Irresponsible Classic Car Mags

[m.thaddeus]

I have nothing sensible to add, other than that this has been the most enjoyable thread I have read in ages.

Regards Martin.

[TriumphDriver]

I'm off to tinker with my straight-six, 1964 Mk1 Spitfire, 'modified' by a previous enthusiast in the 1970s, but retained with Mk1 brakes.
When I restored it 12 years ago I made sure it had the 'stop' bits to match the 'go' bits. Power without control is a hedge.

Have a grand weekend.
All the best,
Gary

There's always one! Good luck Gary, thanks for the reply, and keep that car out of the hedges....

[dannyhopkins]

I'm glad we've sorted it out. I felt discretion was the better part of valor on this thread, considering it was an issue about an article in our erstwhile competitor title. Thanks for joining us Gary and clarifying the point with such good grace. I think there are a lot of valid points made here... in a thoroughly entertaining style. Well done all.

[Rhythm Thief]

One aspect of this that I don't think anyone's mentioned is that often the manufacturers themselves couldn't wait to fit bigger (or better) engines in older cars. My Citroen Ami 6 was originally fitted with the early M4 2CV engine, until the previous owner seized it and replaced it with a later M28 2CV engine from some ropey old 1980s Dolly. When I bought it, it still had its original gearbox, which I replaced with a later 2CV gearbox (still with drum brakes, though).
The point of this is that I toyed for a while with the notion of having the original gearbox rebuilt and finding an M4 engine to fit in place of the Dolly engine. Then I realised that as soon as Citroen had finished developing the M28 engine, they stopped production of the M4 engine, consigned it to the scrap pile and fitted M28 engines in every A series Citroen from then on. If Citroen thought this was the way to go, who am I to argue?

[P3steve]

It wasnt untill I went to fit a head gasket on my Standard ten that I found it had been fitted with a slightly lg. Herald engine (1100cc instead of about 1000cc) it looks the same and just makes the car a little faster on acceleration handy in modern traffic but as the top speed is about the same (which to be honest is never reached) I'v left it on its drum brakes which seem to do the job they were built for so I'll leave the engine as it is and as others have said its most likley what Standard Triumph would have done if they had carried on building the Ten (maybe I should call it a Standard eleven now)

[Morrisand944S2man]

Sorry Gary, I'll clarify a few points: firstly I should make it clear this wasn't an attempt to denigrate your mag by posting on another forum where your readers or staff couldn't reply - I don't go to, or post, on CMs forum for my own reasons (there are only so many you can go to or post on in the course of the usual day) so I just use this one as a general classic car forum with no preferences or villains.
On the opening page of the article there is a small box beside each car with Market Value, recommended upgrades, and common faults. The word says recommended upgrades, not suggested or possible. This appeared to me as an occasional reader of the mag (no subscription, I used to get it every month but have now dropped to maybe every second or third issue) that you can't wait to get to the upgrades. A small footnote at the end of the article may have been a suggestion as to future modification, but to put it right on the first page, beside the photo of the car to which it refers, made me feel it was being pushed as the first thing to do if you ever buy one.
My intention was not to drive a wedge between enthusiasts, but to highlight what is becoming all too pervasive in our hobby: UPGRADE UPGRADE UPGRADE. Those of us who prefer cars as they were originally often feel sidelined, and many of the features commence along the lines of: "first thing I'm going to do is to do away with the woefully underpowered engine... the terrible brakes... the rough suspension..." This is how the cars were; I'm not saying they were perfect, but I feel that buying older cars and then modifying them immediately to make them compete with modern traffic on todays fast roads is becoming too common in our hobby. As a Triumph enthusiast I meet new club members who want to buy a car, but then - with no experience of the original car or its' characteristics whatsoever - want to replace or upgrade the engine. The Herald has to be 1500, the GT6 has to be 2.5 litre. WHY? Because everyone else is doing it, and the magazines are plugging it. It's often a losing battle trying to explain why the original drive is a much more satisfying experience to many, and I fear that more and more owners are buying the cars for the wrong reasons - not for the nostalgia, or the experience, but as cheap motoring - a modern car with free road tax.
This was my personal opinion, based on my interpretation of the article, and posted on a forum for discussion between like-minded enthusiasts, nothing more. I may be wrong and I welcome your input, but it's how I saw it.

Triumph driver, you are absolutely correct! And sadly we also see a lot of this in the Morris Minor world. These cars and your Triumphs were perfectly good cars in their day, and since the speed limits have not changed since the 1960's (apart from going DOWN in the case of many roads) then they are still perfectly good cars today.No need to modify at all.

A Minor is perfectly good with its original drum brakes- as long as these are properly maintained they are perfectly adequate for the cars weight and performance.

Keep your classic car in its standard spec - the equivalent in todays money of millions of pounds was spent on developing these cars to the spec they were made in and this is how they should be. Too much modifying will destroy the classic car world, it is time we hit back at the magazines and put forward the good case that original is best!