RE: ?100K Escort RS2000!

[blade7]

Having been there and done that with mk2 RS Escorts in the early 80's, and then again in the early 90's I'm glad I got them out of my system. Eric Morcambes Jensen Interceptor or the RS 500 in the same auction would have made more sense for me. I wonder how long it will be before rising interest rates or the treasury cool the market for 'ordinary' investment cars.

[E34-3.2]

JMF894 said:

Sorry to be pedantic but this is disingenuous and hypocritical. Those 3 billion who have $1 a day to survive on will look at you and I with our mortgaged homes, 1 or 2 car garage, average income of £30k/year (60k if dualled) and a holiday abroad each year and consider us to be very rich/wasteful indeed.

It's all about perspective. If you're gonna put on the white hat make sure you look behind you as well as in front.........

I do admit that you are completely right. I remember travelling across Madagascar many years ago. I had next to nothing money wise but some people thought that I was very rich.

[s m]

blade7 said:

Having been there and done that with mk2 RS Escorts in the early 80's, and then again in the early 90's I'm glad I got them out of my system. Eric Morcambes Jensen Interceptor or the RS 500 in the same auction would have made more sense for me. I wonder how long it will be before rising interest rates or the treasury cool the market for 'ordinary' investment cars.

Must be time for another " bubble burst" thread?

[bloomen]

I stopped getting it a long time ago. An RS2000 is still a 3-5 grand car in my mind and always will be. Good job I don't want one. These are of course freaky prices for freaky cars.

Those mileages and conditions can't be repeated but the thing that gets me is I presume they're all being bought for investment potential and nothing but, but in many a case I'm sure you could get something like an ex works Sierra Cosworth with a WRC result for the same money or less than that road example which will be far more revered in the years to come.

And indeed there's an ex Henri Toivonen Escort in the very same sale for similar money as the RS2000.

[J4CKO]

MikeT66 said:

LewisR said:

Yes, the 924 had the VW van engine. The 944 got half of the 928 V8.

I get your point, but it's not quite correct. It was originally an Audi car engine, which subsequently got used in the VW van. The 924 only shares the main block with the van engine - the Cylinder Head, etc. were purely Porsche designs.

Yeah, that is my understanding, that line I used for the RS2000 and the same for the 924 is generally used to slag a particular car off, its not big and not clever, a van is really just a car with more space for stuff, and the engin is broadly the same, though the engines were also used ion vans they were generally in a different state of tune. With the RS2000 it got a twin choke carb, four branch exhaust, higher compression ratio and a different cam, probably more, think as well the Transit of the era actually used the V4 engine, didnt get the Pinto until later and it was down by 20 bhp compared to an RS2000.

Its not like van engines are different tech or car engines are made with rare earth metals, it is simply the power delivery characteristics, gearing and the fact its plonked in a van that makes the difference.

They should have done an RS Transit

You could actually get a 3.0 V6, bet that was a bit thirsty.

[Plinth]

LewisR said:

Yes, the 924 had the VW van engine. The 944 got half of the 928 V8.

This is often said, but according to the various Porsche books I have on my shelf:

The 924 used the Audi ( for the 1977 Audi 100) engine in a modified form.
This basic block was also used in the VW LT van and AMC Gremlin.
Because the LT appeared on the market first with the Audi engine, the urban myth of the "van engine" in the 924 started - even though the 924 was designed before it....
The LT is really "a van with an Audi engine block that would later be modified and used in a Porsche"
Given that the 924 started out as a Porsche design exercise for VW (who decided against building it when it was ready to go into production in 1974 and Porsche bought the rights to make it) the use of their parts seems logical.

Porsche, Audi and VW did a lot of joint work in the early 1970's - there was even a formal VW-Porsche company set up at one point.

The 944 used a block that was the same outside dimensions as one bank of the 928 V8 motor (not an actual V8 cut in half!) so that they could make use of the same machine tools on the production line to save cost and space.
The use of a Lanchester-style balancer shaft means it has very little in common with the V8.

[HumanDoing]

JMF894 said:

Sorry to be pedantic but this is disingenuous and hypocritical. Those 3 billion who have $1 a day to survive on will look at you and I with our mortgaged homes, 1 or 2 car garage, average income of £30k/year (60k if dualled) and a holiday abroad each year and consider us to be very rich/wasteful indeed.

It's all about perspective. If you're gonna put on the white hat make sure you look behind you as well as in front.........

I'm not sure it's disingenuous or hypocritical. Having a nice house and car does put people in the top % of those alive today and indeed those who have ever lived, however there's a world of difference between enjoying a relatively high standard of living as per that available to a population and paying $350 million for a painting. If I sold my car (which has a functional purpose) I'd be lucky to get £10k for it which would make a difference to a small area, for a short while.

The $350 million these shafts have paid for a sodding painting could make a life changing difference to a huge population.

[J4CKO]

HumanDoing said:

JMF894 said:

Sorry to be pedantic but this is disingenuous and hypocritical. Those 3 billion who have $1 a day to survive on will look at you and I with our mortgaged homes, 1 or 2 car garage, average income of £30k/year (60k if dualled) and a holiday abroad each year and consider us to be very rich/wasteful indeed.

It's all about perspective. If you're gonna put on the white hat make sure you look behind you as well as in front.........

I'm not sure it's disingenuous or hypocritical. Having a nice house and car does put people in the top % of those alive today and indeed those who have ever lived, however there's a world of difference between enjoying a relatively high standard of living as per that available to a population and paying $350 million for a painting. If I sold my car (which has a functional purpose) I'd be lucky to get £10k for it which would make a difference to a small area, for a short while.

The $350 million these shafts have paid for a sodding painting could make a life changing difference to a huge population.

I think there is a problem with the scale of wealth some have, money brings enjoyment and not having any is rubbish, but it doesnt keep scaling up and up, so you loose the joy of acquiring the normal stuff as you already have it all, so it goes from having and wanting stuff that other people have to getting hold of stuff most people cant ever have, hence "The Rich Kids of Instagram", the joy is not in owning but waving it at those less fortunate.

Give the average punter 5 million, or 5 billion, it isnt going to be a 1000 times better, with five million you can buy anything most people could ever want, houses, cars, travel, gadgets etc, maybe not a private jet but who really needs their own jet plane ?

The painting is either an investment group or an individual with vast cash reserves, to be honest I wouldnt want it on the wall, it isnt very attractive, its just now one of those items used by the super rich as a kind of super currency, it has little intrinsic value other than its old and was possibly painted by a famous name, its only us attributing value to it so it is seen as a good place to store value. You could get any half decent artist to do something better, its a really strange concept it being "worth" so much due to being by someone who is dead, he isnt going to paint any more, well, so what ? this is how religions start attributing too much credence to what went before and why old 911s are such ridiculous prices.

Perhaps do something useful with the money, help someone else out ?

[s m]

blade7 said:

Having been there and done that with mk2 RS Escorts in the early 80's, and then again in the early 90's I'm glad I got them out of my system. .

I did like that X-pack you had

[markymarkthree]

richinlondon said:

Delivery mileage or ultra-low mileage stuff troubles me in that to retain or grow the value of your car (and that's probably the purpose when buying these trophies) you cannot put any mileage on it as you then lose the thing that gave it the value in the first place.

Unless of course the speedo cable accidentally disconnects itself.

With regards to the 2ltr Transit/P100 pinto, they had lower compression pistons fitted and a 1.6 cam.
Which is handy if you are going down the budget turbo or supercharger road

[Dave Hedgehog]

s m said:

blade7 said:

The buyers are either certifiable or the money doesn't mean anything to them.

Very rich most likely

Someone just paid a few hundred million for a painting

Delivery address:

Mr H Father
1 The Vatican
Vatican City
Italy

loose change for him

[lucido grigio]

J4CKO said:

They should have done an RS Transit

[WillS66]

Zetec-S said:

Datsun 260Z for £13k seems like a relative bargin

There were quite a few decently priced cars there (disclosure, I'm a bit biased as I bought one .. I hope) but I spent most of my time there with my jaw hitting the floor at the prices being bid.

What's more, a vast majority of the cars were sold to telephone or internet bidders, there were very few buyers in the audience. I suspect most of the winners hadn't even seen the cars they were bidding on in the metal, and I doubt many of them will ever sit in the cars they bought, let alone drive them. They'll just flip them for a quick profit.

If people want to invest in cars (which I'm doing on a smaller scale) then that's fine, it's their money. But when cars are being bought sight unseen just to be flipped, then that's a sign of a market ready to pop just as it was with the housing market.

WillS.

[e30m3Mark]

Can't be many MK2 RS' in that condition / mileage though. Silly money but nostalgia costs I guess?

Personally I love MK2 Escorts. I used to buy them out the classifieds in Motoring News and the last one had all the choice parts, like 40's, World Cup crossmember, LSD etc. Cost me £900 I think? They were just so much fun and easy to drive relatively quickly. My E30 reminds me of them in lots of ways.

Any excuse to watch Frank Kelly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYw1UzIoHHw

Pick your jaw off the floor at 1 min 47 secs.

Edited by e30m3Mark on Friday 17th November 17:11

[aaron_2000]

If the godawful XR3i cab can sell for that then it makes me wonder what the future is for current Fords? I reckon it's the time to stockpile on 1.7 Puma, Fiesta Zetec S, Focus ST170 and Fiesta ST150. Even the last gen Escort RS2000 is starting to shoot up.

[blade7]

s m said:

blade7 said:

Having been there and done that with mk2 RS Escorts in the early 80's, and then again in the early 90's I'm glad I got them out of my system. .

I did like that X-pack you had

That was my last RS2 , I bought it from a guy that had just rebuilt the car, including fitting the genuine Ford arches, but he lost his licence before ever driving it. I also had a mint set of 7.5 x 13 genuine RS alloys. Just those wheels are probably worth today what I paid for that RS2 25 years ago.

[s m]

e30m3Mark said:

Can't be many MK2 RS' in that condition / mileage though. Silly money but nostalgia costs I guess?

Personally I love MK2 Escorts. I used to buy them out the classifieds in Motoring News and the last one had all the choice parts, like 40's, World Cup crossmember, LSD etc. Cost me £900 I think? They were just so much fun and easy to drive relatively quickly. My E30 reminds me of them in lots of ways.

Any excuse to watch Frank Kelly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYw1UzIoHHw

Pick your jaw off the floor at 1 min 47 secs.

Edited by e30m3Mark on Friday 17th November 17:11

The save at 0:47 in 5th made me smile as well. You could get them so far out of line and still recover.

I'm with you though Mark, enjoyed the ones I had. Never had any problems with the old Pinto either, exercising it well and changing the oil meant we never had blocked spraybar/cam problems

[LewisR]

J4CKO said:

MikeT66 said:

LewisR said:

Yes, the 924 had the VW van engine. The 944 got half of the 928 V8.

I get your point, but it's not quite correct. It was originally an Audi car engine, which subsequently got used in the VW van. The 924 only shares the main block with the van engine - the Cylinder Head, etc. were purely Porsche designs.

Yeah, that is my understanding, that line I used for the RS2000 and the same for the 924 is generally used to slag a particular car off, its not big and not clever, a van is really just a car with more space for stuff, and the engin is broadly the same, though the engines were also used ion vans they were generally in a different state of tune. With the RS2000 it got a twin choke carb, four branch exhaust, higher compression ratio and a different cam, probably more, think as well the Transit of the era actually used the V4 engine, didnt get the Pinto until later and it was down by 20 bhp compared to an RS2000.

Its not like van engines are different tech or car engines are made with rare earth metals, it is simply the power delivery characteristics, gearing and the fact its plonked in a van that makes the difference.

They should have done an RS Transit

You could actually get a 3.0 V6, bet that was a bit thirsty.

I was merely placing the two common statements to the two cars (924 & 944).

However, van engines generally tend to be lower power, higher toque units with less regard for a high red line, refinement and throttle response, exactly what you don't want in a sports car.

That aside...
This RS2000 or a mint Bentley Turbo R + £85k ??

Edited by LewisR on Sunday 19th November 03:01

[blade7]

e30m3Mark said:

Personally I love MK2 Escorts. I used to buy them out the classifieds in Motoring News

As long as you got there before Mike Young....I was quite happy to sell him an RS2 one dark night, that had been well 'raced and rallied' went like stink though.

[s m]

LewisR said:

J4CKO said:

MikeT66 said:

LewisR said:

Yes, the 924 had the VW van engine. The 944 got half of the 928 V8.

I get your point, but it's not quite correct. It was originally an Audi car engine, which subsequently got used in the VW van. The 924 only shares the main block with the van engine - the Cylinder Head, etc. were purely Porsche designs.

Yeah, that is my understanding, that line I used for the RS2000 and the same for the 924 is generally used to slag a particular car off, its not big and not clever, a van is really just a car with more space for stuff, and the engin is broadly the same, though the engines were also used ion vans they were generally in a different state of tune. With the RS2000 it got a twin choke carb, four branch exhaust, higher compression ratio and a different cam, probably more, think as well the Transit of the era actually used the V4 engine, didnt get the Pinto until later and it was down by 20 bhp compared to an RS2000.

Its not like van engines are different tech or car engines are made with rare earth metals, it is simply the power delivery characteristics, gearing and the fact its plonked in a van that makes the difference.

They should have done an RS Transit

You could actually get a 3.0 V6, bet that was a bit thirsty.

I was merely placing the two common statements to the two cars (924 & 944).

However, van engines generally tend to be lower power, higher toque units with less regard for a hogh red line, refinement and throttle response, exactly what you don't want in a sports car.

That aside...
This RS2000 or a mint Bentley Turbo R + £85k ??

For me, neither.

I'll have useable mk2 RS2000 and 85k - not really interested in a Bentley Turbo to be fair though