There are compelling orientations for keeping vehicles totally original, mostly original, or modifying them "to taste". The problem in showing modified vehicles is that many loose sight of what the vehicle originally was and judge other vehicles of that same type/vintage by what they perceive to be correct instead of what is really correct. This includes the "sin" of over-restoration also, which many have done in the orientation of "making it better than the factory did". Just depends on which "game" you're going to play.
Sure, the incorrect and over-restored vehicle might look better to the casual or general public's eye, but that doesn't mean that what was done was "right". In many cases, it can do a disservice to those that take great pains to keep everything exactly correct and accurate and loose possible trophies to incorrect or modified vehicles. At any general car show event, the vehicle with the slickest paint (even an incorrect color), the most chrome, and other "hot rod" parts will always get more attention than a correctly restored vehicle--just the nature of the game at those shows. But when the same vehicle's taken to a show were the judging is on "as produced" accuracy, all of that extra expense can be wasted as an "unmolested original" vehicle or an accurately restored vehicle would win the top awards. At those events, over-restoration can be a detriment or at least not hurt or help the vehicle's judging score.
A case in point is what some local Pontiac enthusiasts have done. Most of the GM vehicles built in the '50s and later were nicely done vehicles in their own right and if restsored correctly, generally "show" better than a similar Chrysler or Ford product because of that. Yet, when being restored, the "better than original" orientation tends to kick in and shiney black paint goes on where GM never put shiney black paint under the hood (should be satin or primer black). If that vehicle is put up against one that is correct in all respects, the correctly done vehicle looks "dull" compared to the other one. Naturally, the general public perceived the first car with the shiney black paint is correct as it looks better (and that's the way they want to remember it). Hence, to them at least, if it's not that way, it's not right. Others mimic that orientation when they do their cars too. Soon, few original vehicles might be around as
everyone has tended to bow to the pressure of their peers (of sorts) and their competition. If they go to a POCI or similar national event, the "dull" car should win, though as the judges typically know more about what the car should be than the general public (who now has a stilted view of what "original" is).
One of our former Buick Club chapter members took a rusty '49 (?) Buick Roadmaster Riviera that was in a field and fixed it up. He painted the main body dark carmine red and the fenders a medium carmine red (looked nice). The interior was done in a '76 Olds style loose pillow look motif in matching factory velour. He removed the original chassis and running gear and placed the body on a '79 Cadillac DeVille chassis (4 wheel disc brakes, rear sway bar, Borrani wire wheels, and everything) plus the requisite GM tilt steering column. When I first saw it sitting at the curb, I keyed on the factory wire wheels and did not look too much farther. Later on, I saw the rear sway bar hanging down there and got curious. Then, when he started talking about the upgrade, we all got interested. But one member got totally irate that he butchered that car, as it is such a rare vehicle anyway he felt it should have been left stock. In reality, the
chassis swap was reasonably easy as most of the body mount locations were very close on the new chassis and the old body.
So, should the car have been left completely stock and rusting in the field as no one wanted to get involved with an old DynaFlash 8 and DynaFlow Buick or did he do the right thing in saving and modernizing the chassis? As I mentioned, compelling arguments on both sides of the subject.
On the plus side, he drove that car everywhere he and his wife went and even took others with them (as the car's interior size would support that activity). It got lots of attention and admiring looks. It did look good, even for a Buick. And when you saw it take off and go around a corner without dragging the rocker panels, you KNEW something was different.
We all know that a vehicle in original "as produced" condition will always be consistently worth more on the open market than a modified vehicle, typically. Selling a modified vehicle can be a mixed bag of worms to some as you take pot luck as to what you might need later to repair the vehicle. Technicians don't like to order parts for a vehicle and find out something's been changed AND they will charge extra to chase parts when they don't know what they're going after. Even if a list of what's been done might make it to the next owner, that could well be as far as it goes. PLUS, with the generally younger group of technicians coming to work in the near future, they would not know what they're looking at when they see it, even if it's got later model 1980s era parts on it.
The other consideration is that if some modification is not "production based", meaning using parts from a production vehicle rather than from some performance vendor who has built their own parts, that vendor could decide to not support their products 10 years down the road as they've now got something newer and better. I suspect that Holley fuel injection or Pertronix or similar suppliers might have things longer than some other people might, but there's still a limit to the parts they build that are specific to their products that are not production based and used on other vehicles. Several gray area decisions there.
I've touched on several different orientations here, some on either side of the fence. I do like incognito upgrades when they are production based and well executed and "look factory in all respects", but I also do not like massive modifications where much work and money was expended for little financial gain in value or useability.
The fuel injection upgrade, plus an electronic ignition upgrade, might not make any more horsepower, but they could increase efficiency and ultimate durability due to less fuel getting past the rings as the fuel mixture would be accurate for the needs and very possibly burned more completely than before. Part thottle driveability should be better too, as might cold starts. And if done correctly, should leave more rubber on the ground--even with the existing TorqueFlite.
Sometimes, we create "money pits" in our older vehicles when it is not economically feasible to do what we do. That's part of the nature of the hobby in some cases. Hopefully, any investments in parts, fixes, upgrades will be appreciated by others when they decide to swap their money for that vehicle. In the case of any vehicle, it's only worth what somebody's willing to pay for it, but that gets more relevant when a vehicle's been modified and is too far away from stock condition (where the "street rod" pricing might kick in).
Just because some investment (original quality of paintwork, interior, or mechanical refurbishment) might not be economically feasible and significantly impact the price book price of the vehicle doesn't mean we should not do these things (with respect to stock vehicles). By the same token, at some point in time, later model Chryslers will start rising in value to reflect the great vehicles they are. But just because the value might be lower right now is no reason to go out and wholesalely whack one up instead of maybe trying to put it back original. Enough of them probably have already been crushed (as heavy cars usually vanish first due to the greater money they bring as they are heavier) and adding to that situation will further diminish a finite amount of existing vehicles.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network