car values/desirability

[ANF289]

quote:Originally posted by Mark IV
   The cross members are located differently than a MK III due to the needs of the 5.0 engine, the sump used and the catalytic convertors that needed to be packaged in the car. As well as the transmission mount being in a different spot than the top loader.
   
   While there is some Frua DNA in the MK IV, it is NOT a "shortened MK IV!" For whatever reason you didn't like your MK IV, many do. Many would also question your "redesign" of the Frua. You are making a great car out of it but it will no longer be what AC sold it as. Who is right? Everybody! It is yours and do with it what you will...............
   

   
   So, do you want to restomod or restore your car?  When applied to a relatively common car the former certainly improves every aspect of the vehicle.  When applied to a rare car, it may improve its performance but it certainly kills its soul.  But you are right... to each his own!

[Emmanueld]

Firstly regarding my Frua, I have not made any changes that are not bolt on and that can not be reversed. Car will come with original parts including original motor, radiator, fan, exhaust manifolds, original shocks and springs, etc when sold. In addition, I have taken great care to restore the car to original AC specs. Most bolts have been reused and replated except when safety required a new bolt. So the car will be most original, probably more so than so called original cars that have been taken to substandard shops and butchered for all these years. With the original hardware back in, my car would be to Pebble Beach standards and any potential buyer could do that if he wishes.
   
   Regarding the MKIV, there would have been no need to modify the MKIII frame to fit the 5.0 Ford engine since externally it is a 302 ford. Same for the transmission. Remember the AC 289 of the late 60's? The only explanation for the slight changes to the frame was the use of Frua jigs. I would bet an AC historian would back me on that one! Also, BA had very limited means at the time and was struggling to get is car company going. I would bet that the Kirkham brothers have more funding available to them and more engineering capabilities with all the aircraft engineers working for them than he ever did. I realize we are all enthusiasts but objectivity and reality is important if you want to promote your model. I will even give you that the MKIV is a genuine AC even if some cars were actually produced before BA had actually acquired the AC name. But please, let's stick with reality and enjoy our cars!
   
   By the way, I have plenty of originality available for a price of course! Some of the rusted body panels that were replaced! But these will be expensive, so please contact me by email for availability, these will go fast!
   
   Emmanuel[]

[Flyinghorse]

quote:Originally posted by ace
   
I have considered the CRS but again I can't see how a car sold for £39k 10-14 years ago is worth pretty much the same today.
   
   Money put into an Aston Martin, Jag, Ferrari etc then would have at least halved by now.
   
   

   
   I would say modern Aston/Jag/Ferrari from the 2000 era are effectively mass market offerings with more supply than demand due to the numbers produced and not comparable,whereas the CRS is extremely rare with only 37 produced.There were also a lot of MKiV's produced.
   The CRS is excellent value for money and you can drop a stroked 302 in giving a great power to weight ratio.
   Certain Ferrari keep their value -ie Challenge Stradalle F360 whilst regular F360's plummet
   
   You could turn your argument on its head and ask how a Thames Ditton car where some large number's were produced and only 5-6 years ago cost <£100k now command 5-6 times that figure.There were a lot of TD Cobras made,and Aces.
   
   Graham

[jbottini]

Nothing quite like a little "truth amelioration" to fuel the fires.

[ace_mark]

From an outsiders perspective what my feelings are is that all cars produced after the 1960s are continuation or replica cars - does the fact that a company bought the AC name and tooling make the cars intrinsically better than others, or would I be paying double for the name?.
   
   If an AC is a much better machine than the competition, then maybe it's worth it, if not the extra cost is part speculative - which is possibly why Mk 1Vs don't seem to be selling at current "normal" prices

[SJ351]

MK1V's were extensively advertised in 2012 at inflated speculative prices as it was the 50th anniversary of the Cobra. Very few actually sold though but, they are still trading at more than double where they were 10 years ago. Not a bad return.
   
   If you want an aluminum Cobra and can afford one, it starts with the MK1V in its genuine AC guise versus Kirkham. One other genuine AC Cars manufactured option is the Continuation series, though these trade at in excess of £175k (effectively AC built as an exact '60's Thames Ditton car). Shelby also produced some similar cars but, these are also likewise expensive. Some of the Shelby body chassis units were supplied by AC Cars.
   
    The Kirkham has a lot to offer but, the last one I saw actually sell went for only c.£65k, less than the sum of its parts, not to mention all the labour on top. Will they ever command strong money I wonder? I suspect not as they are a replica and that is always going to put buyers off unless they are something of a bargain - like some Bugatti Type 35 replicas.
   
   Brian Angliss effectively continued the AC name after the Hurlocks lost interest, having established and served the brand and put their time into growing a unique business. Nothing wrong with that, nor Brian Angliss purchasing the company then handing it over to Alan Lubinsky. After all, Ron Dennis did not start the McLaren F1 team but the cars still carry the brand quite legitimately. Aston Martin is another case in point and, like AC, Ford once owned a stake in that too.
   
   The MK1V was in many ways like the Morgan offering of the time - the traditional shape with modern technology and updated interiors creeping in. The more traditional MK1V Lightweight was available for those with deeper pockets. The original Thames Ditton cars will always be more desirable but, few can afford to commit the funds to ownership.
   
   Emmanueld's 428 is a very nice custom car that can have the modernised parts removed easily for it to be converted back by future owners to the old barge it was when it left the factory. Nothing wrong with that and all part of the Thames Ditton DNA that can be returned to the car at any time to no doubt increase its value a little too. I am not sure why you think the MK1V has a Frua chassis but, I can send you a picture of a MK1V stripped to the bone. Frua it is not, though it does resemble it in some respects.
   
   There is a lot to be said for a CRS at c.£40k if that is your budget and it is unlikely to depreciate, though a lovely DB7 V12 Vantage could be bought for less. No sense in old car values, that's for sure. Just sentiment.

[Emmanueld]

There are 2 basic latter chassis layout produced by Thames Ditton starting with the AC Ace. The first one commonly referred to as the leaf springs chassis using 3" diameter tubes was used on the Ace, Bristol, Aceca, early Cobra and then the later sb Cobra  with rack and pinion steering. All these cars have the same basic chassis with some evolution. With the advent of the 427 big block, with help of Ford, The chassis was completely redone using 4" tubing and coil springs all around. Again the same basic chassis was used starting with the MKIII (427). AC289, Frua (stretched) and MKIV (shortened again) After the MKIV the same chassis was used on the Malta alloy and fiberglass cars for a while I believe and then a cheaper rectangular design was used. Again the 4" chassis is identical on the MKIII and the AC289. On the Frua, the chassis was lengthened by 6" to accommodate the longer body and the cross bracing was modified to accommodate the new body dimensions. Also, the  Frua was fitted with different beefier rear uprights which widen the track. On the Frua the half shafts are also beefier eliminating the spleens on each side of the differential which were a weak point on the MKIII. The MKIV uses all the same parts as the Frua, the only difference is the the shorter chassis back to MKIII length. I found out about the cross bracing difference when I tried to install an Aviaid  racing 427 oil pan on my Frua specifically designed by Selby for the MKIII, it did not fit,  the second chassis crossmember was in the way, I had to use the smaller pan designed for the GT500. I was the told by a well known cobra restorer here in LA that the MKIV has exactly the same problem when outfitted with an FE. Knowing that BA bought all Jigs and parts from Thames Ditton, it's obvious the crossmember was never relocated back.
   I don't know why you say the MKIV chassis is different, it's not. The later Malta cars have indeed a different chassis but not the BA cars.
   Emmanuel[]

[ace_mark]

This CRS sold at the weekend for £41k - sounds like a nice car
   http://www.silverstoneauctions.com/ac-mkiv-crs-cobra

[AK1131]

OK, I am have a gentleman interested in a 1967 Shelby GT500 with a GT40 race prepared 427 built by Holman Moody. He wants the car less the engine so he car put the correct 428PI back in it. I have three questions.
   
   Will a 427 fit in my MKIV?
   
   I do not have a hood scoop. Will I need one for clearance?
   
   Do you think installing this 427 into my MKIV would add or subtract from it's value.
   
   PS: the engine is 600HP!!!
   
   []

[Hobo]

To make it short: If it is a BigBlock - Do NOT do it!
   
   Why? I own a MkIV with an Ford BigBlock installed (460 “CobraJet”) by previous owner. This engine is really huge and heavy. (To make it more worse they installed a 6-gear Richmond).There has been lot things adjusted with the car: engine compartment, footboxes, braces in the frame, bellhousing etc. etc. ……
   However, the worst thing is weight. A good portion of the handling of the car will be destroyed by this heavy weight for ever, independent whether you go for racing or cruising.
   
   I have another restauration project in my snake pit which came with an original 427 side oiler.
   The original sideoiler has of course iron cyl. heads –  more worse and again dozend of kilos more than my “CobraJet”.
   Just from the beginning I put this iron anchor beside and decided for a stroked 302 (347 cui) with an aluminium block (see thread above)……
   
   …..nothing against a stroked 351 (427 cui) small block (iron or better alu block)……. Even nobody needs more that 350 hp in a Cobra/MkIV for cruising – a race small block will deliver 600 hp or more also. Driveability is a different story with such hipo-engines.

[AK1131]

I've always wanted a Ford 427 in anything. Maybe my garage.

[Hobo]

Is this the car – auctioned last year – where the engine should come from ??
   http://www.mecum.com/auctions/lot_detail.cfm?LOT_ID=CA0813-161562
   May be you put the engine in a ’62 Ford Galaxie?
   And be cautious: Like with all rare and expensive goods you will find also faked side oilers in the market (out of this view perfect engine for “original” Cobras ;-)  )
   
   Last not least a comment from us-muscle-car Forum about the 427 side oiler:
   "You don't see very many 427 Galaxies due to the engine's cost and the fact that it wasn't very streetable. That is it was built for all out top end performance which made it a poor daily driver. That's how the 428 came about. It too is very powerful, but designed to make low end torque. That made it the perfect street beast."

[Mark IV]

As to the idea that the AC 289 sports proves the 80's Mustang 302 will fit in the MK IV with no crossmember mods, the 289 sports did not have the double sump pan that the Mustang uses.

[Emmanueld]

AK1131, the 460 is a totally different motor than the FE, it is much larger, the FE is somewhere in between the SB and the 460. It is quite a  bit heavier than the small block but with an aluminum intake and heads it  is manageable. It will not fit in a MKIV without modifications to the foot boxes. You would have to replace Springs and the transmission as well. The T5 will not take the torque of a strong 427. The FE can make quite a bit of power and is reliable unlike a heavily stroked SB. There is nothing like a big block for power and sound. As far as the 427 Side Oiler, it is very street able, It all depends what cam you put in it. Because it has much larger bores and has cross bolted main bearings, it will rev higher and for a much longer period of time than the 428,  it also has much better oiling and the 67 blocks have the oil galleries for hydraulic lifters as well. The ONLY drawback of the the side oiler compared to a 428 outside of cost is the thin walls cylinders which make reboring nearly impossible. .10 over is all you get. If you are going to spend the money for a big block, the 427 is the way to go. You can even buy new aluminum blocks from various companies. My Kirkham which had a 427 made 500hp and 530 lbs of torque and could rev safely to over 6500 rpm, with a a relatively mild solid cam. Very good for the street. My Frua, has a 427 side oiler which is lightly stroked to 454 Cubes and produces even more power with over 550 Lbs of torque it will rev easily to 7000 rpm. The 428 dies at 4500 rpm.
   
   Emmanuel[]

[jbottini]

Emmanueld is  correct AK1131 or is it still Ron?