, but not always, with its uprated cylinder heads, camshaft and big Holley car was rated at 345hp. Peter Knight has dyno tested at least two original SVO spec motors at his premises, neither broke the 300hp level. Power output, that is a very subjective thing.
-
AKL1411 (which is a later/modern Lightweight, similar to “REV’s” red car before modification) has been delivered with an 302 EFI. The previous owner made some modification incl. aluminium heads and Edelbrock carb. I have the old parts at home the heads are pure iron!! By official permission the car was once rated at 223 hp (which may be was true).
Despite the fact that two engines didn’t reached the 300 hp limit, you can see that the 1993 press release is referring to a HO engine rated 320hp.
And as you can see, Ford Racing is offering through all the years such an engine rated at 340 or 345 hp: http://www.fordracingparts.com/CrateEngine/Main.asp#smb
@MkIV Lux: No, the documents I showed are from one (1 !) set of four A4 sheets covered by a glossy card wallet with a golden “AC”- Logo on.
Page 3 is the backside of page 2 – so the belong together for sure :-)).
A press release is always a marketing tool. So they need a reason to submit, which may have been the new EFI-engine (page 1).
However they still used a best specification of the carburetted engine to impress potential buyers (look page 3 referring to a Holley carb).
There is nothing unusual with such a behaviour. Companies in these days doing the same. They do advertissment about 4ltr/100 km fuel consumption but are presenting their strongest 250 hp model on the photo. (It has been and will always be customers duty to find out what's right and wrong.)
-
my car AKL 1333 one of the first lightweight series(old mk iii dashboard , VW steering columm, no heater and a absolut non modified SVO engine) has carburretor overhole this summer afer this the car has 350 hp on the dyno
-
Jürgen, congratulation one from the famous 26 (or 30,40?).
You mentioned "first lightwight serie". Are these from "first serie" build in one row? and/or in a defined/known period? and/or with consecutive production numbers?
If no, no, no: How can a car from these "26" clearly be identified - are all the Prod.-Nr. official completly known (at least by the registar)?
-
Its a car from 1990 i have the original factory building sheet and the original specification from the first owner (Rod Leach) i think there is no other way to identify this cars clearly
-
[quote......@MkIV Lux: No, the documents I showed are from one (1 !) set of four A4 sheets covered by a glossy card wallet with a golden “AC”- Logo on.
Page 3 is the backside of page 2 – so the belong together for sure :-)).
.....
[/quote]
thanks for the clarification, Martin
-
My 1990 '26' car is AKL1327 if that helps
-
other cars i know from the '26' cars
AKL 1313
AKL 1314
AKL 1315
AKL 1316
AKL 1323
AKL 1328
all from1990
-
Clearly it would I feel be a sound idea for the Register to specifically document the original bath of '26' Lightweights. We already have several chassis numbers logged now on this thread and it would be useful for potential purchasers in the future to have an authorative source to refer to if the want the real McCoy or are happy to compromise on one of the later genre at lower cost.
-
It is not my headache but exactly this is the key issue. Not only to assist potential buyers but more to protect existing owners of a “26-serie”-car on a high priced level. Knowing what is possible in the vintage car sector and in particular with “Cobras” people should be aware that – the more the price difference between “26-series” and other MKIV (AKL) is growing – the more people are motivated to convert cars into “26-series”-cars, which is easy to do and needs investments of a few 1000 € only.
A “watertight” register of “26-series”-cars will be a good instrument to protect owners (and buyers) interest.
However – as I understand (and don’t beat me) – the number of produced cars (26…30…40) is even within the ACOC not 100% clear and/or whether such a series is well defined (period, equipment, options).
-
Perhaps thge firdt 26 Lightweights on the factor ledger that the club holds, starting in 1989/90 is a good place to start looking for the 'magnificent 26'?The numbers posted by AKL 1333 are fairly close and mine falls into line neatly at 1327. Therefore, I suspect that any car built after 1991 cannot possibly qualify. However, again that is not to say that the AKL 'Lookalightweights' are in any way suspect. It just seems like a good idea to make sure that future buyers and sellers can look to the Register with confidence to identify what they are looking at or own.
-
It all depends on your standpoint when i have buyed my car and told my wife thats i will give more money for a car without heater she told me ihave to go to a psychiatrist
-
Jürgen, the only issue you didn't managed well is, to explain to your wife that sometimes less will be more :-))
(applies to a MkIV Lightweight and sometimes to a bikini also, depending on who..........)
To be serious:
Looking to the fuzzy picture about the “Lightweight” issue, I believe that finally it really end up in collecting all bits and pieces of every single car.
In this light I think Alan (the registrar) is right with his position :
“………..the Lightweight, is a MkIV variant, a version based upon a basic format and which varied dependent upon the Country it was being sold into…………It still comes down to this, a low volume car manufacturer would sell what ever the customer wanted, as he had the ability to change the cars to meet any requirement/request, body-shape, colour, engine, trim.
For this reason alone, until the Club has photographs and details of every MkIV built, things will change.”
Last not least, it is mainly the interest of the current owners to provide such data and photos.
@ SJ351: " ...........I suspect that any car built after 1991 cannot possibly qualify (as a Lightweight)......"
The car in the beginning of this thread is build 1996 (by information of redline).
And here the next (one of 28 (!) manufactured :-)) ):
http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/ac/cobra-continuation/ac-cobra-lightweight-black/268680
.....or here with heater:
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C331247
.........or here, now one with sidepipes
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C245893
Found four for sale - there will be more if dig deeper.
Approx. 20% of the cars ever build are for sale?!?!
(Now I have to leave the discussion to sort the data and the photos of my MKIV-look-a-like)
-
From first-hand (1990) experience I'll add 1326, 1335, 1342 and 1355 to the list. In fact 1342 is number 20 in the list of AKL's working in chassis order (never advisable) but just where the Lightweights end and the MkIV Lightweights begin is a question to be answered. Or not. Maybe.
1335 and 1342 are the cars featured extensively in 'Cobra - The Real Thing' thanks to their loan by the very generous owners. (Happy days)
-
Ok, now it's clearer ... So, what do you think about AK 1318, which has all the Lightweight features, and was sold in 2011 as a Lightweight... But doesn't have the "L" suffix [;)] ?
http://www.classicdriver.com/uk/find/4100_results.asp?lCarID=1814607
(http://www.classicdriver.com/upload/cars/241/1814607/biga.jpg)
-
A "forgotten L" in the chassis-No.???? Hard to believe.
However AK 1318 fits to the row of consecutive AKL Numbers.
Mmmmhhhhh!?! But I would say: No "L" - no "Lightweight".
Moreover correct rearlights? Build Dec. 1989?
When you allow an AK to be treated as an AKL, than we talk not only about "real" and "later" Lightweights (AKLs), than we talk about all MKiV shortnose cars to be possible Lightweights (soon or later).
P.S.: Does anyone knows the AKL-numbers of the four cars (see above) for sale?
-
The red car has been advertised before - about ten years ago and more recently I believe. It is a lovely car and an example of what Brian Anglis was prepared to build for discerning customers as a 'one-off', no doubt at a higher cost. Hexagon Classics were active in selling MK1V Cobras when they were new and also have a black '26' car on sale. I suspect that the car is actually worth at least as much as a '26' car but personally feel that it is unlikely to qualify as a Lightweight due to the lack of AKL chassis number. However, I am sure that Brian Anlis would have regarded this car as a cut above anything else he was making at the time. In any case, my opinion or anyone else's is of no consequence as it will not retrospectively change history or actual facts.We need to be very careful that we do not accidentally become revisionist historians and I am very pleased that others seem to share this view. There are many examples of well meaning club registrars having been pressured or cajoled into entering false ddata into club registers-Ferrari and Bugatti cicled spring immediately to mind. There are also some known later AKL cars that have been backdated to '26' specification very professionally which is a part of our debate here. As far as I am concerned, the Autocraft factory ledger is the only place to look when the identification of a car is required - end of story.
-
I suspect that people who buy MKIV's of any type style or configuration will buy them because they like what they see and like the specification. They will then weigh up those specifications and make a decision whether the asking price is fair for what they are buying. Unless they are a fool they will not pay a premium for a car because it is an alleged "26" car or a later lightweight or a 427 or any other variant unless the car is what they particularly like. Regardless of any factory ledgers or bluster.
As for re writing history? From what I'm hearing here the history wasn't exactly well documented in the first place.
So if Mr. Anglis put the stamp on the car that it's an AKL then factory specification says it's an AKL. What we are saying is there are variants, which (I think) we all agree on. There are also upgrades.
I therefore struggle to see where we're going with this. Is it a fear that a "26" car is being devalued by it's association with other cars stamped "AKL"? Or is it a disassociation with MKIV's in general? Are the poor relations completely dis-similar to these "26" supreme beings?
So as for end of story? I think as far as I can see with AC's there is never an end of story is there?
:-)
-
All MK IV's are equal, but some ...
(http://img1.seite3.ch/news/309/235962-AnimalFarm.jpg)
-
AKL1351 which was recently sold at Historics of Brooklands auction who described it as a Mk IV sadly to the previous owners loss because it is an original 'Lightweight' manufacture in 1990. Another one to be added to the list. [:D]
-
so we have:
AKL 1313
AKL 1314
AKL 1315
AKL 1316
AKL 1323
AKL 1326
AKL 1327
AKL 1328
AKL 1333
AKL 1335
AKL 1342
AKL 1351
AKL 1355
not too bad for a couple of days half of the list with 13 from 26???? cars is logged in perhabs we will find the rest
-
Correction. I meant Hendon Way Motors in my lat post. The '26' car on sale looks like the real deal but the chassis number needs to be confirmed. I also know of two or three other cars by sight eg H1 COB. I suspect one or two cars have been lost to accidents since 1990 but it is certainly a case of good progress having been made in a few days. Must dig out the old Parka and do some train spotting in the morning.
-
Here it is! Another MkIV claimed to be one of the 24/42/50 whatsoever real Lightweights.
Nice car - however not a Lightweight - even not having Lightweight features.
I like this sentence - a really good joke if you look to the car:
"Also included w/this Lightweight package were GT-40 heads, Locking Monza Fuel filler, Roll Hoop, 16 Halibrand wheels w/knock-offs & many other Mark III features."
http://www.investmentmotorcars.net/inventory/detail/autokraft/detail.htm
Uuupppss! Another one in Japan :-)):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2RUWaWXzU
And now take attention:
A real Lightweight as tested in the CAR magazine in Nov. 1992.
Look at the dash and the heater!! (Only to refresh the discussion about the "real" Lightweights and their features.)
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/tags/autokraft/
@ Uwe: Da steht auch was von 4"-Rohren mit dünnerer Wandung und internen Verstärkungen drin !!
And here some more cars incl. the yellow nice AKL 1403:
http://autabuytractors.com/ViewPhoto/?I=/Photos/758257_320674094909949_Orig.jpg&ShowAdSense=1&K=1985%20FORD%20COBRA%20AUTOKRAFT%20A.C.%20COBRA%20MKIV%20%20
http://priceguides.org/6195-miles-from-new-1992-ac-cobra-mkiv-lightweight-roadster-coachwork-by-autokraft.html
-
The 5 cars are all cery nice lightweight cars but not from the first 26? because all have the heater outlets under the front window but so what they all will make a lot of fun
-
As far as the AC factory were concerned in period, there were true Lightweights, Lookalightweights and Semi-Lightweights, depending on build dates and specification. That is fact. However, this should not stop us from appreciating, accepting and embracing each car for what it is and for being the unique hand built vehicle that it represtents.
-
@ SJ351: I agree with your statement. Each of these unique hand build AC cars should be accepted what they are, either true, semi or lookalike Lightweights.
However - at first - I expect from owners and in particular from professional car dealer that they describe the cars what they really are. Otherwise the whole AKL-Lightweight issue is drifting in the same corner as we can observe for decades with the “true” CSX/COB-Cobras, which is a crying shame.
I can’t agree at all on any description which is obvious wrong - only for the purpose to gain the difference in market prices between a “true” one and the “others”……and the best way to hinder people to do so is creating transparency and disclose which ones are true and which ones not.
It is so easy to convert a normal/”other” AKL into a “true” Lightweight……and I know what I’m talking about, as owner of one of the “other” Lightweights (AKL 1411, which is still 99% in original condition!) and AK 1073 (which does not carry a “L” suffix but is strictly build to Lightweight specification by factory!) – NO, I have NOT the intention to create a “true” one from these sources :-)).
Second: The differentiation between "true" (I think you refer to the row of the famous 26) and the others (other Lightweights/semi/lookalike) does not meet the point. There is a hughe number of factory Lightweights build and if only the 26 are deemed as true the other factory build Lightweights are "wrong"?? - for sure they are no semi nor lookalikes.
Last not least, the fact that there is NO heater and/or NO demisters will never be a reliable evidence that you look at a true Lightweight…..and vice versa, because in all periods anything would have been build in by factory if only the money has been paid for, even a heater in a “true” Lightweight…therefore a true Lightweight WITH heater/demister is NOT a conflict.
-
Absolut correct Hobo also a car with a heater can be a true lightweight car, also a car with a efi engine can be a true lightweight car and there are a handful cars without AKL VIN building to lightweight specifications also true lightweight cars but all this cars are not from the first group of 24....25....26 or 27 cars which are build in 1990/1991 to the most closely 1960s specifications with all lightweight details and without interiour parts of the 80s from other cars and of course without a heater. But of course they are lighter so they are lightweights and whatever you want they can be "true" lightweights
-
Not to be missunderstood:
I’m not against at all, that someone is converting his MKIV (AK or AKL) into a semi 427 s/c or close to the same specification of the “26-Lightweights”.
Personally I also prefer the look of the “real” thing.
But again: When a car – worth 6 digit pounds - comes to sales by a professional dealer I expect a professional job including a description of the car which is 100% correct and carefully investigated.
Same applies when an owner introduces his car in the public area whether on a meeting, on an exhibition, by youtube-video or in a forum. Anything else is not acceptable for me.
When it comes to the features of the Lightweights (I went through all the old threads of this forum from 2007 onwards) they are still not clear and are still confusing and I meanwhile believe there is no common definition (custom-hand-build by factory!!!).
Even the weight as such is not very helpful as an indicator – because it seems that nobody knows about the exact weight of a Lightweight.
First of all no clear definition of the kerb weight: with/without all fluids/necessary equipment (spare wheel/hood/tonneaucover/tools) and in particular tank empty/half full. etc. etc.
Therefore too much talks and figures in the air in the range from 2050 lbs (“AK is 2250lbs – a AKL-Lightweight should be 200 lbs lighter”), 2350 lbs from the 93’-press release up to the 2520 lbs-figure provided by TLegate (“Cobra-The Real Thing”, page 250).
@ Jürgen: If we concentrate only on the "group of 24.....27 cars" - even the basic figure of the number of cars is not clear - I strictly do not believe that all of these cars have been delivered without any heater. If you know better, which is the reliable resource you extract this knowledge from?
-
I was reading this for a while and am throwing my two cent worth of thought in to this conversation: AKL 1333, under your definition think about that: AK 1005 (no L ) has for sure a much closer suspension set up then any lightweight (whatever build date), because in 1982 there was not that extensive use of donation parts coming from Ford, Volvo, Renault or BMW or other cars as very early cars there is a one to one swap from MK III components having for example Girling brakes and all suspension parts etc. from MK III. Now is this car then even of more value then a lightweight? Is it even more real? It has short nose as well? The engine and gear box package was added in US as done with the original Shelby cars having engine (carb) and T10 gear box and even from the fabrication dates correct to get a 1966 registration? Does this all increase the value of a car - even so there where only the "famous" 12 cars build with a kind of special history?
Such little details as of having heater vents or not - I don't believe should add any great selling point to the lightweights. Now there are differences so is the door hinge with side bar, the rollbar and the location of the fuel filler - including some difference on the rear fire wall.
But as said by previous comments, all is possible to get modified and made to what people like, and not to hard as well. We all kind of take advantage of a big kit car community and their parts, making such modifications quite simple and inexpensive.
And we should not forget, that people tent to modify these cars to what they like - a Cobra seams by nature something people take their hands on - from past until today. There are many examples of such modifications on this forum where people show with bride what they have done to their original MK IV cars. And they receive applause from all of you for their great work. Now, have they added value or did they destroy value? Not sure to have the answer, but in Germany at least people with strong modifications to MK III level seam to make better prices then "original" MK IV's, even on lightweight cars. And the power level of their engines seam to sell as well. That's also a selling point for replicas today with asking prices far higher then a Mk IV would bring, even in whatever lightweight specification and build year. And it looks like that most have the desire to modify their cars to get as close as possible to MK III specification - it looks like everybody has the desire to get a car look a like MK III. Are they butting their cars then to the same level as a kit car? For sure it seams like that they sell better then not done, at least in Germany.
For sure in performance with the later build lightweight cars there is a huge difference to a real MK III performance - these lightweight cars without modifications get busted by almost any other car with a little sport trim or a sedan with a decent diesel engine, even in acceleration.
And even the earlier lightweights with their 345hp or so out of a 5 liter engine are not really getting to the performance levels a 427 SC is going to - that's I guess why such cars have been strongly modified even right after purchase at Autokraft. Is this increasing or decreasing value to these cars?
Now back to the initial question, what makes a MK IV lightweight more special? Was it the price people where willing to pay for it in first instance? Are the first 12 cars build then even more special as being most close to 1960 specifications?
-
Answer is very easy! Yes
-
quote:
Now back to the initial question, what makes a MK IV lightweight more special? Was it the price people where willing to pay for it in first instance? Are the first 12 cars build then even more special as being most close to 1960 specifications?
I can’t quit put my finger on it, but there is something inherently sad about this and related threads. A Mk IV is a Mk IV, be it standard or lightweight. A Lightweight, be it one of 26 or 73, is still a Mk IV. Making a Mk IV a Lightweight doesn’t make it a Mk III, nor does it make it better, significantly faster, or even better looking. You can make any Mk IV go as fast as any other variant; even it’s 60’s brethren, so this is a pretty trivial point. If you can’t appreciate a Mk IV for what it is (a great sports car, a piece of rolling artwork, amazing for ever being built in its day, and even more amazing for being sold in Ford dealerships in the states), you may be what some Mk I, II, & III owners probably think you are: a poser or a wana-be. A Mk IV is a Mk IV, and I for one love it because of how it came to be and what it is: an exceedingly fun car to drive. I can’t understand the suspiciously self-serving need to make it more, or less, depending on how it looks or how you look at it.
-
Perfect statement, I totally agree !
-
Surprise or not i totally agree too, a realy perfect statement and all the rest is personal meaning
-
I must admit that I do not understand what exactly is being suggested in relation to the subject matter of this thread.
-
It is indeed a funny old world. We seem to have developed a fixation with apportioning value to possessions for the sake of status, or financial gain. I have said many times before that I love AC cars irrespective of their value. I bought my Ace Bristol on 3rd June 1994 for 34,000 pounds. Today it may be worth many times that. The value makes no difference to the pleasure of ownership. Perhaps the opposite is true. Within the ACOC we find it progressively more difficult to tempt members and their cars to come out to play. In the 90's we would regularly see 20+ AC's competing at the Bentley Drivers' Club Races at Silverstone. Now we are lucky to get 3! At the same time the AC team of Cobras (Including Mk IVs) would regularly field 5+ cars for each AMOC Intermarque Championship race. Now there are none. Our Goodwood Sprint would feature 30 or more ACs. Unfortunately this is no longer the case and a dozen is a good turnout, supported by other invited marques. The other sad effect of this preoccupation with value, is that youngsters are rarely given the chance to drive dad's classic car. I am with you all, I just love the cars for their beauty, and try to ignore the rest of it. Use them in the rain, and give our sons and daughters a go!
-
quote:
Originally posted by 302EFI
I must admit that I do not understand what exactly is being suggested in relation to the subject matter of this thread.
Here, here, Shep understands (see above)...
-
I agree that for a variety of reasons it is unfortunate if people are preoccupied with 'value', thinking of their cars as status symbols or financial investment vehicles rather than enjoying them and loving them for what they are. However, it would not be right in my view to assume such an attitude on the side of the contributors of this thread on the basis of what has been discussed here.
-
I`m with you, Art, and Andy. Totally.
The whole point of this thread, however, was to attempt to protect buyers of alleged Lightweight cars from paying a premium for a car that doesn`t warrant it. The market does apportion a value to our objects of desire, and as that value increases, so does the option to fleece the unsuspecting out of ever-increasing sums of their hard earned.
The Lightweights are and always will be MkIV`s, but always attracted a premium ("Less is more" I hear you cry!). Semi, pseudo or repro Lightweights are no less beautiful or fun, but we all (I hope!) want future owners to get what they pay for, THEN bring them out to play!!!
-
@ nikbj68
Exactly this has been the point / my point.
A buyer should get what he pays for - nothing else.
I couldn't describe it better.
And a forum like this one is always a good instrument to sort out missleading adverts.
-
Its not a problem of misleading adverts, the market has his own laws, if the market favours regular mkiv's, efi engines or lightweigths with heater than its absolut ok when the prices for this cars are higher when it is the other way around also ;but the main point is undependend of the value to bring the cars on the street or on the track and lets have some fun with the cars
-
Is there a chronological list of all the AKL cars by build date? What ever the “number” of cars, it would be handy to know where they all sit.