<VV> Restoration economics, was: Rust stopping-humor

[airvair at earthlink.net]

Reminds me of one of the "Otto the Mechanic" cartoons in Old Cars Weekly.
Otto's talking to his buddy who just finished restoring a '50 Studebaker
4door. He says "I kept meticulous records of all the parts and supplies
used, plus all my hours. And comparing all that to the finished car's
worth, I worked for...... 50 CENTS AN HOUR!?"

There's really only two reasons for restoring most cars (and especially
cars like the Corvair, where its potential resale value isn't
astronomical). The first is because the owner simply loves to work on cars,
even if he never intends to make anything on it. The second is because the
owner is in love with that particular car (sentimentality). Put the two
together and you have a labor of love.

-Mark


> [Original Message]
> From: Alan and Clare Wesson <alan.wesson at atlas.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Rust stopping-humor
>
> This is most definitely true. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to fix
rust 
> on their Vair unless they had a really good reason to (i.e. the car is 
> sentimentally valuable or monetarily valuable). And Vairs are among the 
> cheaper cars to restore, because the parts availability is so good and
they 
> are relatively simple.
>
> I have learnt this the hard way myself - when I fixed my Dad's Fiat in
the 
> 70s it was because I liked the car and as I was a schoolkid my time was
my 
> own (and it was way better than watching TV) (well, I think so anyway!). 
> (;-))
>
> Then I restored the old Ford that I still have now. I did that when I was
at 
> college, and again this was because I had a lot of one commodity (time)
and 
> not much of another (money). As long as that equation holds, restoring a
car 
> is fine.
>
> However, once your time becomes more valuable than that of a schoolchild
or 
> a student, the economics of it die completely. All of the next 10 or so
cars 
> that I restored cost me money to do so (i.e. I sold them for less than I
had 
> in them).
>
> I then worked out that I was in effect paying people for the privilege of 
> restoring the car I had just sold them, and I decided this was silly, so
I 
> went into the business of fixing cars for other people. That works great, 
> because I get paid for my time and the fact that their car is worth less 
> than they have in it isn't my problem.
>
> But, being an honest and sympathetic should, I hate to see people waste 
> their money, so when they book their car into us for bodywork I
invariably 
> tell them the above. I say to them that their car is worth X dollars now 
> (say for the sake of argument $2000). I then say to them that it will
cost X 
> dollars to fix the rust (call it $2000 again), and that there is no way
that 
> their car will be worth X + X dollars at the end (in this case it would
be 
> $4000). I say to them that in my view it is not sensible to pay me $2000
to 
> restore a $2000 car that will be worth (say) $3000 when it is finished.
>
> To date, EVERY SINGLE customer that I have told that to has gone ahead
and 
> had their car fixed anyway. The most extreme example is an Irish guy 
> recently who didn't want us to do the work (he's there and we are here!), 
> but he wanted a whole long list of parts so that he could get the car
done 
> in Ireland. The cost of the parts came to well over $3000, and the 
> restorer's bill will be at least another $10-15000 (I am converting the 
> money for you - he talks in euros and we talk in pounds).
>
> So he will have $20000 or so in the car when it is finished (he still
needs 
> more parts). The car is an absolute shed at the moment - it has a
horrible 
> interior, the body is absolutely rusted to death, etc., etc., etc. It is
a 
> Lancia Fulvia, and a lot of the parts for those are unavailable and/or 
> expensive (including the interior - he'll never get one of those).
>
> So his $20000 car will not be very good when it's done (say condition 2
or 
> 3). I suggested gently that he could get a perfect one from Italy for
$10000 
> or so, and I even offered to bring it over for him cheaply. In fact I
found 
> him one for sale (here it is: 
> http://www.lanciaflavia.it/annunci/dettid.php?gb_id=70482 - not sure I
could 
> live with the colour but he didn't mind that).
>
> What put him off buying the car was that he would waste what he already
had 
> in his (about $10000), and that this one is left-hand-drive. But he would 
> have lost way less money if he just junked his existing car now than if
he 
> carries on.
>
> And I can't believe that the guy would rather have a car that is a piece
of 
> cr*p than one that is in good condition, just because of the location of
the 
> steering wheel. In everyday driving LHD/RHD is unnoticeable after a few
days 
> (of the 20 or so cars I own, about half are LHD and half RHD).
>
> Anyway, he did like the rest of my customers - he's restoring a basket
case 
> and pouring thousands that he'll never get back into it. I did at least
try 
> to warn him.
>
> Me? I don't restore cars for myself any more except the rare and valuable 
> Lancia van I have. It's just not worth it - partly because I have 'wised
up' 
> to the above financial calculations and partly because I never have the 
> spare time to work on my own when I have finished the customers' ones.
>
> But mostly the reason I don't fix my own cars is because it is always 
> cheaper and always better to buy a car that is in good condition in the 
> first place. You end up with a car that is original (which in my view is 
> always preferable) and has cost you less money. It took me 20 years to
work 
> out (but I have finally got there) that it is cheaper to pay $10000 for a 
> Vair that is in perfect condition, than to pay $500 for one that needs 
> restoring. But it's true. And you get a nicer car, however well the 
> restoration has been done (because even when they are done to AACA Senior 
> standard they don't look original and are 'too good' - i.e. way better
than 
> GM built them in the first place).
>
> Cheers
>
> Alan
>