633CSI 1980 VALUATION

Certain E30's are already classics, like my 316 Touring 

Whilst having high performance or a drop top does help is isn't a requirement for classic status. There are a large number of "classic" cars (or old bangers as Andy would call them) which were just ordinary saloons in their day. Where have all the Mk 3 Cortinas gone?

Modern cars may have superior build quality but they aren't as rebuildable. Worn out 6 or 8 cylinder engine in your BM? That'll be a new block & pistons at least. No rebore or honing & rings for those motors.

A casual enquiry on the price for a new motor for my Audi A6 2.4 V6 was "around £10k" !!!! The mechanic opinioned the car would be scrap when the engine was knackered unless I could find a 2nd hand replacement. A new M30 from BMW is around £2500 to £3000 & will last (with care) 250,000 miles or more.

5KXO wrote: At least owners of the current 6 Series won't be welding up rusty bits in 10 years!

Kick a man when he's down! Wait 'til I see you at Gaydon!!!

AndyS wrote: Modern cars aren't designed to grow old gracefully. All the electronics will kill them off when they start to go wrong. It's a good point though, what will todays youngsters be looking to buy as a weekend classic when they hit middle age?

'PS2' I expect...

cheers

 

The same cars always come up in these debates, the interesting thing is that there are no true classics of today, and so as the years go on, the same classics keep getting older.

15 years ago a TR6, MGB and Stag would have been talked about as a classic option - and now...pretty much the same story.

Is the MGF going to be a future classic? I dont think so. What about a BMW Z3 or Z4? Very difficult in my oppinion.

The practical classics of today are the VW Golf MK 2 GTI 8V, Mazda MX-5 mark 1, and other bits and pieces such as CRX VTECs and MK1 Toyota MR2's, and possibly even the Smart ForTwo and Roadster in a few years, but mostly Japanese.

The Boy racer/Chav movement have ruined many cars' chances of classic status by either crashing them, or making them look like the Starship Enterprise with blacked-out windows.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Jag XK8's and the like as running costs keep driving the old school practical classic man to other things.

I think as running costs keep rising as fast as they are now, or even faster, 2 wheeled transport will become ever more popular - with SUV's dying out the fastest. The BMW C1 moped will be one of the most appealing practical classics if this happens.

5KXO wrote: Cars like the TR6, MGB and Stag were crap 30 years ago and they have not got any better.

Actually, they have. These days they've all been rebuilt & to a far higher standard than when they were new. There are many improvements which have been developed to suit modern requirements such as 5-speed boxes, modern cooling systems, injection, heaters etc.

True they weren't exactly cutting edge when they were new but what competition did they have?

Apart from each other, the MGB & TR6 only had the Alfa Spider, Fiat 124 Spider & Lotus Elan as competition for small, cheap(ish) 2-seater sports cars. it wasn't until the MX5 that the genre took off again.

The Stag was in a niche of it's own when new. Press reports tried to compare it to the SL but they were intended for completely different markets.

5KXO wrote: Who the hell pays £10'000 for some ghastly MGB Roadster when you could have a nice R107 Merc SL instead or the most perfect 325i E30 Convertible. Who??

The person who want's a 2-seater sports car. Nice though the SL is, it's a different market.

£10k is top price for a mint dealer chrome bumper MGB in pretty much concours condition. £7-£8k is a more usual figure. A quick flick through the dealer ads shows £16k+ for decent 107's. There's a lot of rubbish SL's around as my brother found out when he went to buy one. You'd have to search long & hard to find a good one for under £10k.

As I said, these cars appeal to guys who remember them (fondly) from their childhood. As a kid, I used to sit in the TR6's in the Triumph dealership next to my dads office & dream of driving one of my own. Sure the experience now won't live up to the dream of 37 years ago but there's no harm in trying. Cars like this are bought by the heart not the head.

BTW the 635CSi Auto turned out to be a 628CSiA,
Big Recaros in velour, only 2 good tyres and my God
the inner wings were the worst I've ever seen. And
the owner thinks it's worth £650..........

AndyS wrote: ....No beard but I do have a flat cap somewhere.

...and string-back driving gloves?

AndyS wrote: I've just found my shoulders are too wide to fit in a TR6 .

My Boss has a TR6. It's ok but you can tell that by that time there were serious issues with the build quality at Triumph/BL. A bit too Beard & flat cap classic car enthusiast for me, but I can see why they appeal to some.

The reason the price of a late 635 highline is used as a yardstick is because, appart from an M6, these are the cars that attract the highest prices. Why? well it probably down to two things. Firstly later car are more likely to have less rust. As rust is the E24s biggest problem it stands to reason people will want a car with as little of it aas possible. Secondly BMWs are luxury cars and most of the people that buy them want the leather and the electrics. Ok so some of you are not bothered by electric seats and a leather dash but most of the people who buy these cars will be and they will pay more for a car with a higher spec.

I don't know why but didn't a lot of people think that Jaguar spoiled the E type by fitting a V12?

Attitude? I think you're one with attitude mate!

The 3.8 was a better engine than the 4.2, period. The
4.2 was designed to power the Mark 10 which was
an enormously heavy (1900 kilos) car for which the
3.8 wasn't quite manly enough. The bores were too
big and they suffered head gasket problems as a
result and it never revved like a 3.8 despite the fact
that both had the same 106mm stroke. Yes it had
more torque but the E Type was not a heavy car
(around 1400 kilos) and the 3.8 was more than
enough. The XK engine was best as a 3.4 and the
3.8 was a bit of a stretch and the 4.2 too far. Jaguar
knew this and that's why the V12 came about
although they didn't have the dollars to develop it it
time for the XJ in 1968. As Andy says, the classic car
market is waking up to the fact that the V12 was the
best E Type - a fantastic engine (the XK was just an
old lorry engine by the seventies) and the wide track
really fills the arches out. To me they look a lot better
than the Series 1 Roadster which I never liked. A
mate of mine had a Regency red V12 Automatic E
Type FHC which was a lovely thing to drive, vastly
better than a 4.2 2+2 I drove some years later.

BTW I've had various Jaguars - a Mark 2 3.4 MOD
and an XK150S 3.4 spring to mind as well as a
couple of early XJ-S's (a great car). You want to talk
about old Jags - fine by me!