Restore to Perfection, Keep it Original, or Modify
Which camp are you in?
There's a never-ending argument among old car enthusiasts regarding the proper way to maintain a vintage car. One side insists that collector cars should be kept in "as is" condition, assuming the car is relatively clean and driveable. Another prefers the vehicle be stripped and rebuilt from the frame-up, then displayed in better-than-new condition. A third group would rather add modern engines and running gear while keeping the body and interior more-or-less intact.
So who's right in this dispute? Before attempting to referee (I'll admit to some prejudice), let's examine each position in detail.
Group A: The folks on this side of the fence believe that a vintage car's charm lies in its originality. If the body has never been repainted and exhibits a certain patina of age, seen by some as more attractive than a respray, that's a plus.
A few dings and dents? Sure... as long as they're relatively minor. Rust is unacceptable but chrome needn't be perfect.
An interior in which leather exhibits moderate creases can be endured with this gang. After all, if a movie star, ex-race driver, or member of the aristocracy has set his/her bottom on the seat, why on earth would you want to throw it away in favor of factory-refined cowhide? The same applies to items like wood-covered instrument panels. Hairline cracks merely indicate that the car has been exposed to sunnier days.
Mechanical condition is less liberal with the keep-it-as-it-was folks. A few idiosyncrasies may be acceptable, such as slow starting, the odd gear-crunch and no end of rattles, but she'd better be dependable. (Let me qualify that last statement; we're talking about people who enjoy performing their own maintenance.)
Group B: To belong to this gang you better be (a) mechanically talented or (b) financially well-off. Meaning: you must have the ability to perform a full-scale restoration including the patience for several years of part-time effort. Or, you have the financial resources to pay an expert. Either way, the objective is to return the vehicle to showroom condition or better.
But how many factories, when new, added multi-layers of paint, each carefully hand-sanded between applications? How many engines left the showroom looking like works of art? Let’s be realistic here; perfectly-restored cars are usually covered and trailered to classic shows. They're seldom driven, certainly not in the rain. Lovely to look at, they gather more trophies than dust. To be fair, I must admit that some owners do drive their beauties in vintage competitions and on the street, though rarely as daily drivers.
Group C: From what I've observed, this is the fastest-growing group. Historical perfection is not the objective. While these folks appreciate the origin of their chosen mount it is only the beginning, a base on which to make a statement. Even so, they are diverse in their tastes. Some like to hot-rod and drag race. Some see vintage cars as an opportunity for customization. Many vintage owners disavow both yet upgrade their cars with modern parts in order to achieve improved safety and performance.
So where do I stand in this debate? It would be true to say that I empathize with all points of view, and I'm not just being diplomatic here. I admire the work of those who modify, either for performance or personal expression (as a young man I desperately wanted to buy a $250 '35 Pontiac Coupe and turn it into a hot rod). When attending concours d'elegance I lust over those superbly restored classics. Yet, in the cut-and-thrust of daily traffic, I might prefer modern brakes and steering.
Perhaps the best thing about vintage cars is that there's room for every taste, as long as we acknowledge the other person's opinion. Original, restored, modified... it really doesn't matter. Yet if a category could exist that combined all three, that's where you'd find me. Mechanical klutz, financially inhibited, purist at heart, I simply love those old cars.
There's a never-ending argument among old car enthusiasts regarding the proper way to maintain a vintage car. One side insists that collector cars should be kept in "as is" condition, assuming the car is relatively clean and driveable. Another prefers the vehicle be stripped and rebuilt from the frame-up, then displayed in better-than-new condition. A third group would rather add modern engines and running gear while keeping the body and interior more-or-less intact.
So who's right in this dispute? Before attempting to referee (I'll admit to some prejudice), let's examine each position in detail.
Group A: The folks on this side of the fence believe that a vintage car's charm lies in its originality. If the body has never been repainted and exhibits a certain patina of age, seen by some as more attractive than a respray, that's a plus.
A few dings and dents? Sure... as long as they're relatively minor. Rust is unacceptable but chrome needn't be perfect.
An interior in which leather exhibits moderate creases can be endured with this gang. After all, if a movie star, ex-race driver, or member of the aristocracy has set his/her bottom on the seat, why on earth would you want to throw it away in favor of factory-refined cowhide? The same applies to items like wood-covered instrument panels. Hairline cracks merely indicate that the car has been exposed to sunnier days.
Mechanical condition is less liberal with the keep-it-as-it-was folks. A few idiosyncrasies may be acceptable, such as slow starting, the odd gear-crunch and no end of rattles, but she'd better be dependable. (Let me qualify that last statement; we're talking about people who enjoy performing their own maintenance.)
Group B: To belong to this gang you better be (a) mechanically talented or (b) financially well-off. Meaning: you must have the ability to perform a full-scale restoration including the patience for several years of part-time effort. Or, you have the financial resources to pay an expert. Either way, the objective is to return the vehicle to showroom condition or better.
But how many factories, when new, added multi-layers of paint, each carefully hand-sanded between applications? How many engines left the showroom looking like works of art? Let’s be realistic here; perfectly-restored cars are usually covered and trailered to classic shows. They're seldom driven, certainly not in the rain. Lovely to look at, they gather more trophies than dust. To be fair, I must admit that some owners do drive their beauties in vintage competitions and on the street, though rarely as daily drivers.
Group C: From what I've observed, this is the fastest-growing group. Historical perfection is not the objective. While these folks appreciate the origin of their chosen mount it is only the beginning, a base on which to make a statement. Even so, they are diverse in their tastes. Some like to hot-rod and drag race. Some see vintage cars as an opportunity for customization. Many vintage owners disavow both yet upgrade their cars with modern parts in order to achieve improved safety and performance.
So where do I stand in this debate? It would be true to say that I empathize with all points of view, and I'm not just being diplomatic here. I admire the work of those who modify, either for performance or personal expression (as a young man I desperately wanted to buy a $250 '35 Pontiac Coupe and turn it into a hot rod). When attending concours d'elegance I lust over those superbly restored classics. Yet, in the cut-and-thrust of daily traffic, I might prefer modern brakes and steering.
Perhaps the best thing about vintage cars is that there's room for every taste, as long as we acknowledge the other person's opinion. Original, restored, modified... it really doesn't matter. Yet if a category could exist that combined all three, that's where you'd find me. Mechanical klutz, financially inhibited, purist at heart, I simply love those old cars.
Taken from: "Vintagecars.about.com"
posted by Rezy Arifin at 8:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home