1970 Challenger Unrestored

[scuncio]

Not a Mopar guy so I don't have much to say about this car, and whether it's a good value, but it sure looks to be awfully clean. I'm guessing someone added the 'R/T' emblems later in its life.

1970 Dodge Challenger Unrestored (http://ebay.to/2w9fOEA)

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/YpoAAOSwmo5ZmDk5/s-l1600.jpg

[Lee Stewart]

I guess unrestored now includes being repainted once but having the original interior :confused2:

[scuncio]

These are 50 year old cars...repaints happen....

[Lee Stewart]

These are 50 year old cars...repaints happen....

Right . . . which no longer qualifies it as an unrestored car. Got to draw the line somewhere.

[scuncio]

Totally disagree but that's your opinion against mine.

[JKZ27]

Cool. Slant 6!
I'd say its unrestored because it appears to have never been restored.

[Lee Stewart]

The definition of UNRESTORED:

"not repaired or renovated."

I would definitely call a paint job a repair or renovation.

[scuncio]

Paint is a wear item on a 50 year old car. Again, your opinion. And that's fine.

[Lee Stewart]

Paint is a wear item on a 50 year old car. Again, your opinion. And that's fine.

And yet so many cars from that era have their original paint. We aren't talking about tires or acc. belts or a battery - those are wear items. :scholar:

LOL - it's not my opinion - it's the definition of the word "unrestored" which you choose to ignore and replace with YOUR opinion.

[DW31S]

I'm not siding with anybody, but lots of cars got a respray because the products to protect and rejuvenate paint hadn't been invented 45 years ago which is likely why/when this got a "new dress" (I didn't read description). So you guys both have an opinion and both are educated guys so just agree to disagree. I'd say "unrestored" means wearing original paint, but is there really a clear definition for the term? Remember when "matching numbers" meant just that? Today it has a different "definition". "Unrestored" nowadays doesn't mean what it used to either (to some).

[John]

... So what is the definition of "Survivor" ????

..... :rolleyes2:

[Lee Stewart]

... So what is the definition of "Survivor" ????

..... :rolleyes2:

A car that is all original and unrestored. :naughty:

BTW, the term "unrestored" pertains to many things besides cars. Does the term "survivor" pertain to other things besides cars? I have never seen it used other than to describe a car.

[Mr70]

When a person say it's unrestored,some people gravitate to take that to mean it's a survivor and get all upset,when it was never represented as such.
In general,I see a survivor vehicle as withstanding the test of time and is as close to as was delivered & never restored,i.e.never fluffed,never rattle canned here & there,never repainted,no panels replaced,no drivetrain mods,or of course,not a full blown frame off.
But a vehicle that's unrestored,does not automatically make it a survivor,i.e. panels replaced,new paint,seats recovered,engine or drivetrain swapped or modified.All of that is neither original nor restored.

I think this is a blurred area for so many.

[Lee Stewart]

It's a blurred area for so many Mr70 because everyone wants their car to either be appraised at a high value, at least in it's description when presented for sale or make it eligible for some kind of an award at a show. This can then be parlayed into making a car worth more money.

This I believe started with Corvettes and has trickled down to muscle cars.

There was a time not too long ago when fully restored cars were bringing much higher money at auctions over low mileage survivor cars. Buyers wanted "better than new" condition cars. Then lots of blogs and articles began to discuss the issue of over restored cars. And because of this they dropped in value while those low mileage survivor cars increased in value as the mantra became . . . "It's only original once."

It's always about money BTW. Saying you have an old car for sale doesn't cut it anymore. Now you have to add a moniker: restored, unrestored, survivor, clone, tribute etc. Each changes the value of the car. The seller chooses the moniker for his ad but it's up to the buyer to decide what is the proper moniker that fits the car regardless of what the seller thinks is correct. They call that due diligence.

[scuncio]

Ha! I seem to recall you expressing an OPINION that a 68 Camaro firewall with VIN and trim tags could be "restored" and not "rebodied." You may want to revisit what you consider absolutes because you are clearly defining your opinions as FACT. Whether a repaint or valve job, it's a 50 year old car. And most of us on this site couldn't care less about the money aspect; if I did I would have sunk the hundreds of thousands of dollars I've spent on cars into Apple stock.


And yet so many cars from that era have their original paint. We aren't talking about tires or acc. belts or a battery - those are wear items. :scholar:

LOL - it's not my opinion - it's the definition of the word "unrestored" which you choose to ignore and replace with YOUR opinion.

[Lee Stewart]

scuncio . . . it's always important to look before you leap:

Neat car, a bit overpriced IMO but great options and docs.

Jeez, this will make someone a super nice car. I'm amazed it has been bid so high, considering it's very much a project car, but the workmanship looks phenomenal.

Quality still commands price, I guess...


This one has been on craigslist for months. Cool car but not a great deal IMO considering it's probably a 30-35k car all done. Still, I hope someone saves it, great color combo for sure.

Looks like a pretty nice car and under $30k.

6500rpm tach, aluminum heads, etc...who knows. Too late to be an L89 or 375hp 396. Regardless it's a triple black 70 Chevelle convertible so it ought to be worth a good chunk of cash irrespective of its provenance....

[scuncio]

Yes indeed, Lee, every statement I've made is an opinion, and I've never insinuated any of my statements to be anything but. Whether or not you're aware of it, you operate on a set of preconceived notions that you construe to be facts, and defend them as if they are gospel.

I am generally an easygoing person but your parochial posts are really difficult to me to accept even though I realize debating you is wasted effort on my part. If you believe you're providing any value to this extremely well informed group of car enthusiasts by imposing your opinions on us I suggest you give it some additional thought. I simply use this section of the site to post cool old cars for sale that I think may be interesting to the yenko.net community, nothing more.

Charley, please feel free to delete the entire post if you like. I worked a 15 hour day today and I've said my piece.

Tony

[Lee Stewart]

scuncio . . . we agree to disagree.