PDA

View Full Version : New - Old. Which would you rather have?


Rollingthunder
7th Sep 2011, 07:31
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/06/article-0-0DBC8B6600000578-883_634x324.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/06/article-0-0DBB979500000578-449_634x332.jpg

Fitter2
7th Sep 2011, 07:51
As a beautiful piece of art, the E-Type any time.

Of course, if you actually wanted a means of transport which would start and get you there, anything built in this century is likely to be more practical.

Slasher
7th Sep 2011, 07:59
Much much MUCH rather have the old! :ok:


OLD....(turn yer speakers full up!)

gwel7Ulmrvs


new... :hmm:

-uCWSrp2aZg

Solid Rust Twotter
7th Sep 2011, 08:08
Old one easier to work on too. New one requires some spotty yoof who would plutz if he got his hands dirty to fettle something or other with a computer. Older model can be addressed with a little sucking of teeth, a spanner and some wise nodding among yourself and assorted mates.

BombayDuck
7th Sep 2011, 08:17
Can I have one of each?

Honestly, the CX-16 is gorgeous.

mixture
7th Sep 2011, 08:33
New one. Vast improvements in safety, comfort, reliability and vehicle dynamics.

Old one is an unreliable rust bucket with increasingly tedious maintenance costs as the years go on. Looks like the exhaust is already falling off the one above. :E

Still, I guess if you're retired and need something to do, then maybe the "classic" option would be for you. :cool:

Capetonian
7th Sep 2011, 08:53
There's really no comparison? The new one has as much style and charisma as soggy white sliced bread.

I remember driving through Hillbrow - when it was safe - in a V12 E-type (4.2 litre?) with a sticking throttle. What fun. And taking a Jensen interceptor onto the track at Kyalami in about 1977.

blue up
7th Sep 2011, 09:08
10 years from now, which one will need a 1000 cat-converter replacement, a 1000 ECU and a 500 electric window replacement? Oh, and which one will be worth more than you paid for it today?

Blue Up (Owner of Shyte Merc SL 2003 and reliable Morris Minor 1952)

Richard Woods
7th Sep 2011, 09:19
Old one. No doubt about it. Those who bring up problems it may have had back in 1961 are ignoring 50 years of fettling. Companies like Eagle do wonders with them... look where the E-type is on Top Gear's power lap board.

mixture
7th Sep 2011, 09:34
There's really no comparison? The new one has as much style and charisma as soggy white sliced bread.


Well, I wasn't saying I would want that exact "new" car. Just that "classic cars" are a mugs game, an expensive hobby for those with more money than sense.

Oh, and which one will be worth more than you paid for it today?

Yeah, "worth more" if you carefully turn a blind eye to the amount of money you've spent on it, and you value your personal time expended at zero.

Cat meet pigeons. Pigeons meet cat. :E

Union Jack
7th Sep 2011, 09:44
Much much MUCH rather have the old!

So would we, Slasher, but we're still waiting for it to arrive .......!:E

Jack

Noah Zark.
7th Sep 2011, 09:52
I wish I had the choice! :sad:

Storminnorm
7th Sep 2011, 10:54
The E Type was, and still IS IMHO, one of THE classic
designs of the 20th Century.
A beautiful thing to behold. But I wouldn't like to own one.

Parapunter
7th Sep 2011, 11:02
and not long after that the support and spares will be non-existentThat's patently untrue and in fact if it were, there would in logic, be no 'classic' cars around. They'd all be laid up for want of parts.

I'd suggest that buying the new car is the mugs game, for those with more money than sense.Ignores the fact that someone had to buy the E Type new in the first place. I wonder if all the powdery old Austin 7 owners were shaking their heads at the time.

Well, my vintage cars have more than tripled their value in 10 years A bubble is a bubble whatever the commodity. Remember the late 80's? I wonder how many people lost their shirts buying up fast Jags back then - particularly the XJ220.


IMI: The Institute of the Motor Industry Magazine > The classic car bubble (http://www.motor.org.uk/magazine/articles/the-classic-car-bubble-337.html)

Takan Inchovit
7th Sep 2011, 11:05
Rather have the new thanks. To hell with 'classic'.

goudie
7th Sep 2011, 11:10
The question is; which one is more likely to attract the ladies? I would think the phallic suggestive e-type would be far more successful:E

Bugger the crap brakes, rust, roadholding and expense!

Storminnorm
7th Sep 2011, 11:13
I got rid of my Volvo.

MagnusP
7th Sep 2011, 11:14
I like both, but the problem with the new is that by the time it reaches market in four or 5 years, and I've let somebody else pay for the depreciation for another 3, there'll be something else I'd rather have.

Lon More
7th Sep 2011, 11:27
like Eagle do wonders with them.

Is that the same Eagle that was somewhere near Leeds Castle back in the 1980s? Top Blokes. Did some work on my Elan.

I'd rather have 3 x 20 year olds than 1 x 60 year old. Trouble is I think I've forgotten what you're supposed to do with them.

mixture
7th Sep 2011, 11:29
Ignores the fact that someone had to buy the E Type new in the first place. I wonder if all the powdery old Austin 7 owners were shaking their heads at the time.

In the first place, yes, but now they are simply obsolete.

Fact is, I've owned my current car since its birth in 2006 and have had no expenditures other than MOT and a new set of tyres.

Parts for classic cars are difficult to get hold of. They are more expensive to insure. And restoring and maintaining them costs time and money.

Storminnorm
7th Sep 2011, 11:40
Bit like the Memsahib then???

flying lid
7th Sep 2011, 11:44
The E type is THE most easily recognised sports car ever designed. Absolutely beautifull. The modern one shown could be anything, nice mind you, but nothing sensational.

Jaguar got the retro styling right with the S type, in my mind. Why not do similar with the e type - instant best seller.

Blue up wrote

10 years from now, which one will need a 1000 cat-converter replacement, a 1000 ECU and a 500 electric window replacement? Oh, and which one will be worth more than you paid for it today?

Blue Up (Owner of Shyte Merc SL 2003 and reliable Morris Minor 1952)

Too true. Modern cars don't rust, need rebores & decokes etc - they just "electronically die".

I have an old Rover P5 V8 sallon in the garage, last for ever (well as long as petrol lasts !!), though I'd swap it for an E type !!

Lid

pvmw
7th Sep 2011, 11:53
Fact is, I've owned my current car since its birth in 2006 and have had no expenditures other than MOT and a new set of tyres.


..and in another 5 years when the manufacturer no longer wishes to support it, and the 1k cat needs replacing or the 1k ECU fails as Blue-Up observes??? What was the cost of your car new, and what is its value now? If you accept that the design life of a new car is approx. 7 years, then what is your annual depreciation?


Parts for classic cars are difficult to get hold of.

Depends on the car. Every part you could possibly ever need for that E-Type is available off the shelf, along with the specialist knowledge if you need it. It will depend on the country you live in, but in the UK there is a large and thriving support network for classic cars of all types.


They are more expensive to insure.

Absolutely not true. Classic car insurance is remarkably cheap. Classic cars are seen as a very good risk by insurance companies nad treated accordingly.


And restoring and maintaining them costs time and money.

Restoring them, absolutely true. Maintaining them not so compared to a modern car. There are no expensive items like ECUs, the don't need a man with an expensive laptop charging 100/hr to diagnose and fix them.

It does depend on your requirements. When I commuted 100 miles/day on motorways I had to own and wear out a modern car. For commuting 10 miles/day a classic car is quite suitable, with much lower overall running costs. However, I keep a cheap modern as a daily hack. It cost me a couple of K three years ago and I will drive it until it breaks.

My concern is that very soon such cheap hacks will no longer be available, 'cos the complexity of modern cars means that an 8 year old car is potentially going to be too expensive to keep running. Classics are infinately repairable/maintainable. Modern cars are designed not to be so. After all, now cars no longer rot away and need replacing, the motor industry has to find another way to make people buy new cars. Built-in obselescence is the answer.

Storminnorm
7th Sep 2011, 11:58
Well, that proves my idea that the ULTIMATE form of
motor car IS ----- The Morris Minor!!!!!!
(Especially the Traveller version!!!)

sitigeltfel
7th Sep 2011, 12:49
Pictures of the day: 7 September 2011 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/8746586/Pictures-of-the-day-7-September-2011.html?image=12)

G-CPTN
7th Sep 2011, 12:57
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/GroupCaptain/Snetterton1965.jpg

merlinxx
7th Sep 2011, 13:06
Pre WW-II SS, post WW-II C-Type, D-Type horny :E
E-Type orgasmic :E:ok:

1963 Cooper Mini :E

Minor (half timbered) for animals :E

G-CPTN
7th Sep 2011, 13:10
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/GroupCaptain/Lotus3-7.jpg

RedhillPhil
7th Sep 2011, 15:02
Back to the Jaguars...........
Head says, "new".
Heart says, "old".

Havana
7th Sep 2011, 19:08
I have an E Type, as said above it is fairly cheap to run. It is noticed everywhere (even 6 year old kids know what it is) and is taken to be a thing of beauty and people do not touch it with sticky fingers :D

Insurance, just renewed fully comp 106 PA
Road Tax - zero rated
Service - minimal as the garage like working on it, it is easy with no complex electrics to sort through and most parts are off the shelf.

Finally it is still worth about what I paid for it 10 years ago.

The only downside is the fuel, a 4.2l drinks a lot of petrol.

GROUNDHOG
7th Sep 2011, 19:09
I agree with the cost of maintaining classics, owned until recently an old Porsche which in eight years I didn't spend a penny on and resold at a profit Have owned several old VW beetles, campers etc which have all been cheap to maintain and so easy to fix with dirt cheap or even secondhand parts.

The better half's Z4 started playing up yesterday, opened the bonnet and it looked gorgeous but nothing you could work on. Had to take it for a diagnostic check to find the coil on No5 cylinder had failed, repairable in a few minutes, parts a couple of quid, but an hour on the diagnostic machine with a bill of over 100.

Which would I choose - sorry but I have to say the new one despite the above - a car with no heated seats or aircon unthinkable!

mixture
7th Sep 2011, 19:17
and the 1k cat needs replacing or the 1k ECU fails as Blue-Up observes???

I'm sure your beloved classic car is equally capable in coming up with unexpected invoices. :E

Further more Blue-Up's observation is most likely based on personal experience, and not neccesarily guaranteed to happen with all cars.

What was the cost of your car new, and what is its value now?

(According to Parkers)

A base model 46,255, now worth 10,660.

But that doesn't take into account additional value of options fitted.

I paid a fair bit less, but that's a story for another day. :E

If you accept that the design life of a new car is approx. 7 years, then what is your annual depreciation?

It's a personal car, not a company car. Therefore depreciation is merely an accounting concept with no practical use to me as a private individual.

Plus, I feel if you're looking to compare depreciation to the cost of keeping a classic car going, I think it may be a little fairer to compare against a more middle-ground car than mine.

It does depend on your requirements. When I commuted 100 miles/day on motorways I had to own and wear out a modern car. For commuting 10 miles/day a classic car is quite suitable, with much lower overall running costs.

Something we can agree on !

I bought my present car as a tourer. It's nothing short but awsome in that role, point it at a long distance drive, and before you know it you've arrived, feeling as refreshed as the moment you set off.

I can't imagine doing the same in a classic car (it's been bad enough on the odd occasions as a passenger).

mixture
7th Sep 2011, 19:28
The only downside is the fuel, a 4.2l drinks a lot of petrol.

Another reason not to own a classic car. Your pouring money down the drain.

According to Mr Google, your 4.2 E-Type only does 17mpg.

My 4.2 modern car does closer to 30 (something like 26 or 28 is the manufacturer's official figure).

Lon More
7th Sep 2011, 19:37
Modern cars are designed not to be so.

Doubly so with Japanese models. In Japan the MOT exam is very expensive and seems designed to get older vehicles off the road so cars are not designed with longevity in mind.

Fareastdriver
7th Sep 2011, 19:56
Fuel consumption does not hoover through money anything like depreciation.
The difference over 10,000 miles between 17 mpg and 30 mpg is about 1,500. A classic that does no more than half that figure because another cheapo modern car is doing the commuting costs less in petrol and in depreciation than a 40,000 car.

Get a good E type for 40,000 for showing off and enjoying life. A 1000cc job for commuting, shopping and for the wife to drive you back from the pub.

pvmw
7th Sep 2011, 20:26
If you accept that the design life of a new car is approx. 7 years, then what is your annual depreciation?

It's a personal car, not a company car. Therefore depreciation is merely an accounting concept with no practical use to me as a private individual.

That's an interesting concept, its a "personal" car so depreciation is just an "accounting concept"!! I'd have thought quite the opposite, who cares what a company car costs. You have a interesting concept of accounting.

Depreciation is money thrown away, and is the most significant part of any car ownership. Thats the reason I'd never buy a new car, let someone else pay the depreciation. Fareastdriver has it spot on.

Um... lifting...
7th Sep 2011, 20:32
Admittedly, it may just be a matter of taste.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6e/Tooheys_Old_logo.png/150px-Tooheys_Old_logo.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Tooheysnewlogo.jpg

vulcanised
7th Sep 2011, 20:42
There's an E-Type on eBid Online Auctions - Buy & Sell in our Fee Free Internet Auctions for United Kingdom (http://www.ebid.co.uk) at 19500 when I saw it earlier today.

Um... lifting...
7th Sep 2011, 20:53
No shortage of them on this side of the pond at several price points... granted, the steering wheel migrates across the cockpit during the journey.

Jaguar E-Type for sale | Hemmings Motor News (http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/jaguar/e_type/)

ShyTorque
7th Sep 2011, 21:04
Parts for classic cars are difficult to get hold of. They are more expensive to insure. And restoring and maintaining them costs time and money.

You're looking in the wrong place for the first two. You could build many old classics from new, off the shelf spares via the owners' clubs in UK.

And when something goes wrong with that new Jag, you'll know what money costs really are.

flying lid
7th Sep 2011, 21:27
E type Jags are like gold, both bloody expensive but not too risky an investment. If you are looking for a safe haven for, say, 50K, an E type in the "right" spec and with provenance will allways keep it's value, and will, over the years, appreciate.

Old cars and parts ? - The brake servo failed on my 1973 (1957 design) Rover a while ago. A set of seals cost 20 + 2 hours work. No problem.

However I wouldn't use an E type (nor do I use my Rover) as a daily driver. Both would deplete the middle east oilfields rather swiftly !!.

Lid

B Fraser
7th Sep 2011, 21:35
Neither, a Jaguar D Type please !

http://www.ciltd.co.uk/Replica/dtype1.jpg

Lon More
7th Sep 2011, 21:45
You could always do a Brocket (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peer-faces-jail-after-admitting-pounds-45m-car-fraud-1526609.html) and lock them away in containers whilst claiming the insurance.

henry crun
7th Sep 2011, 22:49
B Fraser: An acquaintance of mine owned one of those.
On his way to a race meeting in it he was accelerating rather quickly out of a small provincial town.
He admitted he was passing somewhere around 80-90mph still in the 30 zone when a policeman stopped him and asked. "and just what do you think you were doing ?".
To which he replied "I was changing into third gear when you stopped me". :)

G-CPTN
7th Sep 2011, 23:31
I was stopped after accelerating away from traffic lights in the Morris Traveller (which had a Formula Junior engine in it).

The policeman who flagged me down asked me the question "And how fast do you think you were going?" to which I replied "Oh, Morris Minor second gear, 30mph?"

"Oh, come, come, come!" came the response "The vehicle you overtook was clocked at 40 mph by the radar." (which they had secreted behind a van parked on the footpath just beyond the junction)

"Unfortunately," he said, "the fact that you overtook him doesn't prove that you were travelling faster than him" (!) "but we have your number, and we will be watching out for you!" "So, be careful, otherwise we'll have you."

That was my warning and I behaved myself after that.

G-CPTN
7th Sep 2011, 23:40
When I was running the Lotus on the road, I was stopped several times when driving around town.

All of them only wanted to talk about the car and refused my offer to show my documents (which I carried). The initial question was always "Have you got this taxed and insured for the road?" but none needed to see proof.

One crew wanted to show me the Austin Healey engine in their Austin Westminster patrol car, and another crew wanted to watch me accelerating away and wanted to know 'how fast could you be going by the time you reached the 30 sign (the answer was 100 mph) but weren't interested in taking action against me.

I entertained the Westminster crew by doing a power turn from a standing start (full lock then full throttle) - half a donut - which they appreciated!

mixture
8th Sep 2011, 13:45
pnw,

That's an interesting concept, its a "personal" car so depreciation is just an "accounting concept"!! I'd have thought quite the opposite, who cares what a company car costs. You have a interesting concept of accounting.

Aah... but you'd be wrong.

Depreciation of a company asset is quite important because it has an effect on the balance sheet, the beancounters can play all sorts of fancy accounting tricks (e.g. claiming 100% first year allowances on low CO2 cars).

On the other hand, for me as a private individual its of no use practical use, hence it's merely an accounting concept.

As a private individual, it's rather simple :

A car is not classed as an "investment", thus ...
If you want it, and you can afford it, buy it.
You accept that it will be inevitably worth less (or nothing) when you come to dispose of it.
It's simply a fact of life.

Even the food you buy in the supermarket "depreciates" if you don't eat it soon enough.

pvmw
8th Sep 2011, 14:36
Aah... but you'd be wrong.

On the other hand, for me as a private individual its of no use practical use, hence it's merely an accounting concept.

As a private individual, it's rather simple :

A car is not classed as an "investment", thus ...
If you want it, and you can afford it, buy it.
You accept that it will be inevitably worth less (or nothing) when you come to dispose of it.
It's simply a fact of life.


Disagree completely. As an individual driving a car, if it is a company car than I don't care in the slightest about depreciation - unless I happen to either own the company or have a financial interest in it.

For me as a practical individual, the depreciation associated with a car I buy is of enormous significance - because its MY money that I'm losing. To buy a brand new car, that may depreciate 20% of its value the moment I drive it off the forecourt and then the rest of its value to 0 over the next 7 to 10 years, matters a lot to me. Then 7 years downstream, I have to produce another large amount of hard earned income to replace it with another - which will also depreciate from the moment I buy it. Your error is the statement "....accept that it will be inevitably worth less....". That is not necessarily the case, I do not accept that - and have no need to.

I prefer to buy after someone else has paid the majority of the depreciation. Even better, I like to own a car that doesn't depreciate and lose me money. A well sourced classic will provide pleasure, and retain its value. Seems a much better bet to me that spending - and losing - all that money on an expensive, new modern car.

My cars aren't "investments", they are my hobby. On the other hand, if/when I retire and wish to do so I can liquidate them and provide myself with a substantially large lump of cash. In the meantime they are a much better repository for my cash than a savings account, a modern car, or gold (I can't drive gold).

Um... lifting...
8th Sep 2011, 14:39
A couple fellows some years ago who had pulled themselves up out of their inner-city neighborhood used to go back to talk to the youngsters draping themselves in expensive (not to say silly) clothing, gilt chains and owning vehicles of no practical utility with gleaming rims and so forth.

One bit of wisdom they dispensed was:

"If it's on your *ss, it is NOT an asset."

That said, a collector vehicle can appreciate in value. The risk of course is that it is indeed a vehicle, and if driven (and owning a vehicle and not driving it is pointless in my view) it runs the inherent risks of sharing the road with other vehicles, many of them driven by idiots with mobile telephones seam-welded to their heads.

pvmw
8th Sep 2011, 14:47
....it runs the inherent risks of sharing the road with other vehicles

That is why one has Agreed Value insurance. If they are damaged they are repaired, and if beyond repair (very unlikely unless burned out) they are replaced or a cheque for the value given in exchange. Some people tuck them away in garages, but to my mind they may as well own a painting or a piece of Tracy Emmin.

Storminnorm
8th Sep 2011, 14:54
Don't think that I fancy any piece of Tracy Emmin.

Parapunter
8th Sep 2011, 15:00
My cars aren't "investments", they are my hobby. On the other hand, if/when I retire and wish to do so I can liquidate them and provide myself with a substantially large lump of cash. In the meantime they are a much better repository for my cash than a savings account, a modern car, or gold (I can't drive gold). You're making an assumption that the market for these cars will remain steady or increase. And that is a BIG assumption. As we all know from the eighties, cleverer people than you lost their shirts. An investment is just that. It can rise or fall.

MagnusP
8th Sep 2011, 15:01
Norm, most of Emmin is like car salesdroids describe vehicles - "pre-loved". :yuk:

Storminnorm
8th Sep 2011, 15:05
Magnus, I think the term you're looking for is "Shagged out!!"

Ref the Police bit above, I also got stopped whilst driving my
Ford Rochdale. They just wanted to know if I needed any help.
They gave me a push to help me get started again.
That was nice of them.

pvmw
8th Sep 2011, 15:11
You're making an assumption that the market for these cars will remain steady or increase. And that is a BIG assumption. As we all know from the eighties, cleverer people than you lost their shirts. An investment is just that. It can rise or fall.

And that is true of any investment you can name. In the current climate I have more confidence in the market for classic cars than I have for many other forms of investment.

Of course what you say is true, and I wouldn't put my last few quid on an old car but........ historically, despite the highs and lows of the market - and I agree, there was a serious bubble about a decade ago - the market in good cars of decent provenance has remained stable. Like land, they aren't making them any more.

The market in fact is very strong. There is a whole new type of buyer out there now coming from China and the Far East, and they are spending a lot of money on artifacts from the West. Classic/Vintage cars are just part of this. There is an auction in a couple of weeks of classic bikes, the star lot is a Brough Superior. A very special one, for sure - but the estimate is 400k to 450k. There is a lot of money out there chasing interesting items.

Incidentally, you don't know how clever I am - just as I don't know the same of you. Many "clever" people have lost their shirts - and a lot of OUR money - gambling on the banks and stock markets in the last decade. Presumably, by your criteria, I'm cleverer than them.

Parapunter
8th Sep 2011, 18:23
Not really, seeing as I don't know any bankers or blessedly, classic car nerds but I note we both agree I speak the truth.

mixture
8th Sep 2011, 18:24
Your error is the statement "....accept that it will be inevitably worth less....". That is not necessarily the case, I do not accept that - and have no need to.


The thing is, I put a car down as a "luxury item". In the same group as say Computers, Smartphones and Wine (some people "invest" in wine). Because if it's a necessity, then, in all likelihood, the company will pay for it anyway (wine generally excluded, unfortunately !) . I don't expect my computer or my smartphone to hold their value, therefore I've no need to expect my car to either.

Your argument about having to "put up hard earned cash" doesn't hold water either because classic or modern, you're going to have to stump up the cash in the first place. Its just that in the classic car case, you're making an assumption that it will hold or increase in value. Something that, as Parapunter points out is a dangerous assumption. Only made worse by inflation.

If your classic car is not appreciating in value by around 6% per annum (as a basic tax payer), or around 8% per annum as a first-tier (40%, first higher rate tax payer), it is effectively depreciating anyway. (The exact percentages depend if you base on CPI or RPI.).

So rather than sit around and worrying about depreciation on a luxury item, people should spend the time getting their investment houses in order. Not keeping so much cash in a "savings account" these days where you'll definitely be loosing money (see percentages above compared to what your savings account offers gross), and looking to build up a balanced, sustainable investment portfolio.

pvmw
8th Sep 2011, 19:07
we do seem to be straying from the original question - snide remarks about "nerds" notwithstanding.

The original question was which one would prefer. I propose old, for a number of reasons - one of which is, buy modern and you will lose a shedload of money. Buy old and you will not lose as much and if select wisely may actually outperform other investments. I've never proposed buying a classic car as an investment per se, but the fact that depreciation is unlikely to be an issue is an additional reason for buying something that will probably hold its value or increase it.

Another reason is aesthetic. The E-Type is one of the greatest designs of automobile ever, and who with a soul and an eye for classic design wouldn't want to own one.

Personally, I regret that classics have become such a desirable commodity, it means I am never going to get the chance of owning a Type 51 Bugatti.

Parapunter
8th Sep 2011, 19:12
Snide? Me, I'm a computer nerd. Meh.

You take it however you want and the way you seem to want is not that clever...:cool:

BombayDuck
8th Sep 2011, 21:57
The original question was which one would prefer. I propose old, for a number of reasons - one of which is, buy modern and you will lose a shedload of money. Buy old and you will not lose as much and if select wisely may actually outperform other investments. I've never proposed buying a classic car as an investment per se, but the fact that depreciation is unlikely to be an issue is an additional reason for buying something that will probably hold its value or increase it.

Completely accurate answer, pvmw, but probably completely missing the point.

You assumed "prefer" meant "buy". I suspect it meant "like", "love", "would want in my driveway" or "go around in it pulling birds/whatever the opposite of bird is".

And I'd take one of each! :}

Flying Lawyer
8th Sep 2011, 22:43
For fun - Old.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Flying%20Lawyer/E-type1.jpg

When the E-type was released - 50 years ago - Enzo Ferrari described it as 'the most beautiful car ever made'.
It still is one of the most beautiful, IMHO. (Not the fixed head coupe.)
I decided then, as a young schoolboy that, one day, I'd have a red roadster. I did eventually (30 years later) and drove it every day for about 3 years. Fairly heavy on fuel but worth every penny. :)
One of only two cars I wish I'd kept. (The other was Enzo's 308GTB.)


FL

GROUNDHOG
8th Sep 2011, 23:23
Now that FL is beautiful.......

Um... lifting...
8th Sep 2011, 23:44
Schoolteacher when one was about 10 owned a very similar vehicle in burgundy (or whatever that paint colo(u)r was called).

For that era, he was an exotic fellow in many ways. He was a male teacher in the U.S. (unusual for elementary schools of the time), he had been in the Air Force and been what we lads thought was everywhere, he made science interesting by building rockets and such things in the classroom, he dated the mother of one of our female schoolmates, and he drove the E-type. Yes, we wanted to be him (and the girls wanted him), though some wanted to be (or wanted) the other male teacher who reportedly grew marijuana on the windowsill in his classroom... tastes differ.

My group all set our sights on owning a similar machine (with a telephone, as he had, in the early 1970s) as part of our life plans (as well as driving through Monaco with one hand on the wheel and the other arm draped round a blonde with her hair in a scarf and wearing tortoiseshell frame sunglasses... we had it all figured out). One day, several of us were horsing around near where the Jag was parked. I remember him rushing from the building to break it up roaring: "That's a $7,000 car!"

Of course... that was new... though I suppose the same car would now be old.

I wonder where it is these days. I have heard he's alive and well and an active septuagenarian in Florida. It would please me greatly if he still had it.

G-CPTN
8th Sep 2011, 23:51
Now, FL, that is beautiful . . .Yes, I was speechless and had to recall the shiny red (Revell?) model that I built (1/24th scale IIRC).

The detail was amazing, and I learned all the features from the model whilst building it (as I had earlier with the Airfix Ferguson tractor).

I only drove one E-type (and that was a black FHC).

Loose rivets
9th Sep 2011, 00:04
Mmmm (in a thoughtful sort of way.) it is beautiful, but I feel not having a tin top is just a tad unwise.

In its day the roads had no national speed limits, and they were a very, very long legged car. The 308GT4 was just nippy by comparison. I think that tin top probably saved a lot of abraded heads. (Shudder :ooh:)

I was driving sedately home today. The queue of metal boxes filled a wonderful windy B road I once regularly had to myself. I got to thinking about the times I'd be driving home at dawn minus 1. Flat all the way. Just so much fun, and no danger to anyone else as long as you'd slow down for the villages.

It's odd, but I don't remember the E being too bad on fuel. 3.4 MkII, E 3.8 E 4.2, Daimler V8 thingie, all about 20-22. Mk 8 - 9 - and 10 3.8, 10 4.2 a solid 13 almost every tankful.

In 1972 was lucky to find an army officer going to N Island that wanted to sell his 1970 (thereabouts) XJ6. 1,800 like new. It was 4 on the floor plus electric overdrive. Always 21 - 22 driven as hard as it would go at night.

I recall fitting a micro-switch on the accelerator pedal that would knock the O-D out if the pedal was pressed into the carpet. It worked quite well. Removed the rear panels and tar-varnished the fuel tanks. Sprayed the backs of the lights with Waxoil ?? almost every week. Brought it by the gallon. Sills, doors, any boxed in sections, all had to be protected. Still looked like new when I sold it for 1,100. Waste of time really.

What did happen was what happened to all my Jags. A year or so with me and the mains rumbled. They really needed work by 70k.

Oh, such fun. Lightly oiling Hell's confetti before torquing down the cams. Measure the gaps, and try another shim. Could be a long procedure. You had to have a friendly dealer that would lend you the box of shims.

Circa 1966, a Jaguar rebuilt engine - with everything but the starter - cost 120 pounds. And that included the clutch. That's not a mistake. A head with those fantastic shims, cost 45 pounds. There was no VAT in those days. Front brake discs were 2. Mind you, I sold my MkII for 350 ish. Both E's, 750 each.


Edit in a thought. I did tend to run a tad weak. I used the newly invented Colourtune and tune for the right . . . erm, colour. But really, the only way was to look at the plug colour on a regular basis. Rear two dark, and I'd lean off the rear of the 3 huge SUs. Too white, and it'd burn the edges of the valves. One had to be careful.

Oh, the polishing of those huge valves. Deep joy, as Professor Unwin would say.

Did all that valve-shine make a difference to anything?

Flying Lawyer
9th Sep 2011, 00:38
LR

I agree a tin top is safer but I've always liked roadsters. My current car has an electric roll bar but I hardly ever use it. (I should.) Hope I'm not tempting fate by saying this http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/images/smilies/fingers_crossed.gif but I've only rolled once, and that was in a single-seater while racing.

The E-type did about about 20-22 mpg, as you say. I agree that's not bad. (The only car I've owned which gave more than 30 mpg was my first, an MG Midget.)

I'm impressed by your technical knowledge and skills. I wouldn't be able to do anything of that nature.

FL

pvmw
9th Sep 2011, 08:27
It's odd, but I don't remember the E being too bad on fuel. 3.4 MkII, E 3.8 E 4.2, Daimler V8 thingie, all about 20-22. Mk 8 - 9 - and 10 3.8, 10 4.2 a solid 13 almost every tankful
My Father had a Mk 9 when I was a boy - it was the first car i ever drove, down a farm track, and also the first car in which I travelled at 100mph. I remember my Fathers astonishment that he could get 20mpg out of it.

Other things I remember of it - it had three cigar lighters, after all - one wouldn't want to have to share. A row of mauve dash lights that lit the entire dash/footwell up like a tarts boudoir, a boot large enough to sit it (as a small boy I was threatened that would be where i was travelling if I didn't behave), and rust. That was Jaguars weak point in that era - tho' any car still extant will almost surely have been sorted by now. I could have had it when he retired, but I persuaded myself it was too modern (wrong), to big (right), and I couldn't afford it (right, at the time).

FL. Groundhog speaks true, that is stunningly beautiful. Anyone who says a car can't be a work of art has no soul.


Completely accurate answer, pvmw, but probably completely missing the point.

You assumed "prefer" meant "buy".

I did, that was my interpretation of the question. I'd like both as well, but I'm not that rich.

ShyTorque
9th Sep 2011, 09:38
LR,

Edit in a thought. I did tend to run a tad weak. I used the newly invented Colourtune and tune for the right . . . erm, colour. But really, the only way was to look at the plug colour on a regular basis. Rear two dark, and I'd lean off the rear of the 3 huge SUs. Too white, and it'd burn the edges of the valves. One had to be careful.

I've still got a Colourtune and I still use it when fitting different carbs; in fact I'll be using it in the next few days.. Such a simple idea. I do have a digital gas analyser too (useful for getting old cars through the MOT emissions test) but the Colourtune is much quicker to set up and use.
:ok:

Capetonian
9th Sep 2011, 16:26
I saw one of these this morning, magnificent. (But no dangling dice!)

http://slatford.co.uk/Pictures%20of%20Cars/Ford/Ford_Consul_ca_1962.jpg

Storminnorm
9th Sep 2011, 16:36
I had an original Ford Zephyr once.
It went quite well on the 110/120 octane stuff, but it made
the back end all green.
Sprayed the whole car green in the end. Then you couldn't see it.