What is a Restoration ?
Discussion
Almost as tricky as the "what is a classic car question" and the most abused term in the classic car industry.
To me "fully restored" should indicate a car that is returned to at least as good as new condition.
Apart from the structural and interior restoration this would include engine,gearbox, differential,brakes,suspension etc. etc. taken down to their component parts and renewed/reconditioned as appropriate.
All ancilaries such as starter motor, dynamo/alternator, wipers (including linkages), instruments etc. etc. as above.
The result should be equivalent to buying a factory fresh car or hopefully somewhat better given the advances in materials and technology.
Anything less is not a full restoration in my book.
I have had cars restored to this standard and know what it costs, so when I see E-types having had a "full restoration costing £35k " or similar it makes me cringe.
I have a lot of friends in the industry and I know that for example an Austin Healey was costing £55k to fully restore several years ago and an E-type costs in excess of £100k to purchase and restore to this standard.
There are literally thousands of cars advertised as "restored" when in fact they have had nothing more than a cosmetic makeover.
Isn't it time we had an industry standard for this term ?
To me "fully restored" should indicate a car that is returned to at least as good as new condition.
Apart from the structural and interior restoration this would include engine,gearbox, differential,brakes,suspension etc. etc. taken down to their component parts and renewed/reconditioned as appropriate.
All ancilaries such as starter motor, dynamo/alternator, wipers (including linkages), instruments etc. etc. as above.
The result should be equivalent to buying a factory fresh car or hopefully somewhat better given the advances in materials and technology.
Anything less is not a full restoration in my book.
I have had cars restored to this standard and know what it costs, so when I see E-types having had a "full restoration costing £35k " or similar it makes me cringe.
I have a lot of friends in the industry and I know that for example an Austin Healey was costing £55k to fully restore several years ago and an E-type costs in excess of £100k to purchase and restore to this standard.
There are literally thousands of cars advertised as "restored" when in fact they have had nothing more than a cosmetic makeover.
Isn't it time we had an industry standard for this term ?
But you've not asked: "What is classified as a full restoration?", you've merely asked what is a restoration and there are several different levels of restoration, from light restoration, where the car has been restored to a standard where it is usable again right up to a fully restored car that is in concurs condition.
In answer to your thread title, I would say that a restoration is any project where you decide to improve the condition of something and completely underestimate the actual cost in time and money that it will take in order to achieve your goal.
In answer to your thread title, I would say that a restoration is any project where you decide to improve the condition of something and completely underestimate the actual cost in time and money that it will take in order to achieve your goal.
I can see what you are saying. Having looked at many cars which were blatantly overdescribed by their sellers and in some cases turned round before even speaking to the seller, buying a used car is a minefield, especially for the inexperienced.
In practice though, where would you start? The sale of goods act covers whether an item (car) is fit for purpose and gives some legal protection to a buyer. Perhaps some legislation specific to vehicles along similar lines to the property misdescriptions act which gave a wake up call to estate agents? Not wanting to sound negative but if sellers were obliged to provide the equivalent of a full structural survey on cars for sale, that cost would clearly add to the sale price. Not only that but would we trust a survey provided by an unknown third party instigated by the seller? I wouldn't.
There is merit in what you suggest but tbh I think the current way most experienced people buy cars, i.e. assume the worst, check everything either personally or with specialist assistance, and anything which is found to be right take as a bonus, is the best option.
Very similar to the thread on misdescribed cars, I could recount some horror stories about what I've seen, from private and trade (including supposedly respected dealers)but being the eternal optomist I am, I have learnt from those encounters and wouldn't now be easily caught as I might have been 30 years ago(I hope!)
All just my opinion of course, others feel free to disagree
In practice though, where would you start? The sale of goods act covers whether an item (car) is fit for purpose and gives some legal protection to a buyer. Perhaps some legislation specific to vehicles along similar lines to the property misdescriptions act which gave a wake up call to estate agents? Not wanting to sound negative but if sellers were obliged to provide the equivalent of a full structural survey on cars for sale, that cost would clearly add to the sale price. Not only that but would we trust a survey provided by an unknown third party instigated by the seller? I wouldn't.
There is merit in what you suggest but tbh I think the current way most experienced people buy cars, i.e. assume the worst, check everything either personally or with specialist assistance, and anything which is found to be right take as a bonus, is the best option.
Very similar to the thread on misdescribed cars, I could recount some horror stories about what I've seen, from private and trade (including supposedly respected dealers)but being the eternal optomist I am, I have learnt from those encounters and wouldn't now be easily caught as I might have been 30 years ago(I hope!)
All just my opinion of course, others feel free to disagree
In direct answer to your question, it is indeed exactly the same as 'what is a classic' - One persons view will most likely differ from the next persons.
On the subject of restoration and what 'that' actually is... Im of the belief that you can refer to anything that has had a degree of work undertaken to improve the condition of the car - whether that be from a complete rotting wreck having been stripped to the last nut and bolt and brought back to concours condition, or someone like me tinkering with an old triumph herald and patching up the odd rusty bit and making it more solid than it started.
I guess the usual rules apply, buyer beware, buy with your eyes and your head and decide for yourself whether you wish to 'restore' the car further under your ownership, or whether it has been 'restored' sufficiently for you to make use of the car as you wish.
Although I agree with your statement in principal, I think there is already a sort of rating convention for restoration - as in:
Restored to concours condition
A1
Condition 2
Condition 3 etc
Its then down to the buyer and seller to agree on the vehicle condition at the time of sale.
On the subject of restoration and what 'that' actually is... Im of the belief that you can refer to anything that has had a degree of work undertaken to improve the condition of the car - whether that be from a complete rotting wreck having been stripped to the last nut and bolt and brought back to concours condition, or someone like me tinkering with an old triumph herald and patching up the odd rusty bit and making it more solid than it started.
I guess the usual rules apply, buyer beware, buy with your eyes and your head and decide for yourself whether you wish to 'restore' the car further under your ownership, or whether it has been 'restored' sufficiently for you to make use of the car as you wish.
Although I agree with your statement in principal, I think there is already a sort of rating convention for restoration - as in:
Restored to concours condition
A1
Condition 2
Condition 3 etc
Its then down to the buyer and seller to agree on the vehicle condition at the time of sale.
Interesting topic but I can't quite agree with OP's position.
As I see it, restoration and rebuilding or (worse still) remanufacturing are entirely different things.
I know little about fine art but you wouldn't accept a restored painting if it had been re painted from scratch would you?
Surely restoration is repair of an existing piece to return it to how it once was. I do not think there is any neccessity to return the item to new condition, merely to turn the time clock back a bit.
So in my book the e-type made of new bits surrounding an old chassis number is not a restoration at all but a remanufactured car. More worthy IMHO would be something like the previous poster's Truimph Herald whose mainly original parts could be carefully returned to how it was at perhaps 5 years old.
Sadly though, we are all driven by market forces and words like 'restoration' and 'provenance' make better advertising copy that 'remanufactured'
As I see it, restoration and rebuilding or (worse still) remanufacturing are entirely different things.
I know little about fine art but you wouldn't accept a restored painting if it had been re painted from scratch would you?
Surely restoration is repair of an existing piece to return it to how it once was. I do not think there is any neccessity to return the item to new condition, merely to turn the time clock back a bit.
So in my book the e-type made of new bits surrounding an old chassis number is not a restoration at all but a remanufactured car. More worthy IMHO would be something like the previous poster's Truimph Herald whose mainly original parts could be carefully returned to how it was at perhaps 5 years old.
Sadly though, we are all driven by market forces and words like 'restoration' and 'provenance' make better advertising copy that 'remanufactured'
Yes, a real can of worms this one...can something be considered to be "restored to as new" and be better than when it was new? Surely that would not be a restoration but a rebuild to better than new...maybe that sounds like splitting hairs but a friend of mine runs a restoration business specialising in small chassis Triumphs and every car he has completed is better than when they were new. If a customer was presented with the same level of preparation and lousy panel gaps that a Herald had as standard they would probably refuse to accept the finished car! Polished engine bays, body colour chassis, extra wood trim, leather upholstery and chrome wires - none of it standard but often looked for and desirable on "restored" cars...just another word that has lost its original meaning if you ask me...a very difficult one to standardise.
To restore a car to its "original glory" depends on how you go about it.My view is to keep what ever car it is to its original specification for the model and year.Problem is as most of you have experienced the component/leather seat/body panel etc that was beyond help has been replaced by a 2011 made part.So is your 30`s 60`s 70`s fully restored classic really a 30`s 60`s 70`s classic?? I`ve seen fully restored classics that are worth a million and I expect the only original part is the chassis plate/reg no/ and the cars history.
52classic said:
Interesting topic but I can't quite agree with OP's position.
As I see it, restoration and rebuilding or (worse still) remanufacturing are entirely different things.
I know little about fine art but you wouldn't accept a restored painting if it had been re painted from scratch would you?
Surely restoration is repair of an existing piece to return it to how it once was. I do not think there is any neccessity to return the item to new condition, merely to turn the time clock back a bit.
So in my book the e-type made of new bits surrounding an old chassis number is not a restoration at all but a remanufactured car. More worthy IMHO would be something like the previous poster's Truimph Herald whose mainly original parts could be carefully returned to how it was at perhaps 5 years old.
Sadly though, we are all driven by market forces and words like 'restoration' and 'provenance' make better advertising copy that 'remanufactured'
By your own statement - if you return an existing piece to how it once was then isn't that making it as new ? Why make it five years old again, and what does that mean anyway ? How do you do that to a gearbox, engine or brakes ?As I see it, restoration and rebuilding or (worse still) remanufacturing are entirely different things.
I know little about fine art but you wouldn't accept a restored painting if it had been re painted from scratch would you?
Surely restoration is repair of an existing piece to return it to how it once was. I do not think there is any neccessity to return the item to new condition, merely to turn the time clock back a bit.
So in my book the e-type made of new bits surrounding an old chassis number is not a restoration at all but a remanufactured car. More worthy IMHO would be something like the previous poster's Truimph Herald whose mainly original parts could be carefully returned to how it was at perhaps 5 years old.
Sadly though, we are all driven by market forces and words like 'restoration' and 'provenance' make better advertising copy that 'remanufactured'
Where did I say that only the chassis plate remains ? I'm having an E-type restored at the moment.
Any corrosion in the body will be replaced with new metal. Every mechanical part will be rebuilt. Most of the original car structure will remain and all of the mechanical assemblies will be original.
A911DOm has carried out some restoration work on his Triumph but I'm sure he wouldn't describe it as a restored car. Some people would - and do.
To pick up on his point. I see there is a difference between condition, which is an assesment and restoration which is an event.
I've been to see many cars advertised as "fully restored" or "nut and bolt" restoration. When I ask who rebuilt the gearbox (or engine in some cases) ... guess what ?
My point was not that all cars have to be made as new but that the term "restoration" is misused and in many cases deliberately misleading and I feel there is room for tightening up in the industry.
mph said:
By your own statement - if you return an existing piece to how it once was then isn't that making it as new ? Why make it five years old again, and what does that mean anyway ? How do you do that to a gearbox, engine or brakes ?
Where did I say that only the chassis plate remains ? I'm having an E-type restored at the moment.
Any corrosion in the body will be replaced with new metal. Every mechanical part will be rebuilt. Most of the original car structure will remain and all of the mechanical assemblies will be original.
A911DOm has carried out some restoration work on his Triumph but I'm sure he wouldn't describe it as a restored car. Some people would - and do.
To pick up on his point. I see there is a difference between condition, which is an assesment and restoration which is an event.
I've been to see many cars advertised as "fully restored" or "nut and bolt" restoration. When I ask who rebuilt the gearbox (or engine in some cases) ... guess what ?
My point was not that all cars have to be made as new but that the term "restoration" is misused and in many cases deliberately misleading and I feel there is room for tightening up in the industry.
I can see what you're saying but unfortunately advertisers (especially private ones) can pretty much ham up their ad to make it sound more appealing to the buying public - When you arrive and find that the car is infact like mine, a garage fettled fixer upper, then you have to put it down to experience and swallow the petrol costs having driven to view it. Where did I say that only the chassis plate remains ? I'm having an E-type restored at the moment.
Any corrosion in the body will be replaced with new metal. Every mechanical part will be rebuilt. Most of the original car structure will remain and all of the mechanical assemblies will be original.
A911DOm has carried out some restoration work on his Triumph but I'm sure he wouldn't describe it as a restored car. Some people would - and do.
To pick up on his point. I see there is a difference between condition, which is an assesment and restoration which is an event.
I've been to see many cars advertised as "fully restored" or "nut and bolt" restoration. When I ask who rebuilt the gearbox (or engine in some cases) ... guess what ?
My point was not that all cars have to be made as new but that the term "restoration" is misused and in many cases deliberately misleading and I feel there is room for tightening up in the industry.
In the professional world where cars are exchanging hands for silly money then I would expect there to be a much more rigorous process for establishing the originality and authenticity of the car concerned.
I love watching these american hotrod programs etc where they tare a car to bits and it comes out looking like new - But I wouldnt describe that as restored. Its been customised or renovated to whatever specification the customer wanted.
Out of interest, do you think you could nail down a list of categories that you believe would give us 'joe public' a more realistic view purely based on the category the car has been placed in?
Dont get me wrong - Im all for not having wasted journeys to see misrepresented cars - But its so subjective, which I why I think the general term 'Restored' has been used for pretty much everything.
Dom
Where we can agree MIchael, is that the word 'restoration' is misused, sometimes deliberately.
I also accept that there are many valid points of view other than my own!
Neither am I suggesting that yours is a 'chassis plate' restoration although you must agree that the practice does happen.
Where I have trouble is with the idea that 'fully restored' means as good as new.
I say to the contrary, that restored means repairing or replacing what is absolutely neccessary to turn back time - I cite the comparison with a restored painting - Therefore I see restoration as quite a gentle process rather than the strip and rebuild remanufacturing work which has become commonplace. The result may be as new, but not neccessarily so. I say as if 5 years old because my preference would be to retain seats, chrome, carpets as far as possible, in my book you can still have patina in a restored car. You ask why I would want to create a 5 year old car and I ask why you would want an 'as new' one when there are plenty of factory fresh cars available for less money. It is a matter of personal choice.
IMHO Dom's Herald has the makings of the very essence of a restored car and as he says, the satellite TV shows are not restorations at all. They are reconstructions, replicas, remanufactured cars and very desirable they are too..... Restorations they are not.
I also accept that there are many valid points of view other than my own!
Neither am I suggesting that yours is a 'chassis plate' restoration although you must agree that the practice does happen.
Where I have trouble is with the idea that 'fully restored' means as good as new.
I say to the contrary, that restored means repairing or replacing what is absolutely neccessary to turn back time - I cite the comparison with a restored painting - Therefore I see restoration as quite a gentle process rather than the strip and rebuild remanufacturing work which has become commonplace. The result may be as new, but not neccessarily so. I say as if 5 years old because my preference would be to retain seats, chrome, carpets as far as possible, in my book you can still have patina in a restored car. You ask why I would want to create a 5 year old car and I ask why you would want an 'as new' one when there are plenty of factory fresh cars available for less money. It is a matter of personal choice.
IMHO Dom's Herald has the makings of the very essence of a restored car and as he says, the satellite TV shows are not restorations at all. They are reconstructions, replicas, remanufactured cars and very desirable they are too..... Restorations they are not.
mph said:
By your own statement - if you return an existing piece to how it once was then isn't that making it as new ? Why make it five years old again, and what does that mean anyway ? How do you do that to a gearbox, engine or brakes ?
Where did I say that only the chassis plate remains ? I'm having an E-type restored at the moment.
Any corrosion in the body will be replaced with new metal. Every mechanical part will be rebuilt. Most of the original car structure will remain and all of the mechanical assemblies will be original.
A911DOm has carried out some restoration work on his Triumph but I'm sure he wouldn't describe it as a restored car. Some people would - and do.
To pick up on his point. I see there is a difference between condition, which is an assesment and restoration which is an event.
I've been to see many cars advertised as "fully restored" or "nut and bolt" restoration. When I ask who rebuilt the gearbox (or engine in some cases) ... guess what ?
My point was not that all cars have to be made as new but that the term "restoration" is misused and in many cases deliberately misleading and I feel there is room for tightening up in the industry.
A case in point and the difference between "Restored , refurbished and re-built"Where did I say that only the chassis plate remains ? I'm having an E-type restored at the moment.
Any corrosion in the body will be replaced with new metal. Every mechanical part will be rebuilt. Most of the original car structure will remain and all of the mechanical assemblies will be original.
A911DOm has carried out some restoration work on his Triumph but I'm sure he wouldn't describe it as a restored car. Some people would - and do.
To pick up on his point. I see there is a difference between condition, which is an assesment and restoration which is an event.
I've been to see many cars advertised as "fully restored" or "nut and bolt" restoration. When I ask who rebuilt the gearbox (or engine in some cases) ... guess what ?
My point was not that all cars have to be made as new but that the term "restoration" is misused and in many cases deliberately misleading and I feel there is room for tightening up in the industry.
My recent purchase of a series 1 E-type was described from the vendor as a "rebuilt" example , The car was a basket case and required a full strip down with all rust cut out and new panels replaced ,My expectation would be that to achieve this and to meet industry standards the finished result would be bodywork free of imperfections for at least 20 years ( as long as the car is correctly stored )
The mechanicals were then stripped down and rebuilt using new parts to replace worn out items , example new bushing in the suspension components , diff , gearbox , engine ( bottom end rebuilt ) inspected . Now in this area I would expect significant differences if it was a restoration , as an example Gearbox and engine would be "reconditioned" to as new condition .
An example in my case the engine was not sent to VSE for a rebuild , but the vendor performed the work himself crank re-grind , new shells fitted ( as its currently under warranty ) I am sure he wished he had sent it to VSE in the first place , but that’s a separate issue.
In principle I agree the area is very subjective and is open to misrepresentation by some unscrupulous dealers and I'm sure on completion of your restoration you could send it to "Eagle" and they would offer to improve it for an additional 50k , which in itself is very subjective.
52classic said:
Where we can agree MIchael, is that the word 'restoration' is misused, sometimes deliberately.
I also accept that there are many valid points of view other than my own!
Where I have trouble is with the idea that 'fully restored' means as good as new.
I say to the contrary, that restored means repairing or replacing what is absolutely neccessary to turn back time - I cite the comparison with a restored painting - Therefore I see restoration as quite a gentle process rather than the strip and rebuild remanufacturing work which has become commonplace.
I don't see that the painting/car comparison is particularly valid. A painting has no dynamic function, it's not a mechanical entity.I also accept that there are many valid points of view other than my own!
Where I have trouble is with the idea that 'fully restored' means as good as new.
I say to the contrary, that restored means repairing or replacing what is absolutely neccessary to turn back time - I cite the comparison with a restored painting - Therefore I see restoration as quite a gentle process rather than the strip and rebuild remanufacturing work which has become commonplace.
It's component parts can't be restored/rebuilt or whatever term is preferred in the same way a vehicle can. It can only be made to look almost as it did when new.Cosmetics.
If we are only considering the cosmetic aspects of the car i.e. the bodywork and interior appearance,then I agree that it is somtimes nice to see and own cars with patina (and I do own), but I don't see any advantage in having worn mechanical components on my vehicle.
Perhaps I am getting crossed-up. My very point was that cosmetic restoration, sometimes of quite a poor standard, is frequently passed off as complete restoration and that's what I have issue with.
I'm a marine engineer by profession and I was involved in repair and reconditioning as an everyday function of my job.
There is no room for ambiguity when carrying out repair/reconditioning work and I'm sure the same is true in almost all branches of engineering.
I don't see why cars should be any different.
I should perhaps clarify that my remarks were aimed more at the trade rather than the home restoration. After all it's a hobby for most of us not a job.
DBSV8 said:
A case in point and the difference between "Restored , refurbished and re-built"
My recent purchase of a series 1 E-type was described from the vendor as a "rebuilt" example , The car was a basket case and required a full strip down with all rust cut out and new panels replaced ,My expectation would be that to achieve this and to meet industry standards the finished result would be bodywork free of imperfections for at least 20 years ( as long as the car is correctly stored )
The mechanicals were then stripped down and rebuilt using new parts to replace worn out items , example new bushing in the suspension components , diff , gearbox , engine ( bottom end rebuilt ) inspected . Now in this area I would expect significant differences if it was a restoration , as an example Gearbox and engine would be "reconditioned" to as new condition .
An example in my case the engine was not sent to VSE for a rebuild , but the vendor performed the work himself crank re-grind , new shells fitted ( as its currently under warranty ) I am sure he wished he had sent it to VSE in the first place , but that’s a separate issue.
In principle I agree the area is very subjective and is open to misrepresentation by some unscrupulous dealers and I'm sure on completion of your restoration you could send it to "Eagle" and they would offer to improve it for an additional 50k , which in itself is very subjective.
Yours is a textbook example. Why would a car restoration/rebuild (or whatever we choose to call it) to that extent not include a full engine rebuild? It doesn't make any sense to me at all. My recent purchase of a series 1 E-type was described from the vendor as a "rebuilt" example , The car was a basket case and required a full strip down with all rust cut out and new panels replaced ,My expectation would be that to achieve this and to meet industry standards the finished result would be bodywork free of imperfections for at least 20 years ( as long as the car is correctly stored )
The mechanicals were then stripped down and rebuilt using new parts to replace worn out items , example new bushing in the suspension components , diff , gearbox , engine ( bottom end rebuilt ) inspected . Now in this area I would expect significant differences if it was a restoration , as an example Gearbox and engine would be "reconditioned" to as new condition .
An example in my case the engine was not sent to VSE for a rebuild , but the vendor performed the work himself crank re-grind , new shells fitted ( as its currently under warranty ) I am sure he wished he had sent it to VSE in the first place , but that’s a separate issue.
In principle I agree the area is very subjective and is open to misrepresentation by some unscrupulous dealers and I'm sure on completion of your restoration you could send it to "Eagle" and they would offer to improve it for an additional 50k , which in itself is very subjective.
Can you also be sure that they have rebuilt the gearbox or just looked in the top cover. Similarly the diff and so on.
Are they qualified and skilled enough to carry out this mechanical inspection and work ?
The fact that they were unable to rebuild the engine correctly sets alarm bells ringing for me.
I'm certainly not having a go and I hope everything turns out well for you, but your case does serve to illustrate my point.
I did respond to your earlier post and I would still urge you to have the car independently inspected.
52classic said:
Interesting topic but I can't quite agree with OP's position.
As I see it, restoration and rebuilding or (worse still) remanufacturing are entirely different things.
I know little about fine art but you wouldn't accept a restored painting if it had been re painted from scratch would you?
Surely restoration is repair of an existing piece to return it to how it once was. I do not think there is any neccessity to return the item to new condition, merely to turn the time clock back a bit.
So in my book the e-type made of new bits surrounding an old chassis number is not a restoration at all but a remanufactured car. More worthy IMHO would be something like the previous poster's Truimph Herald whose mainly original parts could be carefully returned to how it was at perhaps 5 years old.
Sadly though, we are all driven by market forces and words like 'restoration' and 'provenance' make better advertising copy that 'remanufactured'
I've gotta agree with you here.As I see it, restoration and rebuilding or (worse still) remanufacturing are entirely different things.
I know little about fine art but you wouldn't accept a restored painting if it had been re painted from scratch would you?
Surely restoration is repair of an existing piece to return it to how it once was. I do not think there is any neccessity to return the item to new condition, merely to turn the time clock back a bit.
So in my book the e-type made of new bits surrounding an old chassis number is not a restoration at all but a remanufactured car. More worthy IMHO would be something like the previous poster's Truimph Herald whose mainly original parts could be carefully returned to how it was at perhaps 5 years old.
Sadly though, we are all driven by market forces and words like 'restoration' and 'provenance' make better advertising copy that 'remanufactured'
My dad's got classics, as have I and the amount of people who seem to think "restoration" means buying a car in OK condition, then giving a coachworks specialist a blank cheque to build it from new and tag the old vin number onto it is astonishing.
I bought my Austin 1300 because EVERY panel is original, all the interior is. It may well have had a blow-in here and has a scrape there. No rust though, as this has been kept on top of.
At shows and out and about, I've had various other 1300 owners, including some who are rather obsessively knowledgeable, comment that instead of looking around 40years old, it looks about 4 years old.
I.e. whilst in nigh-on perfect condition, it still shows signs of use.
This is how it shall stay, and any remedial restoration work it needs, it shall have.
I have had this "discussion" many a time with MB club members at shows when one of my dads mercs has been on display.
His W123 was restored, not engine out bare shell, BUT new panels, complete repaint, interior and wheel refurb, new suspension components and so on. I believe this classifies as a "rolling restoration" ???? IIRC. It was in a local bodyshop for over 8months and cost towards £10,000 all in.
Now 1/2 the MB world will argue that if it was not done with 100% MB parts, photographed and all work done by an MB specialist, it should be nuked from space IMMEDIATELY. The other 1/2 will argue that restoration destroys the "originallity of the car" (I take this to mean "scabby appearence and rusty because Im tight as a ducks arse under water" personally).
Basically, what I am saying is that terms are ambiguous. Whether an Etype has had £35k or £100k spent on it matters little if the condition is WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
Recently my father has bought a 230SL pagoda merc, that's seen little use for some years, comes with not much paperwork as recently the father/son that own it have done work themselves. BUT all it's had was a pollish and a service, and then went on to draw significant praise from car shows. 1x bunch of anally retentive MB officianardos came round, praised the b
ks off the quality of the restoration, only to get a munk on and promptly go off whinging and slating the car, when told it hadn't been restored for some 15years.This baffled me. How can a car be "in excellent condition" one minute, and less than 5mins later, because it's not been to one of 4specialists in the country, it's suddenly "worthless" ?
Surely cars are what we get out of them, and what we look for in them. So, by proxy we buy on condition, price, and how the car fits our needs.
Im on the hunt for a sub £1,000 pug GTI6. Now the afficianardos will tell me all at this money are "scrap" .... Well I want it for a track car, so that's all it's worth paying for. So I'll buy mechanically sound, bodywork ok, interior shafted.
Each to their own.
One doesth apologise for the rant, but this is a subject area that boils my urine immensely when at shows and pretense, pomp and splendour are valued far more than the actual condition of a vehicle.
mph said:
I'm certainly not having a go and I hope everything turns out well for you, but your case does serve to illustrate my point.
I did respond to your earlier post and I would still urge you to have the car independently inspected.
thanks ,apreciate your comments I did respond to your earlier post and I would still urge you to have the car independently inspected.
but it doesn't illustrate the point on "restorations" because the car was described as a "rebuilt example , not a full restoration example , if this was the case then absolutely I would agree
This is not a case of caveat emptor ( bought privately , buyer beware), the car was purchased from a specialist and as such must be as " described " fit for purpose SOGA"
I have assessed the mountain of paperwork , receipts that came with the car and photo file of the
whole rebuild and spoken with several JDC /JEC members on these issues , who have given some excellent advise
According to the paperwork receipts the engine was rebuilt by a second party ( who can't be named at this time ) not the Vendor, who simply inspected it and judging by the work done and receipts for this work felt it did not warrant further work before they sold the car to me . However as the vendor sold the car they take full responsibility for the cars condition on sale, and liable for rectifying them something which is not under dispute .
The second failure ( low oil pressure reading ) was directly their fault and I discussed this issue with both proprietor and with their chief mechanic who did not perform the crank installation but who will be resposible for the subsequent replacement of the oil pressure relief valve and upgrade of oil filter from canister to screw on adaptor personally ( Which VSE interestingly advised could well be the issue wuith the low oil pressure reading ).
will see how this develops so far the vendor has taken a proactive approach in making sure the issues are resolved , at the end of the day its their reputation at stake , and I am giving them every oportunity to resolve this
If this turns out not to be the case then the SOGA would apply.
but getting back on topic my car is not misrepresented as a "restored" example a rebuild example yes
thanks ,
Edited by DBSV8 on Wednesday 24th August 10:27
I would describe my fastback as restored - even though a lot of the pieces are repro - sure I could go through and list them for any buyer should I sell, but my car was incomplete when I bought it (basket case) so I either had to hunt down original pieces and then restore them to as new or just buy repro ones (and a lot of the pieces are decetn quality with good chrome and it wouldn't be easy for some to tell what was original and what wasn't.
Buyers willalways talk of their cars being restored to as new etc but they may not be talking about EVERY part ... on a painting, there's the paint, the canvas, the frame
My car has a rebuilt engine, new gearbox, cluth etc, new paint and interior and every part is either new or restored (it has taken five years) so I would say my car is FULLY restored ... but then not everyone's understanding is the same.
If I was going to see a car and it had been described as fully restored and then the engine bay was filthy with old components, to me the guy is a liar.
A £100k resto of an E-Type might be achievable if somone is doing the work for you - but my time is free so restos can be done for a lot less. And no E-Type is worth £100k (to me)
Buyers willalways talk of their cars being restored to as new etc but they may not be talking about EVERY part ... on a painting, there's the paint, the canvas, the frame
My car has a rebuilt engine, new gearbox, cluth etc, new paint and interior and every part is either new or restored (it has taken five years) so I would say my car is FULLY restored ... but then not everyone's understanding is the same.
If I was going to see a car and it had been described as fully restored and then the engine bay was filthy with old components, to me the guy is a liar.
A £100k resto of an E-Type might be achievable if somone is doing the work for you - but my time is free so restos can be done for a lot less. And no E-Type is worth £100k (to me)
MikeyT said:
Buyers willalways talk of their cars being restored to as new etc but they may not be talking about EVERY part ... on a painting, there's the paint, the canvas, the frame
And no E-Type is worth £100k (to me)
Couldn't agree more about both of those.And no E-Type is worth £100k (to me)
One of my fathers friends has just bought a classic after "debating it" for near enough 2years..... And he's sooo proud that the car used to be concours and is immesely proud of the restoration it once had. Basically bought by someone who knows nothing about cars, because it's shiny. This bemuses me..... I'd always prefer a car that was structurally and mechanically sound.
As for E-types, likewise. I get that they're iconic and pretty, but they seem to attract valuations based on fantasy land. My father in June decided now was his time to have one, but when he got looking, decided that he just couldn't justify the sum the attract as opposed to the Merc SL Pagoda, that is of the same era, and in my eyes, far more asthetically amusing.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff