MyE28.com

Restored means RESTORED TO AS-NEW CONDITION. Otherwise, the term "restored" is being used improperly. If the car isn't 99.99% AS-NEW, it isn't really completely restored. Mechanical restorations and cosmetic restorations are just that, and their descriptions describe their limits. I HATE IT when people say a car is "Fully Retsro'd" and its just a new coat of paint and some spiffing up of other assorted bits. Its bullshit, and just the seller's way of making more money on the sale. At best they might be considered "Resto-Mod", a loose term in itself.

By definition, a restored car will be like the day it left the factory, with new (preferably NOS) parts where it is impossible or impractical to make the originals 100%. I too vastly prefer an original car, and think most of the BS "restorations" ruin the appeal of the car. I think Mike (OcCoupe) is right on the money.

In their Classic Cars section NADA mentions your terms in their Value Explanations

Value Explanations

Prices shown are retail consumer values and to be considered as selling prices. Trade-in values are to be determined by local dealers and are generally lower than values shown.

Low Retail Value
This vehicle would be in mechanically functional condition, needing only minor reconditioning. The exterior paint, trim, and interior would show normal wear, needing only minor reconditioning. May also be a deteriorated restoration or a very poor amateur restoration. Most usable "as-is".

Some of the vehicles in this publication could be considered "Daily Drivers" and are not valued as a classic vehicle. When determining a value for a daily driver, it is recommended that the subscriber use the low retail value.

Note: This value does not represent a "parts car".

Average Retail Value
This vehicle would be in good condition overall. It could be an older restoration or a well-maintained original vehicle. Completely operable. The exterior paint, trim, and mechanics are presentable and serviceable inside and out. A "20-footer".

High Retail Value
This vehicle would be in excellent condition overall. It could be a completely restored or an extremely well maintained original vehicle showing very minimal wear. The exterior paint, trim, and mechanics are not in need of reconditioning. The interior would be in excellent condition. Note: This value does not represent a "100 Point" or "# 1" vehicle *.

* "100 Point" or "# 1" vehicle is not driven. It would generally be in a museum or transported in an enclosed trailer to concourse judging and car shows. This type of car would be stored in a climate-regulated facility.

I agree and join the rant with the mostly loose misuse of the terms.

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.

Jake D wrote:

OcCoupe wrote: Perhaps my view is different than others.

It most definitely is. There's no 'perhaps' about it. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't make your right, either. Your connotation of the term is far more strict than the majority. I'm not sure that it's fair to hold people to your strict standard of the term 'restored.'

Anything that you repair or fix is a restoration process. If my toaster breaks and I fix it, I've restored it to a state in which I can use it to make my breakfast!

Yes; but you did not restore that toaster to the condition it was in when it was packaged at the factory. You just fixed it since it was broken. Then I would say you restored it to a working condition; but you did not "restore" it.

95% restored strongly states that only 5% of the car is left to be restored. A hard calculation to make but none the less it should only take another 5% to take it 100% restored back to its original condition as it was when it left the factory. Why should there be any variation of this.

A resto-mod is a different story. I would say that a resto-mod is a car that is brought back to like new condition as in the car has been stripped and everything renewed to as original except where there is a modification. In the case of the modifications whatever part was used needs to be brand new or like brand new this includes any fabrication that has been done. What would the car look like if it had left the factory with the modifications already done.

Kyle in NO wrote:By definition, a restored car will be like the day it left the factory, with new (preferably NOS) parts where it is impossible or impractical to make the originals 100%. I too vastly prefer an original car, and think most of the BS "restorations" ruin the appeal of the car. I think Mike (OcCoupe) is right on the money.

Kyle, thank you.

booker wrote:Unless you're a lady, you should stop wearing panties. Just sayin...

How do you know I am not a lady? And what I do on my own time is my business. By the way, Are you done with my g-string? Can I have it back please?

m-racer wrote:I think you are both full of crap.

Great job on changing the civility of this thread.

m-racer wrote:and I doubt that you have ever really restored a car to that level.

I never have claimed to.

m-racer wrote:Restored, by definition, means restored to what ever level described. It in no way refers to a perfect car (regardless of what you think).

I completely disagree and so does the definition. By the way, I don't think any factory has ever put out a "perfect" car. I never mentioned anything about "perfect". I have been under brand new Bentley's, Ferrari's, and other ultra luxury vehicles and I can assure you even the new ones are not perfect when they come out of the factory.

m-racer wrote:but the term does not in any way mean restored to new condition or like the day it left the factory.

Sure does, if it didn't than what are you restoring it to a different level of tired than it was before? I've restored it from being a pile of junk now it starts so it is restored? Maybe it has been restored to running condition; but it is not "restored"

So from what I am gathering is that restored requires that someone sets the bar at what level of restoration they are trying to achieve. If you are trying to restore it to a condition it was in when it was 10 years old with 50,000 miles then I guess you could say you restored it to that condition; but then you need to state that and state that with proof that it was in that certain condition when it had 50,000 miles on the clock.

I still believe, and no I am not full of crap, the use of the term restored when applied to automobiles not houses absolutely implies and states that it was restored to original condition.

Started reading the thread and I have a couple of comments.

First, I think the OP will find that most people on this board are of the same mindset in regards to the abuse that we have seen with people incorrectly using the term "restored". To what level people wish to consider restored is their own hangup/fixation.

Second, I personally find a low mileage, unrestored car to be neat/wonderful/beautiful/etc., but for all intents and purposes, a WASTE. There was an absolutley gorgeous M635CSi on display in the Zentrum during Sharkfest in 2006. Buffalo interior, exceedingly low miles, virtually as it was when it came off the factory floor. It almost made me sick - not because it wasn't a thing of beauty, but because it had been turned into a DAMN MUSEUM PIECE!

Third, since I will more than likely never have the funds to be able to afford this type of frivolity (nor the proclivity to do so), it really pisses me off that "investors", by dint of the all mighty dollar, make it that much more difficult for the "common" man to be able to enjoy/afford the older "classics" because of the rampant over-restoration of just about anything with wheels on it. I understand the mechanics of it, but it still irks me. One moment, a 1971 El Camino is "affordable" - the next, it's a $30K entry fee for a nice example. Again, I don't need a lecture on the market/supply & demand/capitalism/etc. aspect of it - it just grinds my gears a bit.

Last, can you point to where Tim (m-racer) stated the quotes you have posted in your replies? I would love to read all of his comments, as I find the man to be very knowledgeable about the market, and I believe he and I share the same views in regards to concours condition and museum pieces. If the comments you quoted are from a personal e-mail or private message, then I don't see where he would have changed the "civility of the thread", as I can not find those particular comments from anyone in the thread.

Tim, I'm not trying to be your advocate or anything like that, as I know you are more than capable of speaking your mind. Just another of my pet peeves when someone misquotes another person.

Karl Heinz wrote:Tim, I'm not trying to be your advocate or anything like that, as I know you are more than capable of speaking your mind. Just another of my pet peeves when someone misquotes another person.

Karl I had started quoting Tim; but he deleted his post before my reply went up. I commented on his line where he said that he felt Kyle and I were both full of crap. I didn't feel that was necessary.

The other quotes were from his same post.

OcCoupe wrote:

m-racer wrote:I think you are both full of crap.

Great job on changing the civility of this thread.

m-racer wrote:and I doubt that you have ever really restored a car to that level.

I never have claimed to.

m-racer wrote:Restored, by definition, means restored to what ever level described. It in no way refers to a perfect car (regardless of what you think).

I completely disagree and so does the definition. By the way, I don't think any factory has ever put out a "perfect" car. I never mentioned anything about "perfect". I have been under brand new Bentley's, Ferrari's, and other ultra luxury vehicles and I can assure you even the new ones are not perfect when they come out of the factory.

m-racer wrote:but the term does not in any way mean restored to new condition or like the day it left the factory.

Sure does, if it didn't than what are you restoring it to a different level of tired than it was before? I've restored it from being a pile of junk now it starts so it is restored? Maybe it has been restored to running condition; but it is not "restored"

So from what I am gathering is that restored requires that someone sets the bar at what level of restoration they are trying to achieve. If you are trying to restore it to a condition it was in when it was 10 years old with 50,000 miles then I guess you could say you restored it to that condition; but then you need to state that and state that with proof that it was in that certain condition when it had 50,000 miles on the clock.

I still believe, and no I am not full of crap, the use of the term restored when applied to automobiles not houses absolutely implies and states that it was restored to original condition.

Actually, I deleted my post in the name of civility. You must have responded to it while I was deleting it. Restoration is what it is. You may define it however you want. That does not mean that anyone else has to define it in the same terms. I spent 18k mechanically restoring Ron P's former Euro M5 and that engine was modified. It was far from perfect (athough one of the best E28's I have ever seen). It won several awards at the National Concours. I consider it a damn nice car, restored (though not as it rolled off the showroom floor) enough for me, but not restored by your definition. The agave green s14 powered 2002 on the cover of Roundel (year of the car Jan, 2002) was also mine and won People's Choice at the BMWCCA National. It started out a a rusty shell and ended up considered by the faithful as the best 2002 restoration they had ever seen. It had an S14 and Recaro seats and laquer paint. By your definition, not restored. My 356SC won similar awards at the Porsche National Parade. It has a modified engine and the interior is not the original color. Not restored by your definition. My house in VA is designated as restored by the National Historic Trust. Guess what, it has modern bathrooms and kitchen and updated wiring and plumbing. Not restored by your definition. You get to have an opinion. It just doesn't make any sense to me. You do not get, however, to define what restored means except for your own use. Civil enough for you?

Did you read what I said about restomods? It validates everything you said about your cars. I consider my e9 to be a restomod and not restored even though I intend to finish it to very high standards.

What started me off was not an ad but some post by a new member who stated that his company restores M cars as well as e28's, e12's, and e9's. I may have missed a couple of e's there. If anyone has ever restored or even attempted to restore an e9 then they know that it is not a small task to take on, nor is a 2002 or an e28. But to just throw out the term as if it were just a simple task irks me. I'm not questioning your cars I'm questioning the loose use of the term. If you got offended then you read this incorrectly.

My 535i is very clean, I think it is very nice. I don't know how it would stand up to your 2002, or euro M5, (by the way if it is the Diamond Schwartz one I think that car is beautiful); but I do know it is a fine example of a low mileage car that is very nicely sorted out and has tasteful mods such as euro bumpers, working headlight washers, and style 5's and an almost perfect interior. I think if you saw it in person you would be impressed and perhaps pat me on the back for my attention to detail AND for knowing how many hours and how much money it takes to bring a car to that level. I do not however consider it restored even though people have made comments that it looks as if it just came off the showroom floor.

I think I'll need to restore my bloody mary before attempting to finish this thread.

OcCoupe wrote:Did you read what I said about restomods? It validates everything you said about your cars. I consider my e9 to be a restomod and not restored even though I intend to finish it to very high standards.

What started me off was not an ad but some post by a new member who stated that his company restores M cars as well as e28's, e12's, and e9's. I may have missed a couple of e's there. If anyone has ever restored or even attempted to restore an e9 then they know that it is not a small task to take on, nor is a 2002 or an e28. But to just throw out the term as if it were just a simple task irks me. I'm not questioning your cars I'm questioning the loose use of the term. If you got offended then you read this incorrectly.

My 535i is very clean, I think it is very nice. I don't know how it would stand up to your 2002, or euro M5, (by the way if it is the Diamond Schwartz one I think that car is beautiful); but I do know it is a fine example of a low mileage car that is very nicely sorted out and has tasteful mods such as euro bumpers, working headlight washers, and style 5's and an almost perfect interior. I think if you saw it in person you would be impressed and perhaps pat me on the back for my attention to detail AND for knowing how many hours and how much money it takes to bring a car to that level. I do not however consider it restored even though people have made comments that it looks as if it just came off the showroom floor.

I am not offended. I just don't agree with you. Once again. you get a point of view and you have every right to it. That, does not, define the term restoration for the everyone else. I hate the term restomod and your comments do not validate anything, at least not for me. Restoration is an umbrella term and requires context and definition.

I find it rather amusing that you're knit-picking the use of the term restored, but you're perfectly content with using restomod.
Restomod is not a word. It's a shortcut way of saying "restored and modified."

If there is another, more appropriate, general term that the entire automotive community should be using, I sure can't think of it.

I am going to agree to disagree, I hope we can all agree to this.

As long as I don't have to call my house a restomod.

m-racer wrote:As long as I don't have to call my house a restomod.

No, you will not and thank you for the humor.

You are welcome. I look forward to seeing how the coupe turns out. I have wanted one ever since I saw my fiend Paul Cain's.

m-racer wrote:You are welcome. I look forward to seeing how the coupe turns out. I have wanted one ever since I saw my fiend Paul Cain's.

Paul Cain is mentoring me on my engine build! He is a great guy as you know and such an enthusiast.

I wouldn't wait too long on acquiring a coupe or a coupe project, I see the prices climbing and the nicer examples commanding quite a premium. This is what I would like to achieve looks-wise:


I'm happy to keep my eyes peeled for one.

OcCoupe wrote:

m-racer wrote:You are welcome. I look forward to seeing how the coupe turns out. I have wanted one ever since I saw my fiend Paul Cain's.

Paul Cain is mentoring me on my engine build! He is a great guy as you know and such an enthusiast.

I wouldn't wait too long on acquiring a coupe or a coupe project, I see the prices climbing and the nicer examples commanding quite a premium. This is what I would like to achieve looks-wise:


I'm happy to keep my eyes peeled for one.

Thanks, but I work out of the country most of the time, so zero bandwidth to wrench. Say hey to Paul for me. He helped me sell my 02 when I migrated to the UK. His coupe is perhaps my favorite BMW.

m-racer wrote:Thanks, but I work out of the country most of the time, so zero bandwidth to wrench. Say hey to Paul for me. He helped me sell my 02 when I migrated to the UK. His coupe is perhaps my favorite BMW.

I do like his coupe, he and his brother are very talented. I will make sure to say hi to him at this Saturday's cars n coffee.