I keep hearing this word restoration thrown about in the same manner the word love is passed around. Has it lost all meaning? I want to believe that the word means that one is bringing the car back to its original configuration. Some people call a simple paint job a restoration even if the car now has bucket seats and a 350 small block chevy. Look around in the forum and witness the abuse of this word. Also go to the next cruise or show uggh!

i think the definition of the word has been forced to change due to the ever-shrinking supply of original parts, and the rising cost of OE and aftermarket replacement costs. I for one cannot for the life of me find a 71 buick 350 for my skylark in my area. so i've been forced to use an 86 chev 305 - tell me that doesn't suck!

I do think it has different meanings to different people, like you said go to a show or just talk around.

Sometimes restoring other than stock simply means you didn't look hard enough for the parts you are needing.We are in Tn and have went as far as Md,Tx,Ga and Ok to find the correct parts for our 2 65 Gran sports.If you want something bad enough ,you will look harder.And to make the restoration project exactly to specs is not an overnight thing.We have been building the convertible for 3 years and the thin pillar coupe for 2 years.We finally have all the parts for the convertible and if I can slow down from work some,I will finish it by summer.

That is why I say "Make pretty", not restore :)

I agree that the meaning of "Restoration" in the "truest sense", is used loosely by most people today, and can create controversary among the passionate car people that we are. We each have our opinions of what we think is the "right way" and I believe thats what makes the car hobby interesting. We are not all the same. How boring; if we were.
I tend to agree with the article written by Phillip Powell of Vintage Cars.
" I SIMPLY LOVE THOSE OLD CARS" graemlins/thumbsup.gif

The following is Phillip's article:
Which Camp Are You in?
There's a never-ending argument among old car enthusiasts regarding the proper way to maintain a vintage car.
One side insists that collector cars should be kept in "as is" condition, assuming the car is relatively clean and driveable.
Another prefers the vehicle be stripped and rebuilt from the frame-up, then displayed in better-than-new condition.
A third group would rather add modern engines and running gear while keeping the body and interior more-or-less intact.

So who's right in this dispute?
Before attempting to referee (I'll admit to some prejudice), let's examine each position in detail.

Group A:
The folks on this side of the fence believe that a vintage car's charm lies in its originality. If the body has never been repainted
and exhibits a certain patina of age, seen by some as more attractive than a respray, that's a plus.
A few dings and dents? Sure... as long as they're relatively minor. Rust is unacceptable but chrome needn't be perfect.
An interior in which leather exhibits moderate creases can be endured with this gang.
After all, if a movie star, ex-race driver, or member of the aristocracy has set his/her bottom on the seat
, why on earth would you want to throw it away in favor of factory-refined cowhide?
The same applies to items like wood-covered instrument panels. Hairline cracks merely indicate that the car has been exposed to sunnier days.
Mechanical condition is less liberal with the keep-it-as-it-was folk
s. A few idiosyncrasies may be acceptable, such as slow starting, the odd gear-crunch and no end of rattles, but she'd better be dependable.
(Let me qualify that last statement; we're talking about people who enjoy performing their own maintenance.)

Group B:
To belong to this gang you better be (a) mechanically talented or (b) financially well-off. Meaning: you must have the ability
to perform a full-scale restoration including the patience for several years of part-time effort.
Or, you have the financial resources to pay an expert. Either way, the objective is to return the vehicle to showroom condition or better.
But how many factories, when new, added multi-layers of paint, each carefully hand-sanded between applications?
How many engines left the showroom looking like works of art?
Let’s be realistic here; perfectly-restored cars are usually covered and trailered to classic shows.
They're seldom driven, certainly not in the rain. Lovely to look at, they gather more trophies than dust.
To be fair, I must admit that some owners do drive their beauties in vintage competitions and on the street, though rarely as daily drivers.

Group C:
From what I've observed, this is the fastest-growing group. Historical perfection is not the objective.
While these folks appreciate the origin of their chosen mount it is only the beginning, a base on which to make a statem
Even so, they are diverse in their tastes. Some like to hot-rod and drag race.
Some see vintage cars as an opportunity for customization. Many vintage owners disavow both ye
upgrade their cars with modern parts in order to achieve improved safety and performance.

So where do I stand in this debate? It would be true to say that I empathize with all points of view, and I'm not just being diplomatic here
I admire the work of those who modify, either for performance or
personal expression (as a young man I desperately wanted to buy a $250 '35 Pontiac Coupe and turn it into a hot rod).
When attending concours d'elegance I lust over those superbly restored classics.
Yet, in the cut-and-thrust of daily traffic, I might prefer modern brakes and steering.

Perhaps the best thing about vintage cars is that there's room for every taste, as long as we acknowledge the other person's opinion.
Original, restored, modified... it really doesn't matter. Yet if a category could exist that combined all three,
that's where you'd find me. Mechanical klutz, financially inhibited, purist at heart,
I simply love those old cars. graemlins/beers.gif

More from Phillip Powel can be found at this link vintage cars (http://vintagecars.about.com/)