Muscle Car Review - - Letters -

I’m not one to gen­er­ally write to mag­a­zines, but this ar­ti­cle (“Back in Black,” Aug. 2018) forced me to. It is about the “restora­tion” of a 1965 Pon­tiac 2+2. I used quotes on restora­tion quite in­ten­tion­ally. The gen­tle­man bought a wrecked car and then re­placed the frame and the body. Reusing one fender, one door, the trunk lid, and the en­gine is not a restora­tion. The ar­ti­cle says that the us­able parts were put back on the car. They weren’t; they were put on a dif­fer­ent car. I’m not crit­i­ciz­ing the amount or qual­ity of the work done, but don’t call it a restora­tion of a car when you hardly use any part of the orig­i­nal car. That’s the end of my rant. Very nice car, but it isn’t a restora­tion. Dave Mary­land This ques­tion comes up of­ten, and will likely con­tinue to come up as time goes by and the qual­ity of po­ten­tial restora­tion projects de­te­ri­o­rates. We get your point. Just how much of the orig­i­nal car has to re­main to con­sider it “re­stored”? What the owner did with this Pon­tiac was es­sen­tially build a car us­ing com­po­nents from two donor ve­hi­cles and other sources. You’re right in that putting pieces from one car onto an­other isn’t putting them “back on” the first car. But the process of re­turn­ing these com­po­nents to stock (or bet­ter than stock) con­di­tion is, by def­i­ni­tion, restora­tion. The owner isn’t try­ing to mis­rep­re­sent it as some­thing it’s not, oth­er­wise he wouldn’t have re­vealed the de­tails of the re­build so pub­licly. He likes the fin­ished prod­uct. So do we, and so do a fair num­ber of show judges. Even you called it a “very nice car.” Can we leave it at that?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.