Alfa Romeo Forums banner

The Meaning Of Restoration

5K views 35 replies 20 participants last post by  PSk 
#1 ·
So, pals after all that had happened with Azzuri_GTV's thread ''restoration finally complete'' and the question if his car is original or not, I would like to have your opinion about restoration and the meaning of verb ''RESTORE''.

I believe that restore means;

To bring something, in our case an Alfa, in its ORIGINAL FACTORY CONDITION and only that.

Original factory condition means to make the car looks (externally and mechanically) as it was when it left the production line.

A friend of mine says; You buy a new car. After you leave the dealer's room you have an original car. But when you go for your first service and you change your spark plugs or even a single troublesome mechanical component you don't have any more an original car. I don't agry with this but...

I believe that to restore a car means to bring it as much close as you can, to the condition it was when it left the production line.
This is not easy if you consider that most of our cars are at least 30 or 40 years old and they had suffer a lot. SO THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT OR BETTER SAY WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

So we must say that we are trying to restore or better renovate our cars.

To end here I believe that ...
Azzuri's car isn't original,
mine isn't original,
my best man's Takis isn't original,
if not all, most AlfaBB members' cars aren't original ...

but who cares, we drive them, we race them, we like them as they are, we are allways trying to improve them we make them better and better but most of us don't restore them.

PS. I tried to RESTORE my Giulia 1300ti '67 model, that is to make it like it was, when it left Arese back in May 23 1967, even at the right colour of its last electric line. But as you can understand this is absolutely unable. I only achieved a 90% I think, so I believe that I have done a good renovation.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
You said it yourself:
but who cares
;) I have been involved with classic cars for a number of years, and still dont understand why people are so obsessed with originality. None of the cars we drive are close to extinct. If it were so, that my Junior was one of the last 10 in the world, I maybe would consider keeping it completely original - so my successors can experience and enjoy it the way it originally was. But hey; its not! I enjoy my car and everything about it, but that wont keep me from adding a GTA exhaust (which I'm doing as we speak) if I feel like it. I dont like AzurriGTV's front spoiler too much, but like my mother said: "If you dont have anything positive to say - keep it to yourself". I still respect him a bunch for putting the time and effort into the car. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm a firm believer in my moms words, so if you dont have anything positive to add - keep it to yourself.

I have realized though, that this discussion is pointless, for as much as we share our love for these cars, the classic car community will always be devided into what we could call: "the drivers" and "the restorers". The outerpoles being (and I will be so shameless as to point out myself! :D ) the one who drives his classic car everyday, no matter the weather and makes the upgrades to his car necessary to do so (no, I havent added a snow plough - yet!) - and at the other end the purist, who will only change sparkplugs if he can find a NOS package, trailers his car to shows, and only unwillingly drives it, because wear deducts from its originality.

Thankfully, the Alfa community is so much more the first kind, compared to f.ex. classic british cars, which I have been into for a number of years.

Boy, I think I have beat my own record of the longest thread!
 
#4 ·
164QV said:
I dont like AzurriGTV's front spoiler too much, but like my mother said: "If you dont have anything positive to say - keep it to yourself". I still respect him a bunch for putting the time and effort into the car. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm a firm believer in my moms words, so if you dont have anything positive to add - keep it to yourself.

Boy, I think I have beat my own record of the longest thread!
Jorgen
Thank you very much!!! I hope other members on this site can be like you. (Eventhough i listen to everyones opinions):)
 
#5 ·
When i think about restoration, I tend to separate things in my mind into a few categories:

1. Body
2. Paint and colour
3. Wheels and tyres
4. Interior and radio
5. Major mechanicals (engine and transmission)
6. Electrical
7. Suspension

My goals are as follows:

1. Body
I believe in keeping things as stock as possible

2. Paint and colour
If modern painting techniques are available (urethane vs enamel, clearcoat, etc.) - I say why not. Anything that can get me a nice deep gloss that will last is great
On colour - I still haven't made up my mind. I find the original red on my car a little too orange - I may go more Ferrari red if I ever have it resprayed

3. Wheels and tyres
I've still got the original wheels. I'm already non-original on tyre size having gone 165x15 instead of 155x15. I'll probably go even wider (185) when I replace them. I'm toying with the idea of GTA-lookalike wheels as well. Not original

4. Interior and radio
I'm staying stock. Period radio (maybe a hidden audio system), rubber mats, stock wheel, etc.

5. Major mechanicals
I'm staying stock with the 1600 engine. I don't want to drop in a 2000 at this stage, but who knows in the future? One possible upgrade would be a LSD

6. Electrical
I will probably replace the generator with an alternator. I'm sticking with points, but don't feel the need to have the original green Cavis ignition wires

7. Suspension
I'm installing a chassis stiffener (definitely not original - but sympatico), and am considering the Alfaholics suspension upgrade kit. Anything that can improve handling, without affecting the looks is fine in my books.

Anyway - that's what I'm aiming for. Something that broadly looks stock - especially at a glance, but with a few secrets under the skin.
 
#6 ·
restoration?

I guess Im with the reliability/performance camp when it comes to restoration. You want the car to look period correct yet be drivable on a daily basis. I do this because like a cherished loved one, you do what you have to in order to be with her as much as possible. :D :D . Most custom Alfas that I have seen are tastefully done (excluding some of the ebay clown cars) Before I upgraded to an Alfa, I had restored old mustangs, firebirds,MG's(horrors)a jag xke and even a couple of vw beetles. Over restoration was pretty common. This is where the owner polished/ repainted/chromed or rechromed every single component in the car. I have even seen chromed transmissions! This IMHO is just wrong. Alternatively if it makes you happy and people dont throw rocks when you drive by do it! :D
 
#7 ·
Hmmm this is an interesting thread.

I personally think that a concours restoration should be to return the car to what the manufacturer intended the car to be made like.

The reason I think of it like this is that due to manufacturing processes not all cars are actually made correctly, ie. a car might leave the production line with uneven door gaps ... thus surely you would not restore the car to be badly put together.

Also in Alfa Romeos case the cars were reasonably badly put together, ie. no rust protection, very little paint on the inner panels (ie. under dash boards, etc.) and to restore it like that would be silly ... because it would not last very long.

Thus like I said restore it to how the manufacturer would have liked to have made it but with all the specifications correct.

As for changing plugs, etc. this is absolutely stupid (and I am not having a go at you Nino, at all, just the concept that some have). A car is a working machine that requires maintenance and many, many parts of a car are designed to be replaced as part of this procedure ... thus replacing them as Alfa Romeo intended does not make the car unoriginal ... UNLESS ofcourse you do not replace with the intended part, ie. replace with something else which changes the specification of the car. For example you replace the front suspension bushes with rose joints.

Lets face it if you buy a unrestored Alfa that has been sensibly and correctly maintained since new, nobody complains about it NOT being original ... and yet when you restore a car they get all excited about this ... but the original unrestored car has had many things replaced during its life as part of what Alfa Romeo specified as maintenance.

Pete :)
 
#8 ·
I have to say that I'm rather torn by this issue... I've got 3 cars, which will all end up in different stages of originality-

1) '67 GT Jr.- not to be original at all, GTAm flairs, 2.0l engine, for racing.
2) '60 Sprint- mostly original- want to use either Giulietta or Giulia hardware, so 1600 single carb, correct front disks (from later cars). But it might end up with a later axle with disks as well. We want to be able to vintage rally (Carrera Panamerica, Targa Newfoundland...). So it will be dead nuts reliable, and modified to be safe. Engine aslo could be single carb 1300, twin 1600, or 2.0l depending on the class we want to compete in.
3) 58/59 Spider Veloce- I found this car in a local barn many years ago. Never really intended to make it all original, but as time passes before I restore it, the more original hardware I manage to find. The biggest thing I'm missing now are the DCOE2s (not the 3's on this car), and 1/2 of a header. On top of that, locally resides one of the BEST Giulietta restorers in the country. One of his cars scored a 105.5 out of 100 at the last national convention- it was a '55 Berlina that he DROVE from Michigan to Florida.

To each his own, I think.

I wonder, though, how much the laws change our opinions. In the US, one can generally do as they please to older cars. I know in Germany if you modify the car, you MUST tell your insurer or the car isn't legal, while in Italy- one can't change the car.

What are the modifying rules in Greece?

Eric
 
#9 ·
restoration or renovation?
I have no idea what the answer is; but in the circle of freinds I run with, we talk about differant levels of restoration depending on end use. A trailer queen concorse car would be as close to orignal as possable, while a daily driver would be restored with comfort and convince in mind, and show cars some where in the middle. But this is all irrelevent because if everybody had the same ideas about cars there would not be hundreds of cars to choose from. So imho do what ever makes you happy and enjoy what you do.
 
#10 ·
reply

Hello to all Alfa BB'ers.... Here I would like to add my two cents for all that its worth....

I think it is totally reprehensible that any one would knock another person's car based upon a term "Restoration" and debate originality...

To say that Azzuri didnt "restore" his car because it is not "Original" is not only in my opinion small minded but inconsiderate. Most Alfa's even from the factory were not "Original" as they were assembled with what ever was laying nearest to the guy on the line.

If we are talking about a rare automobile, then one should try to keep things "Original" for a historical stand point, But what Azzuri did is remarkable, and deserves high praise, as he took a car that was in poor condition and "RESTORED" it, by making it a wonderful and eye catching example of Bertone design.

It is okay to want to keep your cars stock, but dont down some one elses dream of their Alfa because it isnt the way it fell off the line..... seeing as how no two alfas were ever alike....


I am sorry if I have offended any one, it was not my intention, however this is just my two cents on this matter, and should be taken for what they are worth to the reader.


Regards,

AR1750
 
#11 ·
turbolarespider said:

I wonder, though, how much the laws change our opinions. In the US, one can generally do as they please to older cars. I know in Germany if you modify the car, you MUST tell your insurer or the car isn't legal, while in Italy- one can't change the car.

What are the modifying rules in Greece?

Eric
As I know you don't have the right to do many modifications. Even if you want to change your wheels with an aftermarket wider set, they must have been approved. If you do any mechanical or body modifications they must have been approved too. KTEO is the ministry's of transportation organisation which approves all these and you have to ''pass'' your car every 2 or 3 years and check its condition (mechanically or whatever else).
 
#12 ·
IMHO, fistly we must look at the meaning of the word "restore". What means? The meaning of the word "restore" is that "i bring something in its original condition AND form AND design" (Ðñïò Íßêï & Ãéþñãï: áðïêáèéóôþ, ðáëéíïñèþ, åðáíáöÝñù).

Someone who works on something and tries to bring this thing in its original condition and form is a restorer and he/she is doing a restoration. In my opinion a restorer is not indispensably someone who has brought the thing 100% in its original CONDITION but is someone who tries and works on bringing the thing in its original form and design. So someone who has brought the thing in its origina condition by 70% or even 10% is a restorer and he/she is doing a restoration.

It is meaningless to say that someone can do whatever he want on his car, for example add some spoilers, add a new engine, fit a turbocharges on his engine etc, while he is trying to bring a car in a working order. But he is not a restorer, he/she is a person who want to "fix" the thing and bring it in a working order so it can be used (i can't finD a word for him/her...) AND then he/she is a modifier. But this is not bad. As i say someone can do exactly what he/she want on his/her car.

In my point of view, i prefer to become a restorer than a *****(the word we are searching for) and a modifier.

(To John Paul: Dear John, i believe that now you can understand better what i wanted to say in my previous posts.)
 
#13 ·
I know a car is not a building, but perhaps it might be illuminating to consider the difference between the word "restore" and "renovate." I'm involved with an arts group that bought an 1840 building to use as gallery space and artists' live-in studios. For historical purposes, we couldn't say we were restoring the building, because that would have meant making it into what it was originally--a dry goods store on the main floor and small boarding rooms for sailors on the upper floors. We had to be very careful (bureaucracy!) to call what we were doing a renovation. We were bringing the building back to much of its original form and condition, but were also bringing it into compliance with modern building codes and also suitable for our purposes, while retaining most of its historical assets.

Maybe the same approach is taken with automobiles: A restoration makes the car as it was when it left the factory. A renovation makes it like new, or better than new, with attention paid to what else we want from it that might not have been there originally in terms of features or safety issues.
 
#14 ·
Farace said:
I know a car is not a building, but perhaps it might be illuminating to consider the difference between the word "restore" and "renovate." I'm involved with an arts group that bought an 1840 building to use as gallery space and artists' live-in studios. For historical purposes, we couldn't say we were restoring the building, because that would have meant making it into what it was originally--a dry goods store on the main floor and small boarding rooms for sailors on the upper floors. We had to be very careful (bureaucracy!) to call what we were doing a renovation. We were bringing the building back to much of its original form and condition, but were also bringing it into compliance with modern building codes and also suitable for our purposes, while retaining most of its historical assets.

Maybe the same approach is taken with automobiles: A restoration makes the car as it was when it left the factory. A renovation makes it like new, or better than new, with attention paid to what else we want from it that might not have been there originally in terms of features or safety issues.
So the word we are searching for is renovate-renovation. It's not the same with restore-restoration. So the new question is:
"What do you prefer? A restoration or a renovation?"
 
#15 ·
I think we should probably look to other automotive communities and see what they are doing and calling their 'making an old car look and work well' thing.

Generally speaking (most of this info comes from a combination of the VW air-cooled, Muscle Car, Hot-Rod and British Sports Car communities), automotive restoration is a broad category which is then divided into the following types:

1. Survivor - this is where the car is in very good condition to begin with, and only the most necessary repairs are completed to keep the car running and looking good. The Brits seem to prefer this option as do the current Muscle-Car crowd, and also the concours judges at the top-level concours. Examples of work done to cars in this category include: touch-up paint, mechanical repairs using NOS parts, interior re-stitching only where absolutely required. Survivors tend to carry a "patina of age". It is popular for these 'survivors' to be driven short distances and during events.

2. Full Restoration - this is where a car is taken down to the bone and a "ground-up" restoration occurs. NOS parts and attention to details like using factory-type paint overspray, chalk marks on the chassis, original under-coating, original plug wires, etc. are required. This what the 100 - point cars at Pebble Beach usually are. Because of the costs of such restorations, usually these cars are very rare and desireable examples of expensive cars, valued at more than $30k, and are usually only driven very rarely.

3. American Restoration - this is the "better than new" approach. Restoration can include better quality paint, better under-coating, shiny chrome in the engine compartment, highly polished parts, etc. This type of restoration is most popular here in America, hence the name. Most of these cars are what we call 'trailer-queens'.

4. Resto-Rod - this is where most American Alfisti end up. Highly favored are 'period correct' modifications (like the BWA wheels on my '69 Spider 1300 Junior). There is less attention put into originality, and more attention placed on functionality and good looks. These cars are usually 'drivers'.

5. Modified, Hot-Rod, or Custom - these types of cars are of the 'anything-goes' category. They can sometimes be VERY expensive, but do not adhere to maintaining original parts. For the Alfa community, examples of this type are usually street cars modified for track use, or for more power. A 73 GTV with a super-charged engine, modified body and interior, or a 78 Spider with a 3.0L Alfa V6 or TS conversion, or a Giulietta Sprint with a 2L, 105 disks and Panasport wheels all fall into this category. The limit of modifications is usually only dictated by the owners' pocketbook and imagination. Some of these cars are drivers, while others are used mainly for track or display.

6. Vintage Race - usually, modifications are only limited by the appropriate sanctioning body. Usually, these cars carry modern safety equipment, but carry the look of racers of their period.

How's that?

Cheers,
 
#16 ·
Alex, I must disagree with the very premise of your post. A "survivor" is not restored nor is a resto rod restored when it is made to be a resto rod. It could, in fact, later be restored to its original resto rod configuration. A lot of hot rods are now being restored to their original hot rod configuration.

In all cases restoration is a process of research and copy.

To what detail a car should be copied (restored) is of course the question here. It depends entirely on the desired result. And the desired result is usually a trophy that shows that the research has been carefully done and the copying done in a meticulous and authentic manner. The awarding of trophies is nearly always done on a points basis. The group that governs the judging should put forth a list of judging "rules" and an explanation of the point system. The AACA for instance allows replacement of many parts that could not be the original. Tires for instance. But they must be of the same size and construction.

A restoration of course can go beyond the judging rules and often does. Usually because the restorer just wants to do it to a greater degree of perfection. Sometimes unfortunately this is done to prove that the car's owner has more resources ($$$) than anyone else. This practise causes difficulty because the owner of the perfect perfect car wants the other cars to be penalized for being less than his car. A 100 point car in 2002 would drop below 100 points for 2003 if rules are changed. But if enough of the restorers want to push the envelope it should be pushed.

The most common overall goal of a restoration based on conversations and surveys of club members is " To restore the car to the condition and configuration that it was in when delivered to its first owner. "Showroom True" An interesting aspect of this is that more of the responses of the surveys and questioning talked of delivered rather than manufactured. !!!!
This allows for more accessories but most cars are done without the restorer ever seeing the delivery records. The car is restored to "could have been so eguipped" configuration. Most judging allows this because it encourages bringing out of period accessories.

The owner of a pre 1975 Alfa can restore his car to AACA judging or to Alfa Romeo Owners Club judging. They are not the same.
My 1959 Ferrari was a much better car to the AACA than it was to the Ferrari Club. The difference was in detail stuff such as the heater hoses did not have a Pirelli logo on them. To AACA the replacement hoses were fine to the Ferrari Club they were not.
That car was so much fun to drive that I did not care. But I took it to the shows anyway and that was great fun also.

If asked for short answer I'd say restore the car to as close as it was to when it left the show room but bear in mind how you will use.

And you must have fun restoring it and using it !!
 
#17 ·
Mr C. and all,

The premise of my post began "I think we should probably look to other automotive communities and see what they are doing and calling their 'making an old car look and work well' thing."

This was in response to the questions about whether there was only one kind of "restoration" of cars.

Please note that I made no value judgements! All I did was describe (briefly) an over-generalized, but reasonably accurate (in my humble opinion) categorization of those ways of fixing an old car that might be termed "restoration" in our current car culture.

Yes, of course there are some wonderful early hot-rods that are now being restored to their first iteration as hot-rods! There are ALL kinds of things that we (as a culture) do to make old cars look good and drive well.

I personally like it all. I truly relish seeing old cars (of all types) that have been re-newed or preserved...even Edsels, '72 Buicks and Yugos! But, as you all know by now, I am truly nuts!

I invite your discussion. I knew that my post would be somewhat controversial, as this topic has been so in this BB and throughout the automotive world for a very long time!

So, please add your comments or perspectives.

Cheers,
 
#18 ·
This thread emphasizes the differences in us as individuals, the ability to express ourselves as we live where we live is our right. If I elect to modify my car to my likes that is my decision. If I am doing this for concours show events I would take a different approach than I would for a head turning contemporary driver...so much for waxing poetic. To quote the infamous, now deceased, Richard Perry Covert III. 'One man's sweathog is another man's queen.' Nuff said.

Paul
 
#19 ·
Maybe this will give you some perspective...

This '68 GT-500 KR belongs to a client of mine. It is the most exacting restoration I've ever heard of. It is not over-restored, it is 100% as it left the factory. Of course, it will never be driven.

I consider this a "Restoration", but is the end result really a "Car"?

http://www.classicauto-sales.com/cars/shelby68/index.html
 
#20 ·
Joe,

That is amazing! I see cars like this, which owners never use more and more frequently. It might be a good thing to have a "mummified" vehcle kept exact, so that we can all know what they were really built like, but for me...I want to drive!

Maybe some day I'll change my mind and restore (authentically) one or some of my cars...for now, I'd much rather drive them than show them!

Cheers,
 
#21 · (Edited)
Why not drive it? Ok, I know that Shelby is a very expensive car and the guy has spent a lot of money for this result and he wants to show it at concours competitions but this is only an example. Another example is the gorgeous Giulia Super of nino. When you look at his car you think that you are back in the '60s but nino is driving it frequently. He couldn't do the same if his project was a Ferrari 250GTO. So the the point is that you can't drive a like new car everyday only if it's very expensive. You can drive a car like nino's Super everyday so there is no "barrier" in driving everyday a non expensive car which is like when it left from the factory.
 
#22 ·
True. But as an example, my '69 Spider 1300 Junior had a generator. It was able to charge the battery if few accessories were used. Unfortunately, as most generators do, it was often in need of maintenance and even when it worked well, was never really able to provide much charging energy if the lights, heater and wipers were used when driving in traffic. So, I modified the system with an alternator, and now I never have to worry about my electrics.

Also, tire technology has come a long way since 1969. By using modern tires in a somewhat larger than stock size, my car handles better and feels better. It is also safer.

Personally, I have nothing against keeping everything original, but on my cars, I prefer to make some minor modifications to make them more driveable.

What I don't like though, is people who think that it is a crime to modify an older Alfa to its owner's taste. That kind of thinking is what makes Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar and Ferrari owners seem elitist and snobbish.

I believe that there are all kinds of ways to enjoy Alfas. And I admire anyone who owns one and enjoys it.

Cheers,
 
#23 ·
Alex,

IMO, since someone is not taking part in concours competitions he can make some changes for practical reasons. Who can say that a classic Alfa Romeo with a modern generator and modern tyres is a "bastard" Alfa Romeo? Nobody.

In my point of view i can change some parts if only for practical reasons or if i am intended to use the car everyday. But i will never make changes to the design of the car. Then i can say that a classic Alfa Romeo with changes in design is a "bastard" Alfa Romeo. It's only my opinion. I think that i know a lot less than Bertone or Zagato.

In conclusion, i allow myself to make changes only for practical reasons and only if it;s very difficult to acquire a rare original part, but i will never make changes to the design of the car or add a turbocharger.
 
#24 ·
Gorgeous Shelby, but kind of sad, too. What's the fun in having a car like that and not driving it? May as well have a giant Revell model. (I might also assert that it's not exactly as it would have left the factory, because Ford certainly would have started it to make sure it runs! As this one stands now, who knows if it would run? That would bug the hell out of me, not knowing for sure that it would start up.)
 
#25 ·
To each his own - but never even starting the car?? Cars were meant to be driven which is why I get a kick from events like the Mille Miglia - great old cars been driven like they were supposed to.

My personal opinion is that the car should be original and true to the spirit of the auto designers, but careful selection of new technologies is OK.

If the Alfa engineers in 1965 had had cost effective access to alternators instead of generators, I'm sure they would have used them. And it sure doesn't change the 'original experience' the designers were after.

(That being said, my generator (touch wood) works just fine)
 
#26 ·
Restore - restoration - As someone in a recent movie would say: "this vord coms from grrreek, and means ...."

Seriously, I thinks that at least initially the discussion started around the real meaning of the word. This is a pure language situation. Some people like to call a "resto" a paint job, while others call it that after 20+ grand were spent.
I took the trouble to look the "vord" up in the Webster College Dictionary:
re-store 1. to bring back into existence, use, or the like; <snip>
2. to bring back to a former, more desirable condition: to restore a painting. 3. to bring back to a state of health, soundness, or vigor. <snip> 6. to reproduce or reconstruct (an ancient building, extinct animal, etc) in the original state.

So guys, no need to look for another word, this one is fine for just about all the applications mentioned above. Which end result you are after, or you like better is very personal and individual.

On the other hand, I agree with a money no object Shelby "resto". The car is a museum piece, why start it. The day someone decides he/she will drive it, then worry about it at that point. It is, after all, a piece of american automotive history.

To each his/her own. Enjoy yours, I enjoy mine.

Jorge Mazlumian
89 Milano daily driver
73 GTV being restored for the track :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top