That black body sure looks fine and straight. Must have a couple of bucks in that alone.

694279 wrote:

---

AND NO paper work

---

 I have been thinking about this issue for awhile now. Once a car has been this extensively modified does it really matter if it was born an SD or an SS. Just curious on others opinions. Not degrading the car because I can appreciate the money and skills that are involved to create this beautiful vehicle.

see2xu wrote:

---

I'm over the originality fixation. I've had a couple of over-the-top restorations (that I paid for) which I was scared to drive, for fear of getting bug strikes or stone chips. My '62 Impala has extremely low miles on the chassis (was a drag car, then retired to indoor storage), but the drivetrain isn't original. It's a brute to drive, as I stare down the barrel of my 67th birthday - no p/s, p/b, or a/c (very desirable here in NC) - and I find myself less and less inclined to "take her out for a spin".

Give me the vintage vibe, with modern underpinnings and amenities, and I'm a happy camper. The "numbers matching" stuff is stupid, anyways - Duesenbergs, Packards, Hispano-Suizas, and (original) Maybachs didn't have chassis plates and serialized components, but still bring big bucks. A '69 427 block, heads, crank, and rods will work just fine in a '69 Camaro, whether they started off in that chassis, or not, and provide the same driving experience as one driven off Yenko Chevrolet's lot brand new, in 1969.

---

 Well said. I like them both ways but it is a lot more enjoyable - and a lot less expensive - if you can build a reasonable facsimile without having to worry about the cost of the exact correct numbered part. 

jmont64 wrote:

---

 When I see guys saying every car they see advertised needing 3 pedals I shake my head.  I love 4 and 5 speeds but for all the driving I do an automatic is just fine.  Riding the clutch through city traffic doesn't do anything for me. I'll take an LS with overdrive, a/c, and lots of options over a stock everything but do appreciate both.  We are all wired differently which is a good thing.

---

 In spite of your opinion, with a little bit of effort on my part, we can still be friends...!

Seriously, I drove my 6 speed 94 Impala SS every day of the year for about 8-9 years and never once wished I'd left it an automatic. Maybe if I lived in the hills, or in the city I'd think different but I'm one of the guilty guys thinking every car needs a third pedal.

Lots of ideas tossed around here.  I'll toss in some of my random opinions as follows:

I don't care much for the whole matching numbers scene, but do appreciate a high dollar restoration with all details documented to be correct.  I just wouldn't want to own one as I like to drive them more than show them. I really really like original survivor cars, whether minty fresh or with some patina (but actual patina only - never fake patina which almost always looks fake). 

I'm also tired of the perceived need to pose a 'regular' car as something it's not - this probably goes back to the days when everybody who had a Chevelle stuck SS emblems on them, and all Camaros were Z/28s, even when they weren't.  In my eyes, a nicely built Beaumont Custom is every bit as desirable as a fake SD, but in modified cars anything goes, so if you want an SD then make an SD... just don't stick SD emblems on it without changing all the other stuff that makes it an SD (my opinion only... don't shoot me).

I don't get excited about big $ cars, mostly because I'd never let myself spend that much on something that is just a toy which wouldn't be used all that often, and only half the year.  The other reason is that I find, from the cars I've seen for sale, is that higher price tags don't tend to produce cars that are more desirable to me - I can usually find an ad for a $30K car that I like as much or more than a similar $50K car.  Probably because often when a car is built to taste, those tastes don't line up with my own - so I find myself making a check list of the things I'd have to change to be happy with it (and the $ it would cost to change)... so unless it's built exactly to my tastes (and built well with quality work and parts), it would make no sense to pay $50K or $60K for a car and then have to spend another $20K to change it back to what I'd want.  Not that I'd ever spend that much in the first place... haha.

The manual vs automatic debate.  All I can say is buy what you like, there's no right or wrong answer here, but I agree with Jerel in that every car doesn't need to have a manual trans.  There's nothing wrong with an automatic in anything and I have to say I am appreciating them more and more these days.  I've done all the beating the car to death with a manual trans, trying to get the perfect launch, banging gears and grinning as I hear the tires chirp or feel them break loose, the sound and feel of a perfect double-clutch downshift - it's all fun and games but these days I don't want to drive like that all the time, and sometimes the stuff that comes along with a manual (especially the in-gear out-of-gear in traffic) can be a pain in the ass.  In my perfect world, I would have to have one of each to fit whatever mood I was in at the time (or how much knee, ankle or elbow pain I had that day...lol), but these days an auto is fine with me. For a daily driver an auto is pretty much a requirement for all the traffic reasons and just for those days when you are running around doing errands and such - besides, my newest daily driver has a 9-speed auto with paddle shifters, which I've come to enjoy quite a bit - I can drive it like a responsible dignified citizen whenever I want (in "Normal" mode) but always have the paddle shifters at hand if I want to downshift for an upcoming corner or a downhill.  Or, I can put it in Sport+ (track) mode which allows me to change gears manually and turns the car into somewhat of a snarling beast, actually.  For me, the best of both worlds, though I can still appreciate clutch use in a fully manual.  Heck, I like them all!

The old car thing always is a bit of a quandary for me.  On the one hand, the reason I like old cars is mostly nostalgia - I remember them from my youth, and can appreciate the styling, mechanical simplicity, and just the feel and the way they work.  When I drive an old car, I kinda want it to feel like an old car... otherwise I'll just drive my new car.  So while I totally get adding stuff to make an old car easier to drive, some of that stuff takes away from the nostalgia aspect for me, especially when you can still buy a new (or newish) Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger that will give you all the creature comforts in a high performance coupe with retro-ish styling.  That said, I am totally on board with adding items that improve safety and/or driveability for practical reasons, like power steering and brakes, better braking systems (or at least dual chamber mc), etc etc, as none of us are getting any younger, and a big block car with manual steering might have been fine when we were 25, but not so much today.

Finally, I find myself appreciating regular low-line old cars more and more these days.  While I used to salivate over big block 4-speed cars (and I still do), seeing the cars I actually remember on the roads is becoming more important to me as I get older.   While most people are striving to build their dream cars with big HP and modified to their tastes, when I go to a car show I find myself gravitating to the original cars (without SS emblems... lol) that might have a six or small V8 in it, and just enjoying it for what it is.  The car that your aunt or uncle may have driven, or the car that you might have gone on a family vacation in, or your neighbor's car that you used to see gleaming in the sun in his driveway, etc.  Cars from our real history, the ones that people used and depended on, to go about their daily business... it's that history that I think goes underappreciated at times.  But, anyhow, I'm going off on a tangent, so it's time to stop typing...