The Shelby American (Winter 2021)

owners who choose to identify their CSX4000 Cobras as “1965 Cobras.” “ I’ve gone back and forth with these CSX4000 owners to the point where I am numb. It’s a matter of semantics and they simply will not listen to rea- son. They cite their cars’ MSO (and hence, the registration) as proof (from the factory, which carries a lot of weight) that the car is a “1965 Cobra 427 S/C.” What it is, is a clone of a 1965 427 Cobra S/C, but it wasn’t built in 1965. And therein lies the problem. “The actual year of manufacture is conveniently omitted when the car is described not as a 427 Cobra S/C but as a 1965 Cobra 427 S/C. You can see how this circular argument will make you dizzy. Frankly, these owners have worn me out. And they won’t accept my opinion anyway, so why bother?” After receiving numerous inquiries on our Hertz replica over a six-month period, we finally chose to transfer the title (i.e. sell) to Michael Chance, a car dealer who handles highly restored classic Mustangs (MyRod.com). Within a week, he had it sold! This confirmed what I’d been telling my wife the past 10 years – that this car was worth lots more than we’d origi- nally paid. It fell on deaf ears, proba- bly because she did not want to encourage me into more “buy low/sell high” schemes. Despite the “profit” from the transaction she remains un- convinced. So, should we consider ‘clone’ to be a bad word in SAAC? I hate to let a trunk load of bad apples – the most common culprit, the replica Cobra owners who forget to add the word ‘replica’ to their car make – spoil it for everyone else. Since I don’t own an au- thentic Shelby, I don’t get a vote. But I’m hoping most of you that do will fol- low Peter Brock’s lead and conclude clones are good for our hobby. The SHELBY AMERICAN Winter 2021 56