SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!

Author Topic: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!  (Read 188440 times)

Offline anlauto

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12328
  • I'm Alan G...I'm a Mopar Addict
    • Alan Gallant Automotive Restoration
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #465 on: November 21, 2013 - 09:01:11 PM »
Let me rephrase...I've seen dozens of photos of parts coated in RPM but never see it with my own eyes or held it in my own hands.

Could that guy wax in moustach with it ?
I've taught you everything you know.....but I haven't taught you everything I know !
www.alangallantautomotiverestoration.com




Offline hemiken

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 8785
  • Hemi-fied Mopar in Australia
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #466 on: November 21, 2013 - 10:51:13 PM »
Well how i look at a restoration is it is a "cost thing" and the customer determines to what level he or she wants to take that restoration, if you are painting a simulated colour on to a part that was not painted originally to capture the effect of bare steel, that too can be deemed as non correct restoration, so a true restoration in all its glory would be to take a car back to its foundation of how it rolled off the assembly line, saying that, the application of a product like ECS RPM would be catogorized as a "preservation material" to keep the original colour and finish of an existing part that was originally roar or bare steel when it left that said assembly plant. That is what would be a fair assumption in my proffessional opinion. :2thumbs:
1970 Barracuda   (O^--^===|===^--^O)
1971 Barracuda   (O O {]{]{]|[}[}[} O O)
1970 Challenger  (O O [======R/T=] O O)
1971 Challenger  (O O ===== ===== O O)
I pay homage to the best Mopars ever built.

Offline hemiken

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 8785
  • Hemi-fied Mopar in Australia
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #467 on: November 21, 2013 - 11:32:47 PM »
Some people just do not have a clue buddy :grinno: all we can do is smile and keep on motoring in these cases. :wave:
1970 Barracuda   (O^--^===|===^--^O)
1971 Barracuda   (O O {]{]{]|[}[}[} O O)
1970 Challenger  (O O [======R/T=] O O)
1971 Challenger  (O O ===== ===== O O)
I pay homage to the best Mopars ever built.

Offline resq302

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #468 on: November 21, 2013 - 11:44:05 PM »
Thanks Ken!  The posts on the other forum are becoming quite humorous.  Below (in bold print) is a quote that someone posted explaining the difference between "Restored vs. Customized".  I don't think he realized that his comment was a complete contradiction to the point he was trying to make. 

I have also included the definitions for the words RESTORE and CUSTOMIZED.  It is impossible to "Over-Restore" anything!  The two words used together are an oxymoron.  I think the definitions are simple to understand!

"Over restored would be something on the order of all body gaps being even, something these cars never were new. Customized, would Be to alter the appearance so as to make it unique or different then the rest."

re·store  (r-stôr, -str)
tr.v. re·stored, re·stor·ing, re·stores
1. To bring back into existence or use; reestablish: restore law and order.
2. To bring back to an original condition: restore a building. See Synonyms at revive.
3. To put (someone) back in a former position: restore the emperor to the throne.
4. To make restitution of; give back: restore the stolen funds.


cus·tom·ize ˈkəstəˌmīz/
verb
1. Modify (something) to suit a particular individual or task.
"the suit can be customized for every skydiving need"


Thank you, Dave.  That made me laugh.  Could use a good laugh here tonight at work! :smilielol:

Offline ChallengerHK

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 7338
  • I'm working on it - No, really
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #469 on: November 22, 2013 - 02:09:00 AM »
I have a great deal of respect for what you do, and for the effort it takes to do it.

That being said, and speaking to Alan's point, a change that is invisible is still a change. What you have with RPM is probably the best possible compromise between "the moment it rolled off the line" and "what it needs to be to maintain the hard work that you've done."


"She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, and I've made a lot of special modifications myself."

- Han Solo, Star Wars

Advice Thread - Taking Pictures Of Cars

Offline resq302

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #470 on: November 22, 2013 - 04:36:10 AM »
So, by that thinking if you have to bore out the cylinders due to wear or whatever on an engine due to age, etc, would technically still be "modified" since it is not the same as it would have rolled off the assembly line because it would be invisible unless you pull apart the engine.

Offline ChallengerHK

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 7338
  • I'm working on it - No, really
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #471 on: November 22, 2013 - 04:59:52 AM »
Very similar, but not completely the same. Applying RPM doesn't affect operation, at least as far I understand the product. Boring the motor, or more precisely, leaving it unbored, would affect the operation. So from the standpoint of having an operating vehicle, there's a more compelling case to bore the motor than there is to apply RPM.

Ultimately, that small difference is rendered somewhat moot, as these are not vehicles that are meant to ever be operated again, at least on a frequent basis. So at that point, yes, a change is a change, regardless of whether it is visible. Visib;e changes are obviously easier to identify.

But I think the question you're really asking (correct me if you think I'm wrong) is "How should this affect OE judging standards?" That's a question for other people. It's just not how I think about cars. I follow this thread out of curiosity, and to learn things for which I might have limited, specific applications.



"She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, and I've made a lot of special modifications myself."

- Han Solo, Star Wars

Advice Thread - Taking Pictures Of Cars

Offline hemiken

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 8785
  • Hemi-fied Mopar in Australia
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #472 on: November 22, 2013 - 06:43:20 AM »
Ponder about this one for a while, If one was to take an original untouched survivor car, can be the biggest rust bucket on earth or the most prestine of its kind in the world, the moment someone has taken a part or any paint from either one of these vehicles governs it as modified, this is a true fact. So in reality it would not matter what procedure was taken, any car that has been worked on after the build date is classed as modified. These are facts as the original building, assembly and paint of any vehicle are unique to one time only in its life, anything there after is a modification. SO, we are talking about a true correct documented proceedure followed and executed in its trueist form as best of someone in a professional position, following protocol to make the vehicle as close to correct as how it left the assembly line. So i see this application, and this is what i do for a living as a professional restoration/custom fabricator, as just a method to capture that moment in time to PRESERVE the correct finishes and look of a vehicle in its full RESTORED condition. So in reality, everything that has ever rolled off an assembly line that got an Oil change or even Gas could be deemed MODIFIED, as they too are liquids with different vicosities like RPM, their really has to be a point where people must draw a line and accept that things are what they are and if someone puts a clear film of matter on a part to preserve it, then that is the same as someone painting the part to achieve the same effect, But with out the actuall same results as the previous method. I know what way i would do it :grinyes:
1970 Barracuda   (O^--^===|===^--^O)
1971 Barracuda   (O O {]{]{]|[}[}[} O O)
1970 Challenger  (O O [======R/T=] O O)
1971 Challenger  (O O ===== ===== O O)
I pay homage to the best Mopars ever built.

Offline anlauto

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12328
  • I'm Alan G...I'm a Mopar Addict
    • Alan Gallant Automotive Restoration
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #473 on: November 22, 2013 - 08:20:06 AM »
I disagree with the term "Over-restored" being an oxi-moron.

I believe there is room for that term in our hobby as it IN MY OPINION describes a car that is restored  stock original in appearance yet with a quality standard that far exceeds what was done by the factory. This term was coined back when people were painting the underside of cars body colour, adding perfect door gaps, even chrome plating aluminum trim, etc...

So I guess technically, by the dictionary definition, they are not "restored" however until somebody comes up with a more correct term, it's all we have to use...

We see the term "restored" used every day on cars with mag wheels and chrome valve covers too...
I've taught you everything you know.....but I haven't taught you everything I know !
www.alangallantautomotiverestoration.com

Offline anlauto

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12328
  • I'm Alan G...I'm a Mopar Addict
    • Alan Gallant Automotive Restoration
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #474 on: November 22, 2013 - 08:27:09 AM »
Quote
The fact is that if you change ANY aspect of how a Car came from the Factory, you have Modified, Altered or Customized it!

The only reason I asked about using RPM is because of the quote above, made by ECS.
However he has clarified that if the aspect is invisible it doesn't alter the outcome.
Quote
100% correct.  However, one aspect you didn't mention is that the RPM "modification" is invisible when properly applied
So therefore boring cylinders and things unseen shouldn't matter. :2cents:
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013 - 08:29:40 AM by anlauto »
I've taught you everything you know.....but I haven't taught you everything I know !
www.alangallantautomotiverestoration.com

Offline resq302

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #475 on: November 22, 2013 - 10:12:01 AM »
The term restored refers to bringing something back to its original condition.  Cars were never originally painted on the undersides of the body with body color, gaps perfectly even throughout the car, even flawless paint job with no orange peel or lack of runs.

My opinion, doing an oil change would be acceptable only if you used the correct filter.  Take for example a car that came with a green textured oil filter from the factory and had a red, white, and blue one put on which started in 1972.  That would be incorrect and therefore would not fall under the term restored.  Same goes for the boring out of the engine.  You are now physically altering the size of the engine so that say 383 is no longer a 383 but a 383 ci. plus .030 over bore.


Offline anlauto

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12328
  • I'm Alan G...I'm a Mopar Addict
    • Alan Gallant Automotive Restoration
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #476 on: November 22, 2013 - 11:36:19 AM »
Well until our hobby comes up with a word to correctly identify cars that look all stock and original yet have a better quality then when new....I will continue to use the term "over-restored" . :2cents:

Since your company has an excellent track record of bringing quality 100% accurate reproductions parts to the market, maybe you should consider getting into the "word business'' and develope a new word that would decsribe these types of cars accurately and to your satsifaction. :dunno:
"Modified" is already being used to describe something totally different.  :nono:
I've taught you everything you know.....but I haven't taught you everything I know !
www.alangallantautomotiverestoration.com

Offline resq302

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #477 on: November 22, 2013 - 11:45:02 AM »
Well until our hobby comes up with a word to correctly identify cars that look all stock and original yet have a better quality then when new....I will continue to use the term "over-restored" . :2cents:

Since your company has an excellent track record of bringing quality 100% accurate reproductions parts to the market, maybe you should consider getting into the "word business'' and develope a new word that would decsribe these types of cars accurately and to your satsifaction. :dunno:
"Modified" is already being used to describe something totally different.  :nono:

Alan,

Modified has a broad general meaning.  Anything that deviates from original would be considered modified.  Heck, even my 69 Charger that wears R4 red paint which was optional in 1969 as a factory color is considered modified by some people because it is not the original color of the car.  For that matter, even putting radial tires on a car that was only available with bias ply tires would be considered modified.  Modified can not mean just one thing but a degree of what is done.

Offline ChallengerHK

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 7338
  • I'm working on it - No, really
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #478 on: November 22, 2013 - 12:17:07 PM »
The phrase "Over-Restored" is absolutely, positively an Oxymoron.

Definition of OXYMORON
A combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly :  something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.     


While when taking one word at a time it's an oxymoron, that doesn't mean that it doesn't describe a condition when taken as a phrase. "Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron, but it does describe a real thing.  :lol:


"She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, and I've made a lot of special modifications myself."

- Han Solo, Star Wars

Advice Thread - Taking Pictures Of Cars

Offline anlauto

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12328
  • I'm Alan G...I'm a Mopar Addict
    • Alan Gallant Automotive Restoration
Re: SURVIVOR vs. GROUND-UP RESTORATION!
« Reply #479 on: November 22, 2013 - 12:36:04 PM »
Alan,

Modified has a broad general meaning.  Anything that deviates from original would be considered modified.  Heck, even my 69 Charger that wears R4 red paint which was optional in 1969 as a factory color is considered modified by some people because it is not the original color of the car.  For that matter, even putting radial tires on a car that was only available with bias ply tires would be considered modified.  Modified can not mean just one thing but a degree of what is done.

...and so can the word "restored"  :2cents:
I've taught you everything you know.....but I haven't taught you everything I know !
www.alangallantautomotiverestoration.com