I would say I'm a purist, although I'm not sure if I qualify since I haven't done any restoration work so I haven't had to chase down parts.

I think my car would fall into the category of survivor as it's never been modified other than required replacements such as fuel tank and probably an alternator at some point. It did get repainted to a color that was not original to this car but it was an original FGF paintcode.

I even have the original convertible top on it, but it's not in very good shape. No holes in it though. I only put the top down in the spring and back up in the fall when it's time to store it for the winter. The boot still looks great.

I like tasteful mods as well as originals. Either one gets me pumped up when I see it on the street.

I'm surprised to find that I'm now both!

This is my driver. 4 wheel drums at 70mph on the interstate really was asking for trouble. My plan is to have it look mostly stock and get good street performance including a built 455 and 5 speed transmission, frame ties, etc. Now that it's reasonably fast in a straight line, the next step is suspension upgrades to get a little better cornering.

But this one is going back to stock:

hello , its been a while since i have been on here. i had to read this thread. i would look at my self as a "purist".
my bird is a basic 350 but a one owner before i bought it, they kept it stock. everything in it is matching NO's , so it would be hard for me to go away from that.
don't get me wrong i have been tempted with a mod or two, but decided "no". i purchased a 1969 4bbl intake from a gto,or grandprix. a duel snorkel air-cleaner.
i am not a chevy fan, but the only time a first gen camero gets my attention is when it is a clean stock camero, and it goes for mustangs for me also.

Don't know how I missed this thread for so long. I don't like that restomod term either. I did the correct nut and bolt, bottom of the car as shiny as the top thing back in the 80's and didn't drive the car because it would get dirty! Raising my family kept me out of the car game for 20 years or so. When we bought the firebird it was just supposed to be a scuff, shoot paint and drive the snot out of car. Those of you who followed my adventure know that as I got into the car it ended up being a LOT more than that. The car was not numbers matching so in my mind that opened up my choices. As we went through it my goal was to build it like I would have in the 70's when I was in high school or could be purchased from places like Royal Pontiac. I used lots of repro parts to keep costs down and originals when I could and am happy with the results. It was always to be a driver and the only thing I went a little overboard on is the engine. My new vette is 100% the way it left the factory and I will keep it that way. I guess I am both in that the car dictates to me how it should be handled.

I think Larry has expressed the key to the question. If it's absolutely stock to begin with then I think most would keep it that way if they can. If you start out with something that isn't original the cost effectiveness to put it back that way is too overwelming, if possible at all, to consider. So after that decision is made for you, it gives you so much more latitude with the possiblities. I also have one of each and as much as I would love to modernise the original car I think it would be liken to a sin to take artistic license with an otherwise unmolested car. I think circustances dictate the outcome.

I'd be do'n the opposite on those two. LOL

I don't mean to ruffel any feathers here, but, a true purist would not consider a "tribute car" or a "clone" for their collecton. A purist would only have vehicles that were as described of the trim tag or PHS. To them a tribute car is just another modified hot-rod.

No feathers ruffled here. But...

Anything wrong with modified? The engineer thread above reminded me that engineers look at the question a little differently (insert mandatory engineer joke here). There are many design/manufacturing compromises on the original cars. Budget constraints, performance compromised for average drivers, mass production constraints, regulations, improved technology over time, and the like. We are able to so much more with these cars than could be done at the factory 40+ years ago. My wife's crossover can out handle most stock 60's muscle cars, and out accelerate the late 70's cars. I love the styling of my 1st gen Firebird, but I want its performance to match the looks, and I don't want the bean counters of long ago dictating my car's specs!
That said, there is certainly room for the pure concourse restorations in the hobby. But deep down, how many of us really want to see the cars we love trapped in trailers on their way to shows. That still bothers me about my plans for the 74 TA. I suspect that too will be a driver fairly quickly.

OK, I'm getting my feathers ruffled! I completely consider myself a purist. But I consider purist as meaning however the cars could have been built. I feel cloning a car to "how" it 'could' have been built is perfectly OK. (with correct perts or even repop parts) But adding 'maro parts or parts never intended to go on an fgf would be resto-modding or hotrodding.

I also have one car that is 95% original. But that didn't stop me from putting rally II's or a stock AM/FM on it. (I kept the original wheels and AM). I'm not sure why you would feel cloning a car would not fall under a 'purist' category. I certainly don't feel that way. To each his own I guess.

Restomod. These cars sucked when they were new. Why would I want to duplicate that???? LOL...

To me a true "purist" should be "restoring" these cars, warts and all...uneven panel gaps, unprotected bare metal undercarriages and suspension parts, missed gaps in seamsealer, an errant cigarette butt tossed onto the floor before installing the rear seat...etc etc. So a "purist" car should be restored exactly to those types of factory specs, ready to completely rust out in 2 to 3 years, just as they did from the factory...

But that never happens. So I say there is NO such thing as a "purist." What most call purists, I call over-restorers. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that.

And then after the over-restoration is complete, you gotta leave it sit in a garage or enclosed trailer like a piece of art? Or drive it only on perfect days, scared to death at the sight of a pop-up t-storm, or an errant rock thrown from a semi, or a short stretch of gravel road you gotta traverse?

No thanks. Not for ME. But perfectly fine for whoever did it...and that's cool and I respect it. But when I hit that gravel road I'm gonna do a big ol' Dukes of Hazzard fishtail and hammer thru it, raining or not, making the wife or friend in the passenger seat smile and giggle. And yeah I might get a few paint chips and it'll get dirty. But it was FUN and we LAUGHED! Then later in a week or two I'll clean it and fix it.

But I say if 45 years of forward technology and knowledge now allows it to be built better than ever, then by all means it should be built better...faster...stronger...quieter...stiffer...softer...louder...better sounding...better smelling...longer lasting...whatever the builder/modder/owner desires.

So that's my take. I also respect individual choices. So if someone else likes to build trailer queens for a hobby, by all means I fully respect that person's choice of a hobby...though I'd never do it myself. I respect that person just as much as I'd hope they'd respect my choice of hobby...mod 'em and beat the snot outta 'em!

I equally respect the snot-nosed low-pants teenager who converted his 20 year old Civic into a 7 color metallic low-rider hoopdie with frog-wheel stance and a fart can that rips nasty noises as he booms down the road with a dozen subwoofers. I wouldn't be caught dead owning/building something like that myself, but again that's HIS car hobby and not mine...he's happy and lovin' his life just like I am in only a very SLIGHTLY different way...and I say that's totally cool. I always give those dudes thumbs up because they have just as much pride in what they've built as I do in what I've built...and they return the thumbs up to me without exception...probably becuase they've NEVER received a genuine thumbs up from a old guy in an awesome classic before...and in return they're genuinely grateful for it. Mutual respect among EVERYONE makes the world a better place.

EVERYTHING can be fixed or improved. So I will always build it the best I can to MY personal tastes and drive it as hard and often as I please in all kinds of crappy conditions until it breaks or wrecks or rusts. Then fix or improve it again. That's what cars and mechanics and owners have always done...and will always do.

100% of cars and humans will turn back into dust someday...so enjoy both today...

funny thread...I met an older guy in 1977 when i moved back to Sweden....I had a co worker who boughtan 56 Talbot Lago , in peces, (somebody took it apart) and he wasnt sure how it went together or how it was supposed to look, and he had found out there was a guy in western Sweden who 'had one'...asked me to go take pictures for him and send back to Texas..
I met with a very nice older man , mechanical engineer...he had TWO Talbots, 56s...he lived on an old farm and the entire house and farmhouse were full of parts, we went thru and looked everywhere , he had cranks in the pantry, bumpers under the master BR bed etc...but in the garage were two almost identical cars , both black...one was 100% restored to original, the other he had "fixed" to the way he thought the factory should have built them , with many imoprovements , souped engine etc.

this guy I found out was famous in Talbot circles...he was THE transmission guy...he was paid to fly over to YUS ,to England etc and re-buildpeoples Talbots transmissions , rebuild engines and soup them up...