Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[UKdave2002]

Let’s have your vote

I have a 1939 Morris 8 series E purchased 7 years ago ran it for a few years intending it to be a running restoration. A couple of years ago the MOT man (very apologetically!) found a hole in the chassis, which I intended to weld up and carry on. As I peeled away underseal I found a large amount of “fibreglass chassis”, and areas where chassis patches are now welded to the body, the work of a master bodger that must have fooled MOT men for many a year.

Last year I acquired a brand new body shell that apparently had sat in a Morris dealer in the Lake District since the 50’s a couple of months later I acquired a chassis in perfect condition, which may also never have been used.

Now do I for the sake of originality repair the current body and chassis, or do I build a car with the new chassis and body using my original car as a donor?

Dave

[admin]

Tricky! if you want a regular user that needn't be a minter, then I'd be inclined to suggest fixing up the original. If you want a 100% concours show-winner that gets trailered everywhere, then maybe the new shell and chassis would be a perfect starting point....almost seems a shame to use up such a rare find (the new shell) - like I said, tricky!!

Rick

[UKdave2002]

What ever I do it will get driven under its own steam to events ! its one of the reasons I have been looking at having the body primed with a zinc phosphate coat by a electroplate immersion process, like they do with new cars.
If I don’t use the new body what do I do with it? Incidentally it only cost me £250! and the chassis was £105!, both off eBay (great source for spares).
If I do repair the old body its going to have to come off the chassis in order that I can get at the chassis to repair it, so with that amount of effort eitherway its a nut and bolt job that will have to look mint at the end.

Dave

[Uncle Joe]

I guess everybody expected me to answer this one! Anything can be "restored." Information in a log book or on registration papers can ultimately be a restored car.

What do you do if you find a rare car that’s been standing in a field for x+ years, and 50% of the body has dissolved through rust? Shrug and walk away? No! You go to look for a suitable donor, say a standard model, and start swapping over parts as required. Some people would say that its not original any more because you changed the body, and that’s not right! But what about just changing a front wing? If you did that, I’d bet my little cotton socks that he same people would say that it’s still an original car! So therefore, that to them is acceptable. So, you change two front wings. That’s still acceptable, is it not? We carry on. You change the front wings, the bonnet, the boot, all of the doors. No problem, its still acceptable. Where does it stop? It doesn't.

Replacement of original damaged parts with equivalent original parts is always allowed. So what difference does it make if the entire body is replaced wholesale rather than one piece at a time? And for that matter, what difference does it make if you change the chassis as well? Someone on this forum mentioned an MG (?) that didn’t even have 5 percent of its original parts. To my way of thinking it doesn't matter, as long as a clone isn't the end result.

So therefore UkDave use the parts that you have to make the best car possible for you to use and enjoy. What else can these parts be used for? A clone that has never even existed?

What happened to the earlier post regarding the phosphate treatment?

UJ

[admin]

I suppose the downside with an old shell is simply the effort/aggro involved in chasing and repairing rust to the shell, which I suppose could be frustrating if you have a new shell sat alongside. I voted to keep the original body, as thats generally what I prefer, but if the original is really bad and chopped about, with patches everywhere, then you may end up with a better car by using the new. Bottom line is I've no idea which option is 'best'

<thinks for a bit>

If the car was historically important for some reason (eg a rally car with provenance), or had a mountain of paperwork and old receipts, old tax discs etc back to day 1, with its original number and so on, old photos of the car with previous owners in the 50s and 60s, then I'd stick with my vote for the original body/chassis, if only to keep the history 'correct'.

If the car had lost its original number, had no old paperwork, history, or any other documentation, and its history was unknown, and came along as a stripped car perhaps with loads of bits missing, or non-original, then a re-shell and re-chassis would be less of a loss I suppose.

Reminds me of the Practical Classics rebuild way back (1982?) of the ex-BMC A40 rally car. It was in a shocking condition, but due to its history, was carefully pieced back together. Virtually every panel was replaced, but the main structure could trace a line back to the rally in 1959, and preserved the link. If it was just another A40, either it wouldn't have been rebuilt at all, or else (if there was the option of a new shell) re-shelled.

Lots of cars are re-shelled nowadays - eg Midgets, MGBs, Minis and so on, and the owners of these cars accept that their car is 'new stock' rather than 'old stock'.

Rick

[Uncle Joe]

If I was in UK's position, then I would unquestionably use the parts that I had available. Why? Well, think about it this way. Take the rally car that was mentioned. The chances are, there is not an original part on that car. Every competition vehicle that I have ever seen has had body panels replaced during its active life. Probably, when it was retired, there were no components remaining that was on the car when it was first built. Be they body, engine, or whatever.

Therefore, I repeat myself. If you have the parts, use them. The chassis number can always be moved over to the new parts. And who's to know?

Originality, is for me quite simply a matter of opinion. If you get, for example some guy that say coachpaints a vehicle that wasn't originally coachpainted, is that better or worse than another guy using 2 pack to paint another identical one? Or MIG weld a car that was originally gas welded? Which is the most original?

I'll put another point forward. On this forum, there are quite a number of peole restoring cars. Some of them are doing them in exactly the same way that I would, others exactly the opposite. They might think that my way is stupid, I might think that their way is stupid. But the point is, we are all correct, in one way or another!

I'll put on my thinking cap for some better points!

UJ

[admin]

UJ, re this bit:

"The chassis number can always be moved over to the new parts. And who's to know? "

I'd know, and it'd niggle me. Most people might not be that fussed, so long as the numbers matched. For example I couldnt hand on heart refer to a Heritage reshelled MG as an original old car, unless the shell was a genuine old factory part (as in UKDaves rare case). But an MGB with a 2007 new Heritage shell is no longer that 60s car that it was IMHO.

I know that restored cars often feature new/repro/secondhand panels, engine, trim and so on, but the basic structure (even if repaired) is still the old car, and the physical link to the old car remains.

I agree on your point about competition cars, and how they lose their components over time (even have their bodies replaced). But if the shell is still original, it can still point to being the same basic car even if the spec has drifted, or the coachwork been majorly rebuilt around the original structure.

At the end of the day, for me, I want to be able to point to a period 50s (or whenever) photo of a car I own, and say that it is essentially the same car. It may be restored, using new parts perhaps, but at the very least the skeleton of the car, onto which all the bits are bolted/welded, is the original.

I will have a similar dilemma with the Dodge. It'd be much easier to rip off all the rear panelwork (mostly flat sheet, screwed to a steel/wood composite frame) and replace with new. A lot cheaper too I bet. But what I'd really like to do is remove each panel, and repair wherever possible. That way I can point to some old photos I have of it, with the racing car it once carried, and say that wherever possible the vehicle is original, with its original panelwork - repaired as necessary. This is because I have loads of its early history, photos and so on, and want to preserve as much of its originality, or 'oldness', as possible.

For me, the original panels have been on since Mulliners of Birmingham built the bodywork, have reverberated to WW2 bombers firing up as their crews hopped out of the back, and postwar shook to the thunder of a straight 8 s/c Alfa being fired up in the back. If I repanelled it, this would be lost, and all I could do is apologise to those who know the vehicle for chucking away so much of the original old truck, for a sake of simplicity.

If it had no known history to speak of, perhaps I'd be less picky (but I doubt it).



Same to a different degree with my old A40 Mk1, sat forlornly in the corner of the shelter down the garden. In an ideal world I'd repair whats there. If I re-shelled it, it'd no longer be the car that my great aunt and uncle bought in 1960. Ok the registration may be the same at a casual glance, but the original car would be gone, and I'd know it.

But, each to their own I say, I'll do things my way, and everyone else will do it their's, and long may it continue. I think maybe I'm a bit of a romantic (can you be romantic about cars??), and like to think that as much of the olde worlde is preserved in a vehicle wherever possible!

Vive la difference, and all that



Rick

[Uncle Joe]

Rick, have a look at the last post I made under the topic 'cellulose' on one of the other parts of the forum.

Then answer me this question. If you had bought this motorcycle for restoration, without knowing its history, which year would you restore it as?

I suspect that you may guess where I'm going here... but bare with an old codger....

[admin]

UJ, I'd have no idea where to start with the bike you mention, although thats an exception rather than 99% of vehicles where things are a bit clearer (although I wouldn't have bought it as its a bit modern for me )

Rick

[Old-Nail]

My vote is for building up a nice serviceable example with the new parts, the 'cast off' bits would always be of use to someone else trying to keep a similar vehicle on the road perhaps.

[admin]

hehe looks like I'm out-voted, ah well

Rick

[PACresta]

The fact that you have been fortunate enough to discover the new chassis and body i would go with using them in your rebuild. The main thinng is that you are happy with the finished product? I know i would be happy, at the end of the day the car will still have parts from your original 8.
I went through these sort of decisions with my motor, like the paint is 2 pack etc. I don't intend to enter the car in any concours competitions, i will drive it and attend shows. The main pleasure the wife and i get is from meeting the people that come up and chat telling us their experiences with the Cresta they owned Priceless stuff for me is that.
Hope you soon find the right way to go and be happy with the decision you make.

[buzzy bee]

Hi

You could allways restore the one you have already, then build another one with the chassis and body!

It is hard to say what I would do without seeing the orriginal one, but as I like welding may go down the restoration route!

Cheers

Dave

[Charles]

UKDave

What are you or anyone else going to do with the new shell if you don’t use it ? as Uncle Joe said “ Build a clone that has never even existed?” So whilst you drive round in your patched up original, someone else has an A1 clone!

Forming the chassis sections of the E is not that easy, they are not a simple box section and made of a sturdy gauge steel, which will be difficult to form without mechanical presses. Also some of the chassis is hidden by the body and visa versa, when you get the body off I bet you both the chassis and body will be worse than you think!

Unless this car is historically important use your new bits.

Charles

[Uncle Joe]

Without being able to know exactly who everyone is that has voted, I wonder if I would be correct in assuming that all of the older/experienced ones amongst us, eg myself, have voted one way, and the younger ones the other?

UJ