Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Haynes
If a vehicle is "Restored" it is returned to the condition it was in when it left the factory. Maintenance and rebuilding is not restoring.
|
What do you define as "rebuilding" and how does it differ from "restoring"?. It seems to me that anytime you make a repair, you are restoring that part to factory condition whether it's an engine rebuild, brake job or whatever. Using the gorgeous fordor in the video posted previously, to be accurate (IMO) it would be described is two ways. 1. It's an original with a restored/rebuilt (either one) engine (and anything else that has been changed since leaving the factory) or 2. It's stock sporting the original factory paint, interior and nearly all mechanical components. However, if the owner wants to call it "stock" or "original" or a "survivor" or any other adjective, it doesn't REALLY matter. The problem comes when looking at two different cars. Example is if I respond to the car in the video with "Nice, I have an original '31 tudor. It's been repainted and the engine has been changed and the interior has been redone but it is all stock". By calling mine "original" elevates it's "status" to that of the car in the video and/or, reduces the car in the video's "status" by referring to them both as "original". So to would be if someone produced a model A in pristine condition that has never had any mechanical repairs in it's life, just grease and oil changes that would truly be an "original" would not be the same as the car in the video. However, like Brent pointed out, if the owner of the car in the video didn't volunteer that the motor was rebuilt nobody would ever know if the owner wanted be deceitful about that. there are a lot of people out there without the kind if integrity shown in the video IMO. It doesn't matter one bit to me how others describe their car (unless they are trying to sell it to me) but I do find these discussions on semantics fun as long as nobody gets their knickers in a knot over it.