Most undeserving / overrated classic?

OK, which are they - what cars are revered by some as classics when in your opinion they're dogs?
Which classics are sure to disappoint you if you actually got to drive one?
Against the first above I'd nominate any car built by Reliant, but especially any Scimitar. With their plasticky trim, van-with-windows design, appalling turning circle, dreadful reliability, and grotty fibreglass bodywork hiding the most boring engines Reliant could find, these are just utter dogs. The only reason anyone thinks they're classic is that they're old and the only reason they're old but still around is that the bodyshells don't rust, though everything else goes wrong.
My most overrated? Well, this has to be the E-type because I would guess that most people I've met who've driven one was disappointed. Great looks, but by all accounts they really show their age in the handling department.
Any others?
--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
2004 23:50:44 GMT and decided it was time to write:

Nobody buys a standard E-type for its handling. It's a grand touring machine or a poser's tool.
My personal opinion is that most, if not all Merkin cars are vastly overrated. Little more than oversized, overweight, uneconomical and unrefined exponents of obscene consumerism. Scrap 'em all, I say.
--
Y.

Every OS sucks

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
realised it was Fri, 23 Jan

looks,
department.
A Merkin is a pubic wig. What has that to do with cars?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Presumably you drape it over your E type.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
realised it was Fri, 23 Jan

guess
Ah, well, I guess I have to rise to the bait. As a long term E-Type owner (a 1966 4.2 Series 1 Roadster) with two previous to be taken into account, it's still my favorite car. I agree that the later ones - in particular the Series 3 V12 - were touring cars, but the early ones were very much sports cars, with delightful and predictable handling. Of course the roadholding is not as good as almost any modern saloon, but handling and roadholding are two very different things. Certainly at the time of introduction (1961) the handling was vastly better than anything else on the road, thanks in part to the excellent rear suspension which survived pretty much unchanged until well into the eighties in various saloons.
Back in the seventies, when supercars and sports cars were cheap once they were a few years old, I was luck enough to own quite a variety of them. So I can compare the E-Type from personal experience with for example the Astons DB4 and DB5, Ferrari 250 GTE, Maserati 3500, Facel Vega HK500 (am I the only nutter to have had two of them?), Alfa 2600 Sprint, Healey 3000, sundry TRs and all sorts of lesser machines.
In about 1974 I decided to settle down with one decent car. It had to go, handle, look good and be reasonably practical. I really wanted a Dino 246 (and still regret never owning one) but it failed dismally on the practical front - top end overhaul every 20,000 miles, new gearbox every 30,000 (figures supplied by Maranello) at 1,000 each - in 1974! So, slightly sadly, I went for the best E-Type I could afford. Only sadly because I'd aready owned a couple and I really wanted something different. However, thirty years on, I'm still glad I did. Looks gorgeous, still stunning performance - and delivers it in a totally unfussed way, with torque which astonishes drivers of moderns - utterly reliable. Although I have to admit that the reliablity etc is down to a wheels-up restoration in 1995-1997, so the car is now built as it was designed, not as originally constructed!
Re most undeserving? I have to say I deeply dislike the MGB. Harsh, rough, slow. When they were new, it used to be said that they were bought by people who couldn't afford a TR4. And TR4s were bought by people who couldn't afford a Healey 3000. And Healeys were bought by - well, you see where I'm going. However, I absolutely support anyone who runs an MGB by choice - it's a relatively cheap fun car. I personally preferred the Spridget of the same era - less pretentious, a cheap little home for the A Series engine, no performance to speak of but an absolute hoot to drive. The MGB tried to be more, but to me it failed.
I also cannot stand the original Lotus Elan. Not because bits fell off - that's the chance you take with any Lotus and most things Italian - but it just didn't suit me. I'm told the handling is unrivalled - Gordon Murray says the only way his MacLaren F1 disappointed him was that it didn't handle as well as the Elan, which he rates as the greatest car of all time. Personally I thought it a horrible little thing - looks like a Mark 1 Sprite with its eyes shut, noisy, buzzy little engine, and applying the brakes even gently on a mildly damp road would result in a wheels-locked slide even at 10mph into the nearest solid object. Not saying it was a bad car - it probably says more about my (lack of) driving ability than about the car itself. All this is just my personal experience and view.
In general I like nearly all Italian cars, several Brits, no Germans or Japanese (no soul).
And just to really upset people, I think the most overrated "classic" has to be the VW Beetle.
Sorry to bang on for so long, but I hope it is of interest.
Geoff MacK.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 1275 Midget was very close in performance to the MGB - and much more fun to drive. Just a bit tight for space if you're big.
--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Geoff Mackenzie ( snipped-for-privacy@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

<Raises cuppa in agreement to both> Add the original Mini, too. Although, to be fair, the worst single thing about the original Mini is that it's over-blown cult status has spawned the current BMW 1-series bloatyMini.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
are
the
In the quantity production bracket I would probably agree, but better than the AC Ace? No sir.
>thanks in part to

And which bore a striking resemblance to rear end of the 1100cc sports/racing Lola designed by Eric Broadley some years earlier.
Ron Robinson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

owner
account,
I like them. They're fabulous looking. It's just that everyone I personally know who's driven or owned one reckons they're apain to keep on the road, both financially and literally. Ergo, they may be good, but they aren't as good as we've been led to believe.
The XJS on the other hand....
--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...is a much better car. Not only classic, gorgeous styling but, unlike the e-type, it can be used as an everyday car for commuting or whatever. I'm sure it will soon be recognised as a true classic, and not before time.
Regards George
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is recognised as a true classic by Jaguar enthusiasts. An XJS retains its value much better than any of the saloons. I consider the 6.0 V12 fixed head coupes and the later facelift 4.0s to be the best of the bunch. Although the V12 is *the* engine to have for many, it's probably a case of an engine too far for the XJS. It really isn't at home there and whereas it give turbine-like performance it is showhorned in so tight that inevitably there are problems.
The 4.0 AJ16 OTOH fits the car like a hand fits a well tailored glove. The power delivery is just right and overtaking can be done "briskly" by changing to 2nd using the J-gate.
It's odd that the nicer version have the lowest prices, but that's all to the good for collectors.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a great XJS admirer - mainly because I'm not fond of the looks but also because it occupies an awful lot of road for the interior volume, even for its type of car. A joy to driver I'm sure, if you get a good one, but not somthing to tempt me. The Lynx Eventer conversion, however, could tempt me to make a really stupid decision ;)
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aber.ac.uk (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message news:<bv0cv6$

I respect your views. Classic cars would be a dull topic if everyone liked the same two or three vehicles.
As far as looks are concerned, I've always considered the XJS as one of the most stylish and distinctive cars ever designed, alhough not quite as cool as an e-type on the drive perhaps. I simply don't understand why I failed to notice or get excited about e-types when there were quite a few around in the 1970's. But when the XJ-S came along it took over from the Triumph Stag as my favourite car, style wise. I still reckon the XJS had more to say in the 1970s and 80s than the XK8 has now.
The XJS is certainly inefficient in terms of space but I guess that's what makes it look special.
Regards George
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

personally
Again from personal experience - literally, no problem to keep on the road provided only that you are familiar with that type of car (big front engine, RWD) which fortunately was the sort of thing I was brought up on. Financially? Again, no problem as long as routine servicing is maintained. I ran mine as everyday transport from 1974 to 1978, and it then became a second car as company cars began to arrive. Subsequently, post rebuild, it once again became my only car from 1999 to 2002 as my ex-wife had taken the "daily driver" and I couldn't afford to replace it. During the latter time, covering some 15,000 miles a year, with two breakdowns (I know, not good by modern standards) but both were due to crap replacement parts - the down pipe on the fuel pickup fell off due to poor welding and a "rebuilt" alternator failed in the first hundred miles. It's not quite as exciting to drive as (say) a 275GTB/4, but it's a damn sight more usable and forgiving.
It's probably the only genuine performance car of its era that can actually be used for nipping down to the shops without sooting its plugs or otherwise going off song (not that there's anywhere to put the shopping in a Roadster).
Compared with a modern car of equal performance the two shortcomings are the short service intervals and large number of grease points and the petrol consumption - about 22mpg whereas these days we expect 30,000 mile servicing and 35+mpg.
I still reckon that driving the E with the hood down on fast A roads is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.
Geoff MacK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

actually
otherwise
The 3.5 litre XK engines had a reputation in the late '50's and early '60's for being able to go through a club racing season without needing a spanner laid on them, though I am led to believe that some people changed the sparking plugs half way through. Probably a waste of 1.50 though.
Ron Robinson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

'60's
spanner
Hmmm.... 6 x times a set of Kenelm Lee Guinness at 2/6d each - about right. My modern calculator doesn't seem to deal with half-crowns. But a set of plugs for thirty bob seems reasonable.
Geoff MacK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

owner
account,
sports
roadholding
I'd forgotten about the Ace. I think I probably agree with you. Wonder how the 2 litre Bristols would have compared (I've never owned one).

Didn't know that. Still, most successful designs rely at least in part on other people's ideas - there's not much really new.

Geoff MacK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

particular
roadholding
(1961)
than
how
Don't know about the Bristol, but a trusted source told me the Le Mans Replica Frazer Nash was good, but in a different way. If you realised you were going the wrong way you would do a three point turn in the Ace, but you would spin the 'Nash.
Ron Robinson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

you
And if the view through any of the windows shows grass it's not usually retrievable (he said sadly from bitter experience).
Geoff MacK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:18:34 -0000 and decided it was time to write:

I would have been disappointed if you hadn't. ;-)
--
Y.

Every OS sucks

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.