Morris Minor Owners Club

I hear you but im saying, IF ITS SO SIMPLE why do people not get it right??

Do you have any pictures or examples of your work?
I always enjoy a good picture thread.

The main reason we see so many badly restored cars is because the job gets rushed. I am not claiming to be some sort of ace restorer because I am far from it but I do take my time to do as good a job as I can.

The Triumphs I mentioned do need a lot of time and patience to get right but it can be done.

Can I just say that I use my Traveller every day and it doesn't have a garage. True that the wood does suffer, but so does the steel. As long as you're prepared to spend a weekend or so every summer rubbing down and re-varnishing it should keep it from rotting. I've spent more time on the underbody over the 15 or so years I've had it.

But I've spent the most time actually driving it.

Stig28 wrote:Can I just say that I use my Traveller every day and it doesn't have a garage. True that the wood does suffer, but so does the steel. As long as you're prepared to spend a weekend or so every summer rubbing down and re-varnishing it should keep it from rotting. I've spent more time on the underbody over the 15 or so years I've had it.

But I've spent the most time actually driving it.

Fair play Stig28. The reason the wood on my last Traveller was in such a state was because no one had bothered with the annual rub down and revarnish, myself included. As you say, do that every year and they do last well.

I am not claiming to be some sort of ace restorer because I am far from it but I do take my time to do as good a job as I can.

I thought I'd said my last on this one, but I'm so tempted to respond to that implication!

Leave it - I did ;)

I think to be fair some people have a "natural bias" to be very practical minded. They find this sort of hobby easier than people who are of the "theory persuasion". If that makes sense. Whether better at it or not, it's the enjoyment one gets out of their moggy that's the important thing.

Not quite sure I follow you -I flatter myself that I'm very "practical minded", but still don't understand how a separate chassis makes car restoration so much easier

les wrote:

I am not claiming to be some sort of ace restorer because I am far from it but I do take my time to do as good a job as I can.

I thought I'd said my last on this one, but I'm so tempted to respond to that implication!

Excuse me? What implication?

The implication that others don't "take (their) time to do as good a job as (they) can."

Well who, exactly, made that implication? I certainly didn't.

I'll not say any more on this, promise, but you did, advertently or not.

StaffsMoggie wrote: I am not claiming to be some sort of ace restorer because I am far from it but I do take my time to do as good a job as I can.

Got it in one. thanks.

And - to cover an earlier point - you don't need to fit 'discs' to have excellent brakes on a Minor!!

bmcecosse wrote:And - to cover an earlier point - you don't need to fit 'discs' to have excellent brakes on a Minor!!

Very true! The standard drum system is perfectly adequate for the Minor when in well maintained condition. My old Traveller had discs and to be quite honest I could not feel any difference between how the brakes responded on that car and on my saloon with the drums.

Another point, some of the disc conversions require some holes in the vertical link to be drilled out to a larger diameter. So, later on down the line when that link becomes worn and is exchanged for a reconditioned item - when they are available... are those holes still oversize?

bigginger wrote:I'll not say any more on this, promise, but you did, advertently or not.

StaffsMoggie wrote: I am not claiming to be some sort of ace restorer because I am far from it but I do take my time to do as good a job as I can.

Well I have read and re-read my posts on this and I still do not see any offence, there was certainly none intended anyway.

bigginger wrote:

bigginger wrote:I'll not say any more on this, promise

Like I said, no offence was intended, ok?

As for the Minor commercials they are simplicity itself to put together.

A rotten LCV is probably easy to restore if you are not on a budget!
Buying a new chassis, a 'spare cab' in good nick, and sourcing a good back end make the job much simpler.

For those of us on a budget, the difference between a badly rotted and previously bodged LCV vs Saloon is not so great.
Rotted van guttering is as hard to get right (invisible) as the rear wing seams on a saloon.

From the grill to the B-post the LCV and saloon are far too similar to make any difference. Behind the B-post, I'd rather have a rotten saloon than a rotten LCV, as the Saloon shell is more likely to stay straight without assistance, to allow replacement of one section at a time.

Replacing a diff on a saloon is easy, so I can't see that as a reason to prefer an LCV.

The hard one to restore from 'rotten' is the Tourer (drophead) aka convertible. I'm eternally greatfull that I don't like them as that means I should never have to restore a rotten one.

It is only the saloon/traveller/conv bias that has seen the LCV numbers decimate.

It is the bias for LCV's that have allowed so many basket cases to be rebuilt!
The Minor LCV was a fantastic work horse but because of it's usefulness, too many were used and abused, and so few were molly coddled in dry garages. When they became rotten and falling to bits the average van owner was happy to scrap them and buy something newer - this alone caused the decline in LCV numbers, to the point where people like me (and so many others) rescue them from scrapyards despite no good reason for doing so.
With the abundance of saloons I struggle to understand why anyone would take on a complete shell rebuild, unless there's sentimental reason to do so.