Unused vs deferred maintenance

two Merak SS 1980. 18,000 miles, spent $20,000 on each. wiring, rust and motor internal valve seat and cyl. rust meter still running on both. bad repair shops. 1976 Ferrari, 365gt4 2+2, car cost $28,000. 5,900 miles from England. big time rust, wiring rotten. injection system clogged. complete restore at $60,000 and 18 months and the meter is still running but a week more should wrap it up. 1990 Maserati 430, 70,000 miles. electrical, motor, leaks. HYVAC control needed replacing, window motors and electric door locks. you don't buy these at WalMart. $12,000spent. down to a failed starter. QP3,,1984 40,000. looked spotless. $15,000 in repairs. HYVAC found new, the last one. all wiring replaced, all door locks, windows motors, starter, drive shaft, gaskets. down to the rear RH tail light. 1981 400ai purchase at estate auction, unseen. $14,000. one owner, DR. drove 10 years without a problem. just did a timing chain and injection fix along with other stuff $15,000. rip off shop. all these cars went to two shops before I understood that I was being ripped off. had to redo all. pissed. 1989 LaForza. I had to work on this one. a lot of hours. all wiring, well you name it. need everything but power train. Ford motor. still a project, but runs fine great in snow and ice. Cadillac Allante, 1993. typical American problems but all fixable at the local shop bought cheap so still fixing runs and drives fine. 100,000 miles.

 

If you don't drive a car you can't know what's going wrong and fix it before it becomes a big buck issue.

I've found that the more I drive my car the better it runs.

 

Same with me, if a car sits long, strangely things do not work any more despite (because of) the non-use. Aside electric issues, seals go by just standing and the car will start loosing oil through all seals you can imagine. Injection systems seize internally, carburators become filthy internally, switches and contacts corrode internally, etc. pp.

In the historic car sector I would never buy a so-called "condition 1" car. Virtually every car I have see in this (alleged) condition was actually a non-runner or, if running, one would have to be really happy (and lucky) to reach the own garage in the same town without brake down. It might be different, if such "condition 1" car has been completely restored just recently, but its fate over time is just the same.

But that does not keep people from buying high priced "condition 1" cars. Why? They do not want to use it either and keep it stored away as an investment only, just to sell it to the next guy prepared to pay even more for such "condition 1" car.

 

Very common phenomenon in all types of vintage cars, but especially so with more exotic ones. Way too often heard phrase "well, I don't drive it that much, so no point spending money on it" or the ancient excuse of (to paraphrase our own Mr. G) "I don't want to put any miles on her so that she'll be easier to sell to some one else who's willing to pay premium for my deferred maintenance savings".

Most long time vintage car shops could probably write many chapters if not complete books on these stories. I know I could.

I'm currently working on a rare (300 made, probably less than 50 existing ?) 50+ year old vintage (non-Ferrari) car which was treated to a complete "body-off", "every-nut-and-bolt" concours winning restoration about 15 years ago, but subsequently left to sit with no accumulated mileage/useage for almost decade in a private collection among 30+ other similar "victims", until they were all eventually auctioned off to new owner(s), some whom may have not realized or understood the amount effort & money it will take to re-commission their newly acquired pride and joy to useable and enjoyable state.
The one I'm working on has, so far, required couple of hundred hours and lots of part/supplies, although some due to simple detail improvements current owner wants to make it even better with ("while you're at it...").

 

Maseratis are the poster child for deferred maintenance, you've picked the extreme case to make your point

 

Exactly that is why I never yet have bought a condition 1 car and presumably will not do so in the future. If not restored just recently I always consider the likely need to spend a four or five figure amount to make the car usable (= long distance reliability). And that in most cases does not really comply with the condition 1 asking prices, for which I would expect a car to do that was it was built for, i.e. to drive from A to B, even if a couple of hundred miles are therebetween.

I once asked a seller of a Jag XJ220, who claimed his car to be perfect, whether I can take it home on route over a few hundred miles. He reacted as if were completely nuts and a car rapist. I am neither and, consequently, had no further interest in the car. In contrast, my best buy was a Ghibli 4,7, seller in Vienna, he answered my same question without any hestitation with "Yes, but please do not exceed 160 km/h, since the tires are old and I did not look it through completely for some time". My best buy (unseen, by the way), a moderately priced condition 3 car, which I enjoyed for quite a number of years.

 

Whilst I agree with the essence of what you're saying - that restored cars that never get driven are simply slowly deteriorating and would be better off being driven (and I've ended up in some animated conversations on here for suggesting that cars that are kept purely for investment reasons and are never driven are cars that are being wasted), surely the issue with the XJ220 was actually with the owner rather than the cars ability to be driven without any additional money being required to be spent on it in order to make it usable?

Based on what you've posted, the owner saw the car purely as an investment and couldn't understand why you would want to drive it and risk lowering it's value. That doesn't prove that as a restored car it was unusable and couldn't actually be driven for hundreds of miles.

TBH, if the car seemed right, passed inspection, drove with no problems and was the right price then I would probably have bought it to save it from an owner who seemed to be a bit of a knob and didn't fully appreciate it!

 

This reminded me of a time, about 15 years ago, when I was commissioned to take over and correct a quite severely botched "full restoration" on a car the Swiss owner wanted to drive, freshly finished, across the U.S. from California to New York (he had driven it, unrestored, opposite direction couple of years before and left it with some "highly regarded" restoration outfit in L.A. for "full"...).
Biggest obstacle I encountered was the time constraint, imposed by the owner when he advanced his (and new brides honeymoon) scheduled arrival twice deducting almost two months from my time allowance and he was upset when they had to waste two days of their trip waiting for me to finish the car. In the end, only thing I wasn't able to fully sort out was the cars factory Cruise Control which I had fully rebuilt/restored and dialed, but on the last day it's N.O.S. dash mounted magnetic control switch suddenly failed with no replacement on hand or time to attempt repairs on existing one. I found another N.O.S. one next day and mailed it to Switzerland later.
Mind you, all this on a 1961 vintage automobile with almost every imaginable factory installed option incl. Power brakes, - steering, -windows (incl. vents), -top (convertible), -seat (6-way with swivel option), -antenna, Air conditioning, Automatic headlight and rear view mirror dimmer, Automatic and remote control (station) search Radio, aforementioned Cruise control, etc, etc, etc... all of which I had completely restored, not only to highly detailed appearance, but also to fully functioning service.
So you can imagine my pleasure of receiving their final farewell call from New York announcing well enjoyed and trouble-free journey.

 

get flat spots if the cars sit for decades. y/n?

 

Unused cars age as many here know all to well. There are going to be costs with replacing aged components, seals, hoses and tires, but unused cars will always be superior to used cars in original appearance. Compared to a used non-restored car, the unused will probably have better paint, glass, trim, interior, hinges, locks, body. Take a well stored car and address the ageing items and you will have a wonderful example, and be sure to thank the guy that preserved it for you! I'm not considering the cost only the quality of the car. The best situation is a car that is used carefully and wisely and maintained by knowledgeable persons.

 

Unused doesn't mean **** when you are talking about a vintage car.

 

Tires for sure. Haven't seen on bearings per se, but have seen (incl. vintage Ferraris) deep corrosion (= "rust") damage on lubricated (sealed) bearings detectable to sitting for years/decades after light use..., not to mention subsequent damages these "dried up" (low mileage ?) bearings do when suddenly put to use...

 

When the car was built makes a difference. The experts in the 3x8 section talk of water passages clogged with deposits as the old coolant becomes acidic and creates a battery, something newer aluminum alloys don't do.

 

I fully agree with respect to appearance. But this is the issue. I know a few "high end" cars (with respect to price) very well, which had great appearance. But they did not run. In one case the reason (at least one of the reasons) was simple (the owner had asked me for help to get it out of his garage for truck transport to a classic car fair). Taking off the cover from the control unit of the Lucas FI revealed rust rust rust. The outside of the unit was of perfect appearance though ... . I managed to get it to work again and to adjust everthing somewhat properly (it took a few evenings to do so, luckily the metering distributor was not rotten solid), so that it ran, not perfectly, but acceptable for a buyer not knowing how it should run in best order. Later I heard that it had to be pushed to the fair stand, because it did not run (for other reasons)....

It was bought nevertheless at the fair. The same with another "high end" car, which ran, but spattering, banging, backfiring and top speed presumably around 60 mph if at all (factory value: over 160 mph) .

I also heard that when the mayor concours events started requiring that the cars drive past the judges, i.e. need to drive without breakdown for at least maybe 100 m, one or the other usual participant was rather äh unhappy ...

Of course sellers of such cars prefer buyers, who would consider any use of the car as car rapism .... The guy with the XJ220 meant that e.g. the tank replacement service had not been needed because of the low milage. The plastic tank is, however, known to age, irrespective of milage, and if petrol leaks into the adjacent honeycomb structures, you really can generate a structural problem with these cars.

 

Completely or close to being "unused", let alone same AND well (properly ?) stored, especially vintage (40+ year old ?) cars are very, very rare and quite extreme example of this concept yet, as mentioned above, also subject to numerous aging related deterioration issues which are or can be more problematic and time consuming (=costly) to properly address compared used or even fully restored cars.

Anything mechanical and lubricated (think bearings, gears, hinges, locks, switches, etc...) are subject to deterioration of their (protective) lubricants, gaskets or seals. Any rubber-type compound components from body panel weatherstripping or fuel/heater/oil/vacuum/etc hoses to O-rings, seals, suspension bushings and window channels/gasket/seals/etc often dry up and break down sooner than other areas of the car...

These issues often perpetuate such cars remaining only as static display items, even after ownership changes, because it usually takes quite serious funding commitment (beyond already paid premium), knowledge and skill to address these issues appropriately (= leaving minimal or no traces of ever been addressed) to retain not only unused/untouched appearance, but also "the feel" of well preserved artifact, especially if an attempt to make such car actually reliably useable is being considered.

Having had the honor of performing fair amount preservation type services and work on few vintage automobiles ranging from early 1900's to late 1970's, I'd say working on such can be much more difficult than outright full restoration where, if a small accident or mistake is occurs it can be easier to correct...

 

Very well stated!

 

Hey I admit I'm one of the "low mile" cultists. I paid a premium for a 9,100 mile '99 Diablo roadster instead of a few 30k mile cars I saw. And I struggle with my desire to limit the miles (to 1,000 per year in my case) vs driving the car (so far 550 miles in 6 months).

I don't do it to skimp on maintenance, but to keep the value up.