What's the story with chassis MX1?

[SunDude]

Does anyone here know the story behind this particular 427 Cobra?
   
   http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120563239793&si=tB9ruYY9JqyrobC5w22Qenr6TDE%3D&print=all&category=6472
   
   According to the eBay listing -- which is from a Missouri-based classic car dealer -- this particular car was produced by Brian Angliss from original AC chassis and tooling.
   
   The chassis plaque (is it original or reproduction?) assigns it the number "MX1."  The seller says this particular chassis is not documented in the SAAC registry (and I haven't verified against my copy).
   
   The ad makes some strange statements/claims.  It calls the car a "1968 AC 428 Cobra" when of course the MkIIIs were known as "AC 289 Sports" in Europe.  It says the chassis has a 96-inch wheelbase, which could've been just a typo or...
   
   Could it be that Angliss had rebodied an AC 428 Frua at some point, and called it the MX1?  Or is this one of the five Paramount chassis?  Or something else altogether?
   
   Any ideas?

[nikbj68]

Hmmmm.
   The Paramount chassis` are all accounted for and were 'COB 6***'
   If it was a Frua(428)the chassis no. should be 'CF/CFX **'
   The only other oddball series of numbers were some prototype electric vehicles, which were 'EFX 5**'
   The whole point of using an old or damaged AC is to keep the chassis number, not create something different!
   If it was built by Brian Angliss, it would normally have a 'COB/CSX' number; although buillding Cobras in the early 70`s, Angliss wasn`t 'AC' until much later, and NEVER at Thames Ditton!
   I`d be intrigued to know the dates on the 'build correspondance', as there`s no mention of when this car was made.
   You can get those blank AC Chassis plates quite easily, and it even looks like that one still has the protective plastic film on it![:I]
   They have been very careful not to show any suspension parts... that could be quite revealing...(is that a billet bracket at the front?)
   There`s a good reason that this car isn`t in the SAAC registry, the ACOC chassis register or any other place for that matter... [;)]
   So, in brief,* it looks like a nice car, could possibly have been built by Angliss/Autokraft, (using 'MX' chassis no. to hide the AK one, maybe?)although more likely is of Polish/Utah origin.[;)]
   At best, the description is inaccurate, at worst, fraudulent, and whatever it is, it`s WAY over-priced!
   
   *In my very own humble opinion, of course.

[SunDude]

This car is also being discussed over on Club Cobra.
   
   http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=104247
   
   The esteemed Trevor Legate has identified the chassis as one that was built by AC Cars for display at the Earls Court Motor Show (year?), after which it was on display in AC's Thames Ditton showroom.
   
   The ACOC registar seems to believe the chassis was originally destined for use as a 428 Frua.
   
   Somewhere along the way (date?) Brian Angliss seems to have got his hands on the chassis and completed it as a 427 Cobra.
   
   More info may surface yet on this car.
   
   Gotta say I don't like how the dealer is representing the car on eBay.  You shouldn't have to be a SAAC or ACOC registar, or marque expert, just to figure out what you're bidding on...

[ANF289]

quote:Originally posted by nikbj68
   
Hmmmm.
   The Paramount chassis` are all accounted for and were 'COB 6***'
   If it was a Frua(428)the chassis no. should be 'CF/CFX **'
   The only other oddball series of numbers were some prototype electric vehicles, which were 'EFX 5**'
   The whole point of using an old or damaged AC is to keep the chassis number, not create something different!
   If it was built by Brian Angliss, it would normally have a 'COB/CSX' number; although buillding Cobras in the early 70`s, Angliss wasn`t 'AC' until much later, and NEVER at Thames Ditton!
   I`d be intrigued to know the dates on the 'build correspondance', as there`s no mention of when this car was made.
   You can get those blank AC Chassis plates quite easily, and it even looks like that one still has the protective plastic film on it![:I]
   They have been very careful not to show any suspension parts... that could be quite revealing...(is that a billet bracket at the front?)
   There`s a good reason that this car isn`t in the SAAC registry, the ACOC chassis register or any other place for that matter... [;)]
   So, in brief,* it looks like a nice car, could possibly have been built by Angliss/Autokraft, (using 'MX' chassis no. to hide the AK one, maybe?)although more likely is of Polish/Utah origin.[;)]
   At best, the description is inaccurate, at worst, fraudulent, and whatever it is, it`s WAY over-priced!
   
   *In my very own humble opinion, of course.
   
   

I was curious to see how the dealer would respond to the above comments, so I sent it to him and asked if he was interested in commenting.  Here is his response:
   
   Dear anf289,
   
   Respectful Rebuttal. We never claimed a COB or a CF/CFX number, and this is certainly not an electric. This is a MX. To take it a step further, there are some REAL Shelby Cobras in Europe with COB#'s because some countries had problems with the Carroll Shelby Export numbers (CSX),...so we can't say that there is an ABSOLUTE in ALL cases. This frame was never damaged, only cut from the "96 down to the "90 as some were. This car's frame is circa 1966 and only developed in time to reportedly end up finished sometime around 1976. Mr. Angliss continued to use the origins of the Thames Ditton heritage build place, I'm sure that decision was purely a Marketing Strategy with importance given to the Heritage of the Shelby Cobras,...that's Marketing for you. One thing for sure, this frame, the bucks and tooling started in the '60's in Thames. Yes, you can get anything today, and there are some very good reproductions of all things automotive,...but this is not one of them. Suspension Parts? I will add some photos and they should quell any further doubt in your mind. The previous owner was not a Cobrafile, just a car collector and did not try to get this car listed in the AC Book. You'll have to let me know about what it is that you see that is Billett, I don't know what you're seeing. We have documentation that will prove all statements and maybe teach you about something that you have never seen or know about. Please don't take that the wrong way, but "you don't know what you don't know". I will also say that by posting this, we are 100% sure that this is the ONLY known surviving Chassis. Mr. Angliss is who he is, but was smart enough not to call it a COBRA. By the way, Cobra Restorers LTD. restored this car if you know anyone there, I'm sure they can help you fill in the very scarce history of this extremely rare car. Thanks for the time you took to inquire, I hope this helps a bit and if you have any further questions, please forward them so we can all learn more. Joe
   
   - fastlane501

[nikbj68]

Well, I`m happy to stand corrected on some aspects of this car! The seller has said that he will scan & add the letters mentioned in his listing, but there are a few things that still don`t quite stack up, like trying to get the car listed in the AC book, it should have been there to start with!!! And did Brian Angliss have any Thames Ditton bucks & tools in or by `76?
   I thought the roll bar mounting looked like billet, but it must just be clean! see below.
   
   
   
   I still don`t understand why AC built this chassis without assigning a CF number (if it was a 428 chassis, or COB/CSX if it was a MkIII). Maybe in the same way they supplied a few 'spare' chassis` to racing teams that didn`t make it into the ledger?
   The ClubCobra discussion is interesting, and I look forward to Ned Scudder`s updates when he can access his file on 'MX1'.

[nikbj68]

quote:Originally posted by Dr. Kravitz, as a message to the eBay seller:
   To clarify some misconceptions, I am the original owner/builder. I purchased AC chassis MX1 in the summer of 1978 after hearing of its existence at the SAACII convention in Hershey, PA. It was a bare rolling chassis. The aluminum body was purchased from Brian Angliss. The attaching superstructure was purchased from Mike McCluskey, a noted Cobra restorer. The components were assembled by an older Englishman in Sterling Heights Michigan. The side oiler 427 block was built by John Vermersch of Total Performance in Mt. Clemens, MI. I sold the vehicle in 1999 and that owner finished the build. The current owner is the third one. I can answer almost any question requarding MX1. Thank you, Larry P. Kravitz DDS
   
   

[SunDude]

How fortuitous that the original owner/builder should see this eBay listing and post this very useful info.  The only missing piece seems to be the exact date (post-1999) when this car was completed.
   
   It would seem to me that this particular car should be considered a "Cobra replica" using the official SAAC definition (not to be confused with "kit car").  That is, the chassis, substructure, body, powertrain and major components were all made to resemble an original Cobra.
   
   This is not unlike the beautiful cars that Mike McCluskey has constructed from scratch over the years.  And like those cars, MX-1 is clearly a beautiful car.  But it could never be considered an "original" Cobra, nor valued as such.

[ANF289]

quote:Originally posted by SunDude
   
How fortuitous that the original owner/builder should see this eBay listing and post this very useful info.  The only missing piece seems to be the exact date (post-1999) when this car was completed.
   
   It would seem to me that this particular car should be considered a "Cobra replica" using the official SAAC definition (not to be confused with "kit car").  That is, the chassis, substructure, body, powertrain and major components were all made to resemble an original Cobra.
   
   This is not unlike the beautiful cars that Mike McCluskey has constructed from scratch over the years.  And like those cars, MX-1 is clearly a beautiful car.  But it could never be considered an "original" Cobra, nor valued as such.
   

Cobra schmobra, the real question is should it be considered a real AC?

[SunDude]

At a minimum the chassis is a "real AC."
   
   Unfortunately Dr. Kravitz didn't specify when he had Angliss build the body, some time after 1978.  Maybe it was while Angliss owned the AC trademark, or maybe it was before.  Hard to tell if the body is a "real AC."
   
   But in any case the car was assembled by a 'Murcan using bits from many sources, so it would seem a stretch to call this car a "real AC."
   
   What do you AC experts think?

[A-Snake]

quote:Originally posted by SunDude
   
At a minimum the chassis is a "real AC."
   
   Unfortunately Dr. Kravitz didn't specify when he had Angliss build the body, some time after 1978.  Maybe it was while Angliss owned the AC trademark, or maybe it was before.  Hard to tell if the body is a "real AC."
   
   But in any case the car was assembled by a 'Murcan using bits from many sources, so it would seem a stretch to call this car a "real AC."
   
   What do you AC experts think?
   

   
   Not an expert but...if the 'number' MX1 does not appear on the AC factory ledger as a vehicle, how can it be an AC anything?

[administrator]

The factory ledger records cars.  MX1 was not a car when it left Thames Ditton in 1969, only a 96" 428 rolling chassis (no engine, transmission, body etc), so (as far as I am aware) it was not recorded in the ledger.  There has been some speculation as to why it was called MX1 but as yet no confirmatory documentation has surfaced.