Overhaulin' on TLC

[lyndon Sharpton]

Re:Another 3K mile "Bowtie " down the drain!

Amen!

[lyndon Sharpton]

Re:Another 3K mile "Bowtie " down the drain!

Amen!

[Michael H.]

Re:Another 3K mile "Bowtie " down the drain!

Not all Corvettes are candidates for pure restorations. If major components are missing (i.e. original engine) then it's not possible to restore the car. Since many Corvettes fall into this category, I see nothing wrong with making great drivers with modern technology out of them.

[Michael H.]

Re:Another 3K mile "Bowtie " down the drain!

Not all Corvettes are candidates for pure restorations. If major components are missing (i.e. original engine) then it's not possible to restore the car. Since many Corvettes fall into this category, I see nothing wrong with making great drivers with modern technology out of them.

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: Overhaulin' on TLC

For those of us that missed the program, I believe that it on again tonight on TLC at 20:00 for those of us in the north east.

Harry

38513

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: Overhaulin' on TLC

For those of us that missed the program, I believe that it on again tonight on TLC at 20:00 for those of us in the north east.

Harry

38513

[Patrick H.]

Re:Another 3K mile "Bowtie " down the drain!

"If major components are missing (i.e. original engine) then it's not possible to restore the car."

Tell that to about 2/3 the big block owners with their "matching number" blocks.

As if we all don't know of restamped blocks that have received their Top Flight ribbons.

Patrick

[Patrick H.]

Re:Another 3K mile "Bowtie " down the drain!

"If major components are missing (i.e. original engine) then it's not possible to restore the car."

Tell that to about 2/3 the big block owners with their "matching number" blocks.

As if we all don't know of restamped blocks that have received their Top Flight ribbons.

Patrick

[Mike Cobine]

I agree with what you are getting at

Not all Corvettes need to be restored. Not all special enough to merit it. If the car is really messed up, or has been twisted around in several directions, then going a new direction isn't a big deal.

My '63 convertible I had in '76 is a perfect candidate for having fun. I don't remember anything that made it a rare or "valuable" car. The interior had been switched to a combo of '66 and '64 seats. It had small flares. The engine was a .040 over 283. It was pretty basic in standard steering, but did have the original BW 4 speed and meetallic brakes.

So it could go either way, but I would have restored it only if I could prove something good, like FI or special history.

Yet, the next owner did. He dumped a ton of money in it, many times what he paid, and yet it was never original. It was restored, and it looked nice, but what cost?

This one on the show looked like one of those that odds were mostly original, with mags added. (didnt' everyone add mags in the'60s and '70s?) Even if the engine was wrong, a correct engine could be had for essentially the same cost as a wild engine or less. So you would a 98% correctly restored car.

But if it had the front knocked off, flares, etc, then the cost of going back is often more than going forward.

[Mike Cobine]

I agree with what you are getting at

Not all Corvettes need to be restored. Not all special enough to merit it. If the car is really messed up, or has been twisted around in several directions, then going a new direction isn't a big deal.

My '63 convertible I had in '76 is a perfect candidate for having fun. I don't remember anything that made it a rare or "valuable" car. The interior had been switched to a combo of '66 and '64 seats. It had small flares. The engine was a .040 over 283. It was pretty basic in standard steering, but did have the original BW 4 speed and meetallic brakes.

So it could go either way, but I would have restored it only if I could prove something good, like FI or special history.

Yet, the next owner did. He dumped a ton of money in it, many times what he paid, and yet it was never original. It was restored, and it looked nice, but what cost?

This one on the show looked like one of those that odds were mostly original, with mags added. (didnt' everyone add mags in the'60s and '70s?) Even if the engine was wrong, a correct engine could be had for essentially the same cost as a wild engine or less. So you would a 98% correctly restored car.

But if it had the front knocked off, flares, etc, then the cost of going back is often more than going forward.

[Michael H.]

Re: I agree with what you are getting at

My definition of a RESTORED car is one that it has the original major parts (engine, tranny, etc) and the only parts replaced are wear and tear items (bushings, ball joints, etc). When you buy a blank engine casting and stamp the "correct" numbers you are building a REPLICA.

[Michael H.]

Re: I agree with what you are getting at

My definition of a RESTORED car is one that it has the original major parts (engine, tranny, etc) and the only parts replaced are wear and tear items (bushings, ball joints, etc). When you buy a blank engine casting and stamp the "correct" numbers you are building a REPLICA.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: I agree with what you are getting at

only parts replaced are wear and tear items

When you figure the engine is the biggest wear item, some don't feel too bad about having to replace one. (However, if you few ads or market prices, this seems to be sacrilegious.

And then there are the L88s. At the 1988 Special Collection, I believe the none on display had their original engine, although I think there were two that claimed the original was at home and they were attempting to restore it.

And unlike ball joints, spark plugs, wheel bearings, and such, an engine is subject to catastrophic failure, both induced and not induced by the operator. So by your definition, probably less none of the '67 L88s should be restored, maybe a couple dozen of the '68 and '69 L88s should be restored.

Your definition would have left a lot of antique cars in the junkyard, as so many early Chevies, Fords, Duesenbergs, Stutz, and such were lucky to have a engine that was the right type and year, let alone original, when they were restored in the '50, '60s, and '70s.

I agree to an extent that too many cars are created from less than half the parts and are essentially "kit cars". This I really don't object, thinking again to the Duesenbergs, but when people begin to think these are somehow "better" than the cars that people have owned and kept and preserved and lost a few original items on the way, but essentially kept them like Chevy made them, I get a bit annoyed.

I think most of my complaints don't reside as much with the cars as the attitude of those owning them. The guy with the black '53 at Nashville for the 50th in the NCCC section was really cool about everything Corvette. As such, I can live with his decisions.

Yet a couple of weeks ago at a local show, a guy with a '63 Chevy Impala comes screaming over at me to not touch the car (I wasn't) when I pointed in the window at the dash. His attitude made me decide I really didn't car for his car.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: I agree with what you are getting at

only parts replaced are wear and tear items

When you figure the engine is the biggest wear item, some don't feel too bad about having to replace one. (However, if you few ads or market prices, this seems to be sacrilegious.

And then there are the L88s. At the 1988 Special Collection, I believe the none on display had their original engine, although I think there were two that claimed the original was at home and they were attempting to restore it.

And unlike ball joints, spark plugs, wheel bearings, and such, an engine is subject to catastrophic failure, both induced and not induced by the operator. So by your definition, probably less none of the '67 L88s should be restored, maybe a couple dozen of the '68 and '69 L88s should be restored.

Your definition would have left a lot of antique cars in the junkyard, as so many early Chevies, Fords, Duesenbergs, Stutz, and such were lucky to have a engine that was the right type and year, let alone original, when they were restored in the '50, '60s, and '70s.

I agree to an extent that too many cars are created from less than half the parts and are essentially "kit cars". This I really don't object, thinking again to the Duesenbergs, but when people begin to think these are somehow "better" than the cars that people have owned and kept and preserved and lost a few original items on the way, but essentially kept them like Chevy made them, I get a bit annoyed.

I think most of my complaints don't reside as much with the cars as the attitude of those owning them. The guy with the black '53 at Nashville for the 50th in the NCCC section was really cool about everything Corvette. As such, I can live with his decisions.

Yet a couple of weeks ago at a local show, a guy with a '63 Chevy Impala comes screaming over at me to not touch the car (I wasn't) when I pointed in the window at the dash. His attitude made me decide I really didn't car for his car.

[Michael H.]

Re: I agree with what you are getting at

There's nothing wrong with replacing an engine with a "correct" engine, providing the information about it NOT being the original engine be passed along to judges or potential buyers.

Also, a restored engine is just that.