SPF v. CAV

[Kim Petersen]

I really like the ERA as well, probably my first choice if I could find a builder and the wait wasn't so damn long. They offer a lot of features in their cars that are exactly like the originals...moveable pedal box from the drivers seat, etc., and the body is very nice as well. They use a kevlar spider instead of steel, and that would be okay with me as well...but it is a long time to wait.
Garry

I agree that the ERA is a fine replica, but if fidelity to the original GT40 design is an important consideration, you won't find any car closer to the original than the SPF. The Superformance has an adjustable pedal assembly - like the original - and both the Mk I and Mk II bodies were molded from original cars.

As to accommodating larger drivers, Dennis Olthoff is about 6'2" and he races his SPF GT40 regularly. There are a number of ways to modify the standard seats to fit larger drivers.

Kim

 

[Eric]

I am a CAV owner and appreciate all of the great info regarding
the comparison.

I love the Stainless Mono on the CAV as well as other features.

Both brands are excellent but Superformance has CAV beat in terms
of USA/ Southern Calif. distributors and availability of service if that is required.

I love the CAv but does anyone see a CAV sponsored forum anymore?

Is there a great distribution network such as Superformance?

I get many great E. mails and invites to events from Lance at Superformance and I have never even met him yet.

I get none of this from CAV although Ian at CAV Canada
has been instrumental in guiding me through a few issues and
sourcing parts.

The truth and nothing but.

Thank You.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Indeed. FWIW we measured the interior width of the SPF cabin last week. The LHD cars chassis are built as a mirror-image to the originals, with the central tunnel offset to the right. This was done to accommodate "American-sized" drivers no doubt.

From the inside edge of the rocker panel to the inside edge of the center tunnel was about 19 inches on the left side, and 15 inches on the right side, so the passenger side is noticeably more cramped.

Note that on the RHD cars with right-hand rod shift, the shifter encroaches into the area that would normally be occupied by the seat. (The central tunnel is appropriately offset to the left). Although we didn't measure Mike's car, we did look at the seats, and it appeared to have two 'passenger' seats installed, which would indicate that both sides are 15 inches wide, with the shift linkage housing consuming the remaining four-ish inches on the right side.

Indeed the RHD cars with sill shift have two seats of the "passenger" style, but so did the original street coupes.

There are some other differences CAV to SPF, the front clip ahead of the front tires curves inward more on a CAV and the MK I CAVs seem to have a wider front track that accents this difference to my eye. The CAV is a fine car for you if it fits your needs. Johann and I had a conversaion about how we both referred prospects to the others product at Road America based upon the wants/expectations of the customer.

 

[Rod]

I really like the ERA as well, probably my first choice if I could find a builder and the wait wasn't so damn long. They offer a lot of features in their cars that are exactly like the originals...moveable pedal box from the drivers seat, etc., and the body is very nice as well. They use a kevlar spider instead of steel, and that would be okay with me as well...but it is a long time to wait.
Garry

Garry, ERA will build it for you all the way to turnkey. Of course, this will add more time as well.

As for fidelity to the original, I would like one that's close, and I know that's a relative term, but function over form does matter to me. As an example, while the exterior of my Kirkham Cobra is fairly accurate to the original, the modern billet aluminum suspension, aluminum rear end, accurate instrumentation, thicker aluminum body, aluminum radiator, single versus dual fans, as well as a whole host of other improvements over the original Cobra is what was important to me.

I have to say that the larger feel of the interior is actually a solid selling point to me for the CAV.

 

[Rod]

I do want to add that not having a subforum on GT40's is NOT a very good selling point to me for the CAV. However, from what I've read, the plan is to get one formed in the near future.

 

[Jimmy P]

Rod, I spoke to Johann at CAV USA a few days ago and we spoke about the forum issue. Like you I felt a certain lack of pride (?) amongst other feelings knowing the company was reluctant to sponser a forum for CAV owners. I told him I think its damaging to the brand and he understood. Give him a call if you haven't already. He's always been a great help to me and very concerned about issues I might have. He can obviously speak informatively about the car too. Good Luck in your decision.

 

[Garry]

I agree that the ERA is a fine replica, but if fidelity to the original GT40 design is an important consideration, you won't find any car closer to the original than the SPF. The Superformance has an adjustable pedal assembly - like the original - and both the Mk I and Mk II bodies were molded from original cars.

As to accommodating larger drivers, Dennis Olthoff is about 6'2" and he races his SPF GT40 regularly. There are a number of ways to modify the standard seats to fit larger drivers.

Kim

Kim,
The SPF is a very fine car and based on other considerations that is where I am leaning, although I will need to have a conversation with my builder about headroom. Gurney was 6'4" and he was able to drive one with the "bubble" but no doubt Dan could have driven the car with his knees against the dash supports and not complained...that's the type of drivers they grew in those days.
As for what I want to do in my build, it only takes money to make the changes I'm looking for. I was aware of the movable pedal box on SPF, but I have to figure a way to engineer a way to change position from the driver's seat, not squating on the tarmac with a socket-set trying to loosen the bolts to get the feel right. After all, my wife and my best friend are both short and they are my main traveling companions. Sometimes it's good to let others drive ((not much...but some..).
I like Chuck Smiths comments on comfort, and I have followed threads of other owners regarding the water and heat issues. I understand that this is like the origionals, but damn it get's hot here in Texas and when it rains, look out! I could just see us driving down to Austin for a weekend getaway and get caught in a spring or fall rain, then arriing at the Four Seasons or the Intercontinental soaking wet. Not a great way to start a holiday. Buuuttt...I admit that having a car that is more origional in it's general construction really appeals to me.I watch and learn from everyone on this forum how they solve some of these issues and I am making a plan to use these guys knowledge.
On a different subject, I really like your GT40R...and lately I have been thinking that this would be the way to go..just develop a track car and drive the piss out of it.
Garry

 

[Rod]

Rod, I spoke to Johann at CAV USA a few days ago and we spoke about the forum issue. Like you I felt a certain lack of pride (?) amongst other feelings knowing the company was reluctant to sponser a forum for CAV owners. I told him I think its damaging to the brand and he understood. Give him a call if you haven't already. He's always been a great help to me and very concerned about issues I might have. He can obviously speak informatively about the car too. Good Luck in your decision.

As a potential buyer, I think it's ridiculous not to have a subforum here. There's obviously a lot of CAV owners out there that want info, parts, service, etc. There's a certain amount of "religious fervor" when it comes to the SPF, at least that's what I've noticed, that the CAV doesn't seem to have. I assume that's because the SPF is the "CSX Cobra" of the GT40 world.

As I mentioned previously, the interior room of the cockpit is important to me. When discussing the SPF's lack of interior room with an SPF owner, he mentioned both he and his wife felt the SPF was claustrophobic. This SPF owner not that long ago sold his car.

 

[Johann]

I am glad to report that the CAV subforum will be up and running as soon as next Monday. I contacted Ron yesterday in regards with the CAV forum and am glad to report that all the posts on the previous CAV forum will be migrated back to the "new" CAV forum.

Please contact me directly if you have any questions about the CAV subforum or the CAV GT. We also will make an announcement soon about our new light weight CAV GTR.
Johann
919-924-9891

 

[Mike Christian]

As I mentioned previously, the interior room of the cockpit is important to me. When discussing the SPF's lack of interior room with an SPF owner, he mentioned both he and his wife felt the SPF was claustrophobic. This SPF owner not that long ago sold his car.

I wouldn't say there is a lack of interior room. My wife and I just drove 1085 miles with our dog in ours over two days. We found it a comfortable ride. I guess it all depends on how large you are and what your expectations are. For me it is a "fun" car and I don't expect it to have the creature comforts of a Lexus. It wouldn't be interesting for me if it did have the creature comforts - I happen to like a more "raw" experience if you know what I mean.

Mike

 

[chuck smith]

personally, I would shop price. You can find SPF and CAV cars that are well built with great powertrains for far less than what the owner has in them. Originality was a great point of concern for me when I bought my MK11 but comfort and practicality won at the end of the day. I enjoyed telling people it was GT40P2103, but I hated trying to explain the difference in an original and a continuation car and most people really do not care, so I quickly got over the" its a real one thing". I never found the SPF network very helpful and quite frankly I think you will find many negative threads from SPF owners about service after the sale, fortunatly Dennis Olthoff is near by and he can fix anything , including my CAV if need be. So at the end of the day, find a car that fits you well and stirs your soul a bit and get the best deal you can, the cars are fantastic.

 

[Cliff Beer]

John/hoota, lots of good advice here/above obviously. I have owned a cav for 2-3 years and enjoy it tremendously. I'm also pretty familiar with the SPF product. Both are super nice products with a ton of engineering and high quality workmanship behind them. I'll skip repetion of points made above and share a couple which may not have had much mention yet:

1. The cav ss monocoque is a work of art. It's immensely stiff and the welds are very nice. The ss part appeals to me a lot because I live in a fairly humid climate near the salt ocean air - I don't mind repairing mechanicals but I can't stand rust repair (after having personally restored a few semi-rust buckets with my own hands). Obviously, the spf monocoque is close to the original and well made.

2. I'm six two so any extra inch or two of cabin/headroom is appreciated - 1 or 2 inches can make a big difference and I fit well in the cav, not so in the spf.

3. The suspension componentry in the spf is better than in the older cav's. My cav is a 2002 and doesn't have the upgraded suspension parts of the newer cavs (Ian at cav canada has been very gracious about making economically priced upgrade kits available). Essentially, I'm talking about the size of yokes and joints etc. My car is adequate for street use and an occasional track session but for a lot of track time you'll definitely want a later/new cav or an spf (or an upgraded early cav).

4. The "continuation car" thing of the spf seems like flim flam to me. If it was built after 1969 then it's a replica and no amount of licensing the name from Safir is going to cure that. Frankly, I'd rather pay a couple thousand less for the car if the royalty fee to Safir doesn't have to be paid (as in the case of cav).

5. The cavs seem to be a little less expensive than spf - perhaps this is because there are a bunch of five year old cavs out there, not so with spf.

6. Neither one of these cars is comfortable to drive - they're loud, ride hard, a bit clunky, and cumbersome (large turning circles for example). I can't even get my wife to ride in mine as she says it makes her sweat and smell of gasoline.

7. Neither one of these cars comes anywhere close to the level of fit and finish and sophistication you would expect of current production supercars (ferrari, lambo, LS1, GT3, etc.). Be ready for a raw and rumble tumble experience.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[David Briggs]

This is the kind of discussion that these forums were made for!
I have an unusual perspective on this subject, I have built early and late CAV's and an SPF. I am also probably the only guy who has owned both a CAV aand SPF MKI with the same 347 and gearbox!
My Cav was a 2004, chassis #56. At the time it was an amazing car but the suspension was weak and the uprights were poorly engineered.
The car was not sold as a race car and was not suitable for track work until I replaced all 4 corners with Ian Clarks steel uprights, transmission cross mount, his lower rear control arms and my own heavy duty stub axles and CV/ axles.
The motor mounts were flexible, even at the end.
But once I had replaced the brake pedal system with a Tilton set up, installed some modified Sparco racing seats and a fire system the car started to perk up.
When I finally had enough confidence in the car I put some Avons on and it really worked well.
As soon as it was sort of perfected I crashed it and had to start over.
My first intent was to rebuild it but it was going to cost more to get a new chassis and body (along with everything else) from South Afica then what it cost to have my SPF delivered to my door with all the cool stuff that you get with a 4 year newer car.
The SPF is quite different than my old CAV, you can scoff at the continuation number thing but the SPF is built very much like the original car.
The uprights are correct and very beefy, the geometry is correct, everything is heavy duty with rod ends and spherical balls. The original car was very robust, it had to take a pounding for 24 hours and I feel that the SPF is the same way.
The chassis is like the original, the motor mounts are weleded to the chassis and with a Safir bellhousing you have 6 mounting points for the engine and trans.
The SPF definetly has more of a race car feel.
My SPF is over 200 lbs lighter then my CAV and has a much better braking system and even though I have not had the SPF on a track I think it will be quicker.
I like the steel top, when I crashed the CAV the windshield broke and the roof fell in on our heads, sort of a final indignity.
The newer CAV's that I have worked on (chassis #100 on) are quite a different animal then my older car, they have Wilwood brakes, uprights and axles are much stronger, I have not weighed a newer CAV but will be able to later this summer.
The CAV is not a copy of the original (and is not touted as one}and the front suspension and foot box areas are much different then the SPF.
The CAV is a simpler design and as a result of that is much easier to weather proof.
As to which one I like the best
Obviously the SPF because that is what I have now!
If I still had the CAV (which I was very happy with) it would still be number 1!
Any of these cars are a treat, they all deliver an experience that is unlike any modern super car, anybody can drive a Porsche or a Viper or a Corvette but it takes more skill and finess to drive one of our cars well.
Dave

 

[Rod]

The newer CAV's that I have worked on (chassis #100 on) are quite a different animal then my older car, they have Wilwood brakes, uprights and axles are much stronger, I have not weighed a newer CAV but will be able to later this summer. The CAV is not a copy of the original (and is not touted as one}and the front suspension and foot box areas are much different then the SPF. The CAV is a simpler design and as a result of that is much easier to weather proof. Dave

In terms of a potential purchase for me, I would be making my choice between an SPF and new CAV, not a "Series 100." Would anyone be able to speak to the differences in fit and finish as well as suspension and brakes between the new CAV GT's and the SPF?

Again, I'm weighing the positives and negatives, and the steel versus fiberglass roof is of great importance as well. When opening and closing various sections of the car (e.g., clamshell, doors, bonnet, etc.), which car feels more solid? If the CAV GT weighs more, and has a simpler design, it may be the leader in this category.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Don't base a decision on the postings here, we all have our biases. The CAV is a very nice car and so is the SPF. The steel roof can be a factor as you can put your weight on it as you enter/exit. The CAV may be reinforced to allow this, I don't know personally, but if you ping Johann Keyser I am sure he will tell you straight. Yes, I sell SPFs but as I have said, the car that best suits you and you like is the GT to buy.

 

[chuck smith]

David is exactly correct on the suspension, the SPF suspension is superb, it is funny though, I much prefer the brakes on the CAV and I have the older PBR not the newer big wilwoods, I always felt like I had to stand on the brakes to get it to slow down in the mK11 and the CAV will stand you on your ear. I do suspect fade resistance is better on the SPF.As far as the steel spider goes, I would never had know the difference if someone had not told me, but it is a cool feature. When closing the doors or clamshell there was no comparison, the CAV closes like a production car, I even tell friends to slam the door and listen to it close, it is impressive for this type of car. The SPF on the other hand had wobbly doors and were very flexible at the gullwing, I even broke one of the eyebrows one day just shutting the door as it flexed upwards and impacted the brow, breaking the plastic brow and chipping the door badly. I also much prefer the closure system on the CAV to the eyebrows, it is definitly stronger but not original but at least it does not scratch up the paint like the brows do. I would look into a CAV type of system and then have the brows used only for cosmetic reasons and not functional. Waterproofing the front of the doors on the SPF is impossible due to the design and water comes in at an alarming rate. Also washing the car requires towels to be placed in the car to catch the runoff. These are not opinions , they are facts and unbiased, I have had both cars and liked them both. Cavs should use better quaility hardware like SPF does and I think the newer cars do to some degree, but the SPF stuff is top notch.

 

[chuck smith]

oh yea, a couple of more things that you might find important. The shifter on the SPF is terrible. Olthoff can retrofit a solid shifter to your SPF and I heard it is better, as is the other mods to the existing shifter cable mechanism the David offers. the CAV shifter that came with my car was also terrible and I got Ian's superb shifter upgrade that you can install your self and it became very nice(i think mid engine cars shift poorly in general) My SPf also had the parking brake mechanism lock up on me at 80 mph one day, that was a treat, fixed by Olthoff, but pricey. Wheel bearing issues also were a problem on my MK11 as well as the SPF daytona, again fixed by Dennis. Hopefully the front sway bar problems have been worked out. I suppose all these cars are a work in progress, and if you are frustrated easily or do not enjoy tinkering on them I would get a 2004 GT2.

 

[Rod]

To some degree, I have to base my decision on the information found here on this thread as well as the rest of this Forum. While I can certainly see, feel and touch an SPF, I doubt any owner will let me drive one. I'm fortunate that I have an SPF dealer less than 15 minutes from home, but I have not seen a CAV. Again, just having a dealer nearby is another factor in the decision.

I really don't mind hearing the biases of owners. If they've had a bad experience with a product, I would find it unlikely that they would give me/us a positive opinion of it. The more people that feel strongly about the product, the better for the product.

I know the BDRGT is built by CAV/Autofutura, so should I assume that they're nearly identical other than options (e.g., wide hips, 17" wheels, etc.)?

 

[chuck smith]

correct on the BDR, however, I do not see how you can justify the price difference btween the BDR and the CAV

 

[Rod]

correct on the BDR, however, I do not see how you can justify the price difference btween the BDR and the CAV

If I had to guess, then there would be a strong advantage for the BDR, since they appear to have a strong existing dealership network including Cashburn and Reg and Frank Dodd in FL.