AIA for length, but it's shorter than many bios :-)
Last week, DShoop7572@aol.com wrote:
"...the point of my comment was that when I was a kid I could afford to
drive a 68 GT6 and pay for it as a dishwasher at a country club. Now
owning a Triumph is an expensive hobby even if you try to do the work
yourself. Again I am happy that so many others love these cars and I
will nver bring up $$$ again."
I wanted to share my perspective in re the "expensive hobby" of old
british cars. This is not a flame, just a defense of LBC ownership.
Overall, I think that *driving* a classic car isn't necessarily the
money pit that D. and my father-in-law think it is. :-)
NOTE: The following argument may also be useful for those of you trying
to convince your S.O. that a TR (or another one) actually MAKES GOOD
FINANCIAL SENSE. It's a longshot, no guarantees, but it's worked for me.
My wife's pretty smart too. :-)
HOBBY NOTE
But first, an aside: my "thesis" is about driving TRs, not "hobby"
ownership, but hobbies like keeping horses or model airplane racing can
be much more expensive -- and arguably less practical -- than keeping a
Triumph. Also, depending on when you were a kid, D., a GT6 might have
been comparable to -- I don't know -- an older Jetta? My pizza delivery
boy drives a Jetta. I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.
MY THESIS:
Finally, here it is: owning and driving an old "classic" car isn't any
more expensive than buying and driving a newer car!
While a very good TR4 may cost $8-10K (we're not talking a show winner,
but a moderate mileage TR for daily or w/e driving), as comparable used
cars go, an off-lease Miata will cost a few thousand more, and an
off-lease BMW Z3 will cost 2-3 times as much.
The TR4 isn't an investment car, but after 30 years, it's no longer
depreciating and MAY keep pace w/ inflation. OTOH, a NEW import car will
lose something like 2/3 of it's value w/in the first 10 years (usu more
like 7) of ownership. And it's likely that w/in the first 5-7 years,
you'll be on the hook for a major repair, and cars like Z3's aren't
cheap to fix.
So my argument continues: over time, you'll LOSE more money on a new(er)
car than you will on a "practical classic". Real life example:
Wife's 1992 Honda Accord, off-lease, $15K incl financing, $3K new tranny
this year, retail book: $7K; net loss: $11K over 5 years
My 1972 BMW 2002, from original owner, $3500, $1500 repairs (fuel pump,
refresh front end, brakes, similar), +$2100 ins. (minor hail), retail
book: $2000; net loss: $900 over 2 years.
I didn't include annual maintenance for the Honda, which I don't do
thanks to the engine's poor access, complexity and computerization.
Still, for us, cost of ownership for the Honda ran at twice that for a
25+ year old BMW.
All that said, you have to buy wisely. Also, for old Triumphs and BMWs,
serious restoration will probably cost more money than the car will be
worth after. But even money-losing restorations will lose LESS than the
new Z3 or Boxster, if as with stocks, you "invest" in restoration for
the long term.
--
Steven Newell
Crave Technology, Denver, CO
303.675.0777 / 303.675.0999 (fax)
|