I had to make this same decision about two years ago. Dad's only new car
and my first car came back to me at his passing. My $.02 is do what you
want. I opted for the "improved" route simply because it was what I had
wanted to do as a kid and the ability to drive it now (hard) is worth a lot
more than any money in value for resale. Fact is, the car will probably
never be re-sold, simply because it has been in the family so long.
Just my $.02
Ken Gano
kengano@advant.com
TR3A TS57756 (in pieces)
----------
> From: Clark A. Wiedmann <cwiedman@shaysnet.com>
> To: triumphs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Preserving vs. Improving
> Date: Wednesday, April 02, 1997 8:06 AM
>
> I have a Triumph 3A that has been in the family for over 35 years. It
was
> driven until it was about four years old, then stored in warm dry garages
in
> California ever since. I'm planning to move the car to Massachusetts
this
> spring and start restoring/fixing it.
>
> I have a philosophical question for the group. This car is unusually
> unaltered from its state as it came from the factory. What approach
should
> I take? Should I (a) try to preserve as much as possible of the original
> parts and paint, (b) restore it to the condition it was in when it left
the
> factory, or (c) use the car as a base and add nifty modern parts to make
it
> a fun, racy, driveable car?
|