Superformance Ford GT MkII

[Ron Earp]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with Ron on this one. What is the market for high dollar, "authentic", replicas. Superformance clearly has a reputation for quality cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quality they have, but their Cobras are definitely not the most accurate around, that is well known. Interesting how they tried for the accuracy on this car but have not changed the Cobra to my knowledge, obviously after different markets.

R

 

[Hershal Byrd]

Ron,
One thing I noticed in thier promo statement was this reference to "OTHER" replicas.

"Most of the other replicas on the market have easier to build and less expensive space frame chassis and many of their features differ from the original in that they use whatever off-the-shelf components available, rather than the original style components hand-crafted in Hi-Techs ultra-modern factory in South Africa."
I'm no expert but the way I see it is that once you have the dies and jigs built they both are reasonably easy to put together. Someone please describe "whatever off-the-shelf components" are. Don't they keep there components on a shelf? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Whoever wrote that promo didn't give much thought to what Hitec builds. I would have to believe that what they say can apply to there cobra as well. It's a square tube frame and it has what I think is off the shelf components. Their Cobra happens to be a very well built car. It's not any less of a car because of the space frame.
Even still I see what they are trying to do and that's to sell cars that are built in a ultra modern factory. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hersh /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Mike Dozier]

To me, the big difference is their steel roof.
It may seem like a small point, but the first thing
people do is attempt to enter or exit a GT40 by leveraging
the A-post...which of course is a huge no-no.

Off the shelf means a part anyone can order via catalog or Internet. That doesn't mean the parts are inferior...
many modern aftermarket components are superior to
old "original" designs. SPF apparently tooled up to make
several "original style" parts, which is cool...but not necessarily an advantage in itself since the car is
of course still a replica.

Bottom line is whether the sum of their parts is a value package that consumers view as superior to the competition, and in my opinion, they have succeeded, and will take a large chunk of the upper end of the GT40 replica market.

MikeD

 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is whether the sum of their parts is a value package that consumers view as superior to the competition, and in my opinion, they have succeeded, and will take a large chunk of the upper end of the GT40 replica market.

MikeD

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree.

 

[Hershal Byrd]

Very well put Mike.
They are definetly going for the higher end market. Direct competition for ERA and GT40NA at that price.
I think the dealers are going to be asked by some of their customers for SO 427's. Just to put the car up another notch towards "REAL".

Hersh

 

[Mike Dozier]

And won't that be a great sight and sound !

MikeD

 

[Hershal Byrd]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Hersh /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Ron Earp]

"Space frames easier to build"

No way. Ask Fran, Robert, Frank, or anyone who has done both or fools around with tube frame and mono race cars. With modern software a mono chassis panels are all designed and then laser cut. Easily folded and welded on the jig, done deal.

The space frame has to have this same basic process done with tube sections, then has to be paneled. Definitely not easier to do. I think the last time I spoke with Fran he said "I'm not doing any more blasted space frames" due to time involved with putting them together.

No offense to SPF, just some marketing hype there that went wide.

 

[Ron Earp]

Dan is there a problem with replacements on SPF Cobra's?

 

Ron,
Sorry I missed your reply. There are several issues that Superformance has conveniently quieted through it's customer SCOF detente', courtesy of Randy Thomas, who has repeatedly arbitrated and attempted to resolve owner's issues. One of the prime examples is with the spontaneous windshield fractures that have occurred on MANY owners cars, mine included. Fortunately, my dealer, the Rosens at Dynamic Motorsports in Ross, Ohio, quickly resolved/replaced my windshield but others haven't been so lucky and several have literally waited over a year for replacement glass. When the problem was posed to Superformance, dealers like Doug Reed, addressed the problem as consumer analism initiated by Randy Thomas, who in reality, was trying to sequester the issue. Evidently through the Hi Tech/SPF evolution, there were several generational modifications, all improvements, but which created 3 distinct, non-interchangeable windshield replacements. The cause of the windshield fractures and delamination have never been addressed other than to speculate what "might" have caused the problems. The problem is serious for many since their relicensure requires a state vehicle inspection. Broken windshields are notorious reasons for licensure failure especially when a new owner tries to transfer an out of state MSO or title.

Then we also have the debacle concerning the Superformance-Shelby merger which was transpiring during the multitude of law suits/countersuits by each respective party. Several of the loyal Superformance enthusiasts posted on Club Cobra forum, defending SPF and were in heated battle with the Shelby minions, which the upper echelon knew, but never shared with these very defenders, that in fact, a merger was being entertained. The sad irony is that not even the SPF dealers in the US were aware of the background changing and were caught, foot in mouth, when the merger was announced.

This is not to infer that Superformance doesn't produce some of the best products in the industry, it DOES infer that they have adopted the Shelby customer philosophy. I've owned 2 Superformances and 2 CSX alloy cobras and have nothing but accolades for BOTH of their cars but it is directly related to the dealer who always had a conscience and enjoyed the philosophy that a happy customer will be the best marque advertisement. Try asking SPF owners that question now.

 

[Ian K]

[ QUOTE ]
"Space frames easier to build"

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron, I believe they are referring to manufacturing , not
assembly . Nobody will argue that the R&D and manufacturing
of a monocoque is a more difficult than spaceframe. For the
assembler, however, a monocoque is done, a spaceframe needs
sheeting.

Trevor - First, thanks for your writing efforts! Second,
you'll find many "foreign" manufacturers will set dramatically
lower prices for US customers than elsewhere. It's economics.
The US, in general, has a larger market potential, and the
manufacturers are willing to take slimmer margins in exchange
for higher sales volume. They gamble that in the end, they
will realize more profit. Not always the case, as Nissan
really took a hit in the 90's with the 300ZX - one reason
it was cancelled in the US was that due to Japan's sagging
economy and the US's surging one, the 300ZX would have run
over $80K US for a non-turbo. Nissan knew they wouldn't sell
any in the US with those prices, but couldn't lower the prices
without losing money.

As far as the SPF MkII - meh. Looking at the detailed pix,
I have to say people on this board have done better with
RFs, GTDs, and Tornados (not to bash CAV and ERA, just
looking at it from a beginning outlay point of view). After
all, Rick Merz's GTD sold for under $70K US, and I think
it is a much better car than a turnkey minus SPF.

Ian

 

[Ron Earp]

Dan,

That is interesting and I believe it to be true as I'd heard a little bit about it as well. I've been in contact with some folks regarding Superformance and their notable lack of presence on ClubCobra or on this site, despite my numerous attempts to make contact with them.

Superformance maintains private forums for owners on a site where users can engage in discussion in a quiet atmosphere and not have to worry about logging on, identities, etc. - at least that is what I am told is the reason why SPF has or sponsors these private forums. I have also been told that Superformance corporate did not wish to engage in open discussions on forum like www.gt40s.com or www.clubcobra.com as they felt it was too easy for users, customers, or potential buyers to become confused with the facts about an issue.

I disagree with that sort of stance because I feel the open nature of forums allows for a lot of discussion, fosters a much better understanding of issues or products, and will work for both customers and manufacturers alike – customers have a way to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction which either promotes the manufacturers' products or causes them to fix problems. I have tried numerous times to have SPF here on the forum as an advertiser, supporter, or for them to have a forum here on the site. No response. I sometimes get the impression that SPF would rather simply reap the benefits of having their products essentially advertised on these forums and others by buyers, dealers, owners, or potential owners while they do not have to have any commitment to the site at all. I’ve not asked Brent over at ClubCobra about it but might make an inquiry. Didn’t SPF used to have a forum over there on that board?

They make nice stuff though. What is happening with a Shelby/Superformance merger? Is this recent? (Sorry, don't follow the Cobra boards much)

Ron

 

[Ron Earp]

I have received a couple of emails that have corrected me on some information that I listed in my post directly above.

The SCOF where the Superformance forums are is not funded by Superformance. It is owned solely by Randall Thomas, a SPF owner and as such is a private entity with membership based on owning a Superformance product. Superformance does not support it or fund it, and info that gets posted there is typically with the blessing of Superformance (I am told - I can't read the forum since I don't own a Superformance car - not a member of the club).

I wonder if we'll have enough SPF owners here to make a forum for the cars? My guess is yes, and we might do it. We've got a few forums for makes of GT40s already, although they were paid for and supported by the company or owners, the original length of time (1 year) they were to be up has expired. I don't mind, because it appears the advertising will generate revenue to support the forum and we don't have to have companies or groups paying to have their own section any longer. Tis an idea. I have to get the blasted video section working first.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[Mike Christian]

Ian, if you are judging the SPFGT base on the photos of the prototype posted here...you might wait for the real deal. If you haven't checked out any of Superformance's cars, you should. A person can buy the SPF Roller (like any other) and finish it anyway they like. I think most will think it is real fine when they receive it.

Regards,
Mike

 

Ron, YOU ARE MISTAKEN!

Superformance can not have it’s own section on this Forum. Have you forgotten, “it is not a KIT”. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

This forum is strictly for kits, and a few “REAL” kits. Superfluous belongs to a “higher authority”, it is a religion not a car. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Kneel on the ground and receive your lashes, you infidel.

Sacrilege,


Ian Bro, Rick Mertz's GTD was the BADEST GT in the US. Once again you are right, praise be upon the "K" family.

 

[Chris Kouba]

The coolest thing about the ex-Mertz GTD is that you wouldn't have to have your friends push you around in it!

Laat I checked the SPFGT doesn't come with its own motivation at that comparable price (I know, apples and oranges, tube vs mono...).

 

[Ron Earp]

Faili, not too long ago a fellow from a Cobra forum emailed regrading his CAV indicating various aspects about GT40s and pointing out his CAV is not a kit and thus was superior to any car on the market (I think he only knew of three companies, GTD, ERA, and CAV). I never responded to his email and I find those sorts of discussions invariably go nowhere.

Interestingly enough, it appears that CAV has decided in order to capture more market share they need to sell cars in various stages of completion, hence the annoucement the other day of CAV offering kits. Does that make CAVs a lesser car now? Of course not, at least not to any of us on the forum in the know, but you are right that it appears there is a group of folks buying replica cars that feel non-factory cars are of poor quality.

 

[Paul]

Let me state firstly that I think that Superformance do manufacture really excellent products. I think that the price is reasonable for what one is getting and is aimed at people who can afford to fork that kind of cash out in one lump sum. Some of us can’t do that so a kit is the only we will ever be able to afford our dream. There is also great feeling of achievement to finally finish what must be one of the most complex time consuming builds around.
What is a real kit?
I did see pictures of the Superformance GT last year while it was still under construction and heard a very believable rumour as to how/why the chassis is so accurate compared to the original. I do think now as I thought then that IMHO they got the front wheel arch wrong. The front part of the wheel arch seems to be too square and does not flow in to the nose compared to other 40’s. Maybe this was intentional but I think that it detracts from the classic lines of the car.

 

Hi Paul

The body is original Mk11 not MK1 therefore it is different and should be different. The arches are higher.
When they get to the Mk1 body you will see the lower arches.
By the way did you know that the GTD/CAV body had more than 20 changes to the original, including incorrect door profile rear deck lid about 1 1/2" higher, door windows smaller, incorrect profile centre of front clip, aperture for nostril panel smaller and incorrect, sill length shorter, front arch wrong shape.
Then again having said that they are still pleasing to the eye.

Chris.

 

Paul,
Chris is correct. Superformance got the body of the car as close to original is can be done (from what I've been told). The mark I and II cars certainly have different fronts so the differences you perceive are intentional.