What's best.

[deano69]

When looking at a car for sale, and i guess when restoring bodywork/beneath, what's best-good, hopefully solid, original underside or correctly, ie rot cut out, new metal let in or replacement panels used, restored underside?

Also any ideas of the life span before needing to be redone of a correctly restored underside assuming annual rustproofing with waxoyl or similar?

Cheers.

[bmcecosse]

Depends entirely on the condition as found in each case - and the quality of the 'restoration' - see this thread ! http://www.mmoc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=135

[deano69]

Yes i've seen and read through the thread, hence why i used the word 'correctly'.Cheers for the reply though and yes it would depend upon the quality of the restoration.Im just trying to sort out which is best to look for, original and looked after, hoping that nothing awful hides in box sections eating outwards or worked on and welded up and hopefully done well.

[bmcecosse]

At the age of these cars - unless VERY carefully used over the years and always stored in a nice dry garage and only used on 'dry sundays' - it would be 'unusual' to find one that hasn't had some restoration over the years. So saying - some do report having cars that were Dinitrolled (sp??) from new - and the undersides are remarkably good.

[aupickup]

my car was ziebarted from new and all the floors and front chassis legs are good with no rot what soever

[les]

Depends on your mindset, original will probably need work, but then you are in control, because you can do your own work without having to cut out someone elses efforts, you'll also be able to decide your own level of quality. Restored is a big gamble, you need to trust the guy who did the job, not easy! Not everyone who works on cars likes to get in too deep, and as we've seen from some posts it's easy to cover up a dodgy structure. An original unmessed car though is a rare thing.