SPF v. CAV
- Thread starter Hoota Caroota
- Start date
Main difference between both is that CAV uses a stainless steel monocoque of its own design, where SPF uses a steel tub very close to the original. Bodies vary also in that SPF is close to original the CAV has some noticeable changes.
Both great products, its down to personal preference.
Regards Martin.
Both great products, its down to personal preference.
Regards Martin.
Best thing is to ask a man who has owned both. Dave Briggs is one such man; he has built several CAV cars for others as well. When his own CAV met its untimely demise he replaced it with a Superformance.
He told me that the difference between the two cars, in terms of quality, design, etc. is like night and day, with the Superformance being in a completely different universe--profoundly better than the CAV in his estimation.
And I believe him. :thumbsup:
He told me that the difference between the two cars, in terms of quality, design, etc. is like night and day, with the Superformance being in a completely different universe--profoundly better than the CAV in his estimation.
And I believe him. :thumbsup:
Charlie Farley
Supporter
Hey Mike,
Get ready to duck !
:lipsrsealed:
Get ready to duck !
:lipsrsealed:
What a question! Talk about a topic that can/will stir some emotions and differing opinions. As a CAV owner (meaning I will be biased) I can tell you I performed HUGE amounts of research on both cars and I bought a CAV and thats all I can say. I'm not saying the SPF isn't a good car I'm just saying based on my research and in speaking to a number of people I spent my money on the CAV. It really comes down to what YOU like. I like the stainless steel monocoque and many other aspects about the CAV car. Originality may be your thing and if it is then the SPF may be the choice. But in the end when you are at a car show or gathering or just speaking to people who ask about your car the one question they ask and you have to answer is: Is it an original (?) and the answer in either the SPF or the CAV case is...."no". That ends it right there. IMHO.
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
What kind of GT40 do you have Mike?
ouch.
I happen to have one of the two, but I would be happy to have either one.
I happen to have one of the two, but I would be happy to have either one.
Julian
Lifetime Supporter
Having been in both, all I can say is they are both impressive. I went to put a deposit on an SPF, but delivery was 5 months out at the time. I ended up spending a 1/3 of the money on a KVA and still have a GT40 I'm satisfied with (and which is still worth what I paid if not more).
I don't know the current new price of either the SPF or CAV, although I'm sure good used examples of each can be had a great prices right now, availability and $$ are usually a good decision driver.
An aspect of the CAV that stuck in my mind is extra headroom. I'd struggle to drive an SPF with a helmet, the CAV I would be able to. I don't like the cheesy center console of the SPF, but that can easily be rectified.
I don't know the current new price of either the SPF or CAV, although I'm sure good used examples of each can be had a great prices right now, availability and $$ are usually a good decision driver.
An aspect of the CAV that stuck in my mind is extra headroom. I'd struggle to drive an SPF with a helmet, the CAV I would be able to. I don't like the cheesy center console of the SPF, but that can easily be rectified.
I have owned both so I think I can speak with some authority. I had a MK11 SPF with a roush 427 and still own a CAV with a 347. In terms of quaility, about equal. The CAV seems to be more solid to me and may be the result of thicker fiberglass, the doors shut more soundly and seem to fit much better with no air or water leakage, the SPF leaked like crazy despit me plugging all the holes I could find ( this is largely due to the original design of the MONO, but my doors never fit even close. This also translated into a noisy and heat filled cabin in the SPF. I love the hinged front clam shell on the CAV and hated the design of the front on the SPF and it is a pain to remove, but again this is the price you pay for originality. Suspension- the SPF is a superb design with great quaility, my older CAV is not as good but the newer models improve this. The cabin seemed much more roomy in the CAV except in leg room, the CAV is a more easy to live with interior no doubt, but I am only 5-8 so room was no issue with either. My MONO in the SPF started to rust very quickly, the SS MONO of the CAV has no such issues. There are several issues with the SPF cars that are slowly being worked out, mostly by owners here on the forum. I also prefer the power brakes on the CAV, but the SPF had better components. In the end, I had a SPF Daytonas( the easiest to drve daily) the MK11 and the CAV. I kept the CAV. I would however buy a SPF car again, especially if I could buy one with the kinks already worked out. One thing for sure, there is not night and day difference between the two. chuck
Chuck--that's rather distressing to hear! I thought the chassis of the SPF was galvanized? That should preclude rusting, no? And then it's painted on top of that? Yet you experienced rust.
Hmm, not good! :cry:
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Amazing what you can learn, eh Mike?
I do not think mine was galvanized. I kept grease on the front of the MONO around the a arms to prevent rust. Now do not get the impression that I think the thing was going to rot away, but it is a mild concern.
John, like I said the topic is one of emotions and differing opinions.....but I defer to those who can speak to ownership of both...they would know. I love my CAV but its nice to read that all of us who are owners feel so strongly about our cars. Have you been persuaded in any direction or has the dialogue made mince of your brain.
Yes, that's why I'm here, same as everybody else.
(Well, most everybody else anyway).
BTW, for the record, the SPF website states:
"The chassis is an exact replication of the original monococque unibody structure down to the press steel roof spider. The only departure is the use of electro-galvanized sheet steel in the construction."
Amazing what you can learn, eh Pat? :laugh:
must be the rusting kind of galvanizing
I think the rust issue may be zinc removal at weld areas. When I first got my SPF I spent a lot of time rustproofing hidden areas inside the box sections, etc. I haven't had rust problems, but have avoided rain which is tough up here in the NW. Never having driven a CAV I can't compare them. Depends how much originality vs some practical improvements you want.
that is exactly correct. I really wanted an original looking car and I like the SPF but of course when it comes down to it, it is not an original car and the compromises were a bit too much for me since I drive my car daily no matter the weather. since it is a replica, I wish SPF would have made some mods in deference to practicality, but we are all looking for something different.
I wanted to chime in on this thread and say that it is very much appreciated. I'm weighing the various factors of these two manufacturers for a possible future purchase.
Can anyone speak to the differences in body makeup and shape? It would appear that the rear of the CAV (MKI) drops down further than the SPF (MKI). Also, CAV claims some type of better fiberglass resin, but doesn't say if others are using the less than desirable other resin? Thanks guys.
Can anyone speak to the differences in body makeup and shape? It would appear that the rear of the CAV (MKI) drops down further than the SPF (MKI). Also, CAV claims some type of better fiberglass resin, but doesn't say if others are using the less than desirable other resin? Thanks guys.
Similar threads
