This is a fun thread.
Theoretically, a #4 (parts-)car should not be driveable, or,
very-driveable, as is.
Back in the "day", in Ohio/Midwest, there were a LOT of rolling
rust-buckets, which would qualify for #4 status. Driveable, but fugly .
A #5 car is a hulk.
So, what else constitutes the RANGE, of #3 cars, if not varying degrees
of "driveable"?
As everything is negotiable, I agree that hard-and-firm categorization
is not possible; hence the range of qualifications, within any category.
But, I still think that the following general categories are fair and
reasonable, subject to
interpretation/qualification/gradation, within the categories:
#1 : Perfect/trailer queen
#2: potential show-placer/detailed engine & undercarriage
#3: decent/nice general driver
#4: driveable parts car/beater:rough condition
#5: incomplete hulk
All the categories can go up or down, depending upon what is done to a
particular car.
Neil Vedder
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Brent Burger" <cgico@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:32:50 -0700
----- Original Message -----
> The "wiggle room" is contained WITHIN the various categories.
>
> "High-3"/"Low-3", etc....maybe even a 10-point scale within the
> categories.
>
> E.G.: a "Low-#1" could be a non-knowlegeable
> restoration; it probably has the least amount of wiggle room (kinda
> like virginity; but there ARE some degrees of comparison, in all
> things).
>
> #2 is basically good-appearing Show class-PLACING condition.
>
> #3 is varying degrees of DRIVING-around
> condition, without much hope of Placing, at a
> show.
>
> #4 is varying degrees of a good parts car, or a beater/rat-rod ride and
> should be able to be made safely drivable, and should be complete, butin
> "rough" condition/. A GOOD candidate for restoration.
>
> #5 ain't ever going anywhere, under its own power, and probably is
> missing a substantial amount of its componentry; it RECEIVES, rather
> than donates, parts.
>
> I can't really see a need for a 6th Category; altho Old Cars Weakly/Curs
> & Parts has had one.
*******************************************
Neil,
OK, ..... just for the sake of discussion ....
No.4 has just changed from a "good parts car" to a "good candidate for
restoration". Admittedly, I have parted a out a few cars when these beasts
were more common that should not have been parted out. They were too nice
NOT to restore, and for reasons that now seem stupid - they were not so rare
back then, I really wanted the parts and wasn't that interested in that
particular car - they got dismantled.
Even then I had a pretty clear idea of what a parts car was vs. a
project and parted those nicer cars out with some feeling of guilt and
remorse. It seems to me this scale has too much room at the top 3 positions
for variations of what are all versions of nice cars. 4 and 5 simple drop
like a lead balloon into the junk and scrap catagory.
I have never been a ribbon and trophy chaser. In fact, I see the
judging system as the root of all evil in this hobby, making it more about
bragging rights than just enjoying cars for what they are. Maybe this is
why I don't understand the need to break down nice cars so thoroughly. It
runs against my logic for why I like old cars ?
According to a scale like Old Cars Weekly/Cars & Parts , I own a lot of
"excellent parts cars". Very flattering.
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
--- End Message ---
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network