What I’m about to say will undoubtedly get most everyone riled up, but before you all unite in a campaign to drown me in hate mail, let me throw out this disclaimer.

I genuinely appreciate a classic car that’s been lovingly redone with all the improvements that have been developed since it was first made. I’m of the opinion that if the technology and resources we have today were available at the time the car was originally made, the builders would likely have incorporated them. The time, passion, TLC and resources that goes into a full-on frame-off project is nothing short of miraculous. I take my 1968 hearse (considered a “survivor” in vintage car vernacular) to car shows and am always impressed with the effort put into the beautiful project cars some of the other guys bring. For some, working on the project has more appeal than enjoying the finished product. Others prefer to spend the money to have a car that’s “done”.

With that said, I’d like to share a controversial lexicographic pet peeve with you. Of all the car guys I know, there’s only one who uses the verb “restore” correctly when applied to automobiles. The one guy I know who uses it correctly is the world’s leading authority on all things Tucker; information, repair, parts, restoration, etc.

A car is new only once. The moment its engine is started, it’s technically used. Even the Chevrolet service bulletin remarks that once a new fan belt is installed and has made just one revolution, it’s considered used.

The definition of “restore” is to bring back to, or put back into an original state like when new. As this applies to automobiles, without a clarification phrase following the word “restore”, it means how the car was when it rolled off the factory assembly line including its inherent flaws, inadequacies and shortcomings. Most vintage car owners who want to preserve their car’s originality tend to fall into one of two categories; 1) absolute assembly line build-sheet correct with numbers matching so as to travel back in time and sit in the front seat of history upon stepping into the car [restored], 2) address design flaws and shortcomings so as to improve its drivability, reliability, and appearance [redone]. Unless you have the original build sheet, you don’t know what the car actually came with from the factory. In that scenario, the best you could do would be to replicate what the factory would have originally built.

In many cases, restoration is an impossible undertaking. In today’s environmentally conscious world, you’d be really hard pressed to find anyone to apply a proper “Japan Black” finish using asphalt and benzene (a known carcinogen) or any kind of paint that uses VOCs for that matter, or an original chrome plating using hexavalent chromium (also a carcinogen). ANY body repair is just that, repair. Restore would be the installation of new-old-stock panels that’ve been stored indoors for the last several decades. Welding on a replacement front clip… well, you get the idea.

There are cases where restoration may hinder future maintenance and repairs. For instance, in fall of 1972, Chevrolet announced the discontinuation of drain ***** on all radiators for the 1973 model year. They went on to say that draining the cooling system could be accomplished by removing the lower radiator hose or by siphoning — and how is that better than using a drain ****? In March of 1973, they announced the reinstatement of drain **** installation beginning sometime that month; I guess they had seen the light, were born again, and found religion. So, if you have an early 1973 Chevrolet with a drain **** on the radiator, the car’s not “restored”, it’s been improved or retrofitted. Many 1974-1975 GM cars had upper control arm shaft nuts welded in place. To service that, you had to cut the shaft. Who at GM comes up with these ideas? Anyway, if you don’t weld factory correct nuts on to factory correct bushing shafts, it’s not “restored”, but it is easier and less expensive to do future repairs which is an improvement.

Restoring a car back to factory original may be unwise from a safety stand point. Consider the recall of 1959 Cadillacs to address a defective steering component. Who would find faulty steering more valuable or desirable?

A car can never be considered restored as long as, during the “restoration” process, it’s been retrofitted with ANY kind of technology developed after the car’s manufacture date. GM didn’t offer clear coat (or “two-stage”) paint on cars until the mid-1980s and the results were crappy compared to today’s coatings. Same goes for POR-15 to treat rust; can’t use that. Forget installing headers, KYB shocks or urethane bushings in your vintage muscle car, brass freeze plugs in your engine, or stainless steel fuel/brake/exhaust tubing anywhere in any vintage car. Sealing technology has made remarkable advances since these cars were originally built. Overhauling an engine with Fel-Pro gaskets and various application specific sealers makes it better than new which technically is betterfied or, as my Tucker friend calls it, over-restored. I have never met a gearhead building a small block Chevy engine who would insist on using the correct intake manifold end seals (which are notorious for leaking) rather than a bead of RTV. Even something as seemingly trivial as upgrading the GM clock movement from the solenoid actuated winder mechanism to a maintenance free quartz movement is just that; an upgrade. Conversely, it would be foolish not to use improved technology and parts during a rebuild project, thus subsequently enjoying the benefits derived therefrom; I know I do. But, then again, I’ve never declared my cars to be "restored".

I understand and acknowledge that labeling a vintage car as “restored”, despite it being built using modern technological advancements, is simple and easy, but it’s misleading and could even be considered deceitful or deceptive, especially to some wide-eyed sucker who wants to buy a “restored” 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air with the 327 and 4-barrel carb. As Mona Lisa Vito said in the movie My Cousin Vinny, “Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55. The 327 didn't come out til '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with the 4-barrel carburetor til '64.” One should say that the functionality and integrity of the drivetrain, systems, subsystems, assemblies, subassemblies, body and interior have all been redone to be better than original. Maybe that’s a bit too wordy. How about something like, the car’s better than original. Still too wordy? How about “remanufactured” or, better yet, “reimagined”? I’ve seen folks use “build” or “project”, for example, “…my Chevelle build…” or “… my Malibu project…”, so how about “completed build”. Those descriptors are quick, easy and, more importantly, accurate.

By the way, something is either restored or not restored. Saying the car is partially restored is like saying a woman is a little pregnant. It would be more accurate to say it’s partially rebuilt, partially repaired, partially upgraded, partially retrofitted, or even mostly original. For that matter, what’s the difference between “fully restored” and “restored”?

So, rather than misusing the verb “restore”, diluting its significance, and risk being accused of deception, why not be honest and call it what it is; repaired and upgraded for the sake of preservation and enjoyment.

 

This is a major Story you got going here! Took me along time to read thru it and because I am an old fart I am not sure I retained it all yet, but I get it in bit's and pieces.
I enjoy watching the programs on Motor trend that redo the cars.
I also love going to the carshows and talking to the fellows who have the cars that I once owned that were new when I got them.
I have seen some pretty good restorations of items. I restore some antique furniture once in awhile, not as complicated as the cars you can't drive a curio cabinet.
Reality TV has brought us some fantastic builds, be it a home, a Car or other items.
Personally I believe a restoration if you want to call it that, should bring it up to the original specs. if your looking for a Concours d'elegance style car. If you want to make it function in today's driving environment you are going to need to update the brakes for stopping power, today's driver has relied on additional stopping power for so long that if they get behind the wheel of a 40 year old car they may not be able to stop it without some serious training.
USA drivers only get minimal drivers training and the folks in Germany as it understand have to take training for a long time to learn.
However when you see some of the traffic in the videos today form other countries you wonder how they get along. LOL

You have indicated a 74 Monte Carlo in your post, a friend of mine owned one of those brand new back in the day it was black, black vinyl roof, interior with swivel buckets. the garage space it took was nearly as much as my Dads Buick. If you are working on that to restore it will be a bunch of hours I wish you good luck.

 

IMO thats the buyer's fault if they fall for that. The term restored is clearly overused and doesn't have the exact same meaning to every person. If the buyer is looking for a car restored in the strictest interpretation as you're talking about, then they should either be educated and prepared to confirm that themselves or willing to pay an expert to do it for them.

To me its like those people that buy a numbers matching copo ss only to find out years later that its not. If someone is paying a premium for something like that, they should be putting in the effort to verify as there are plenty of untrustworthy people out there.

 

People love parroting buzzwords, even if they don't know what they mean. (3/4 cam??) 'Frame off restoration' is a biggie - Was it done by a high dollar restorer, or say - me? Like #3 said, I like going to shows and talking to people - about their cars and what they did to them, although not the cars that I owned new. The only thing I disagree with is that no one uses intake end gaskets, I always do.