This weeks Classic Irish bargains that I'm not buying

EPAndlee

kadman wrote: »

Like this car, interior looks great.

https://www.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/mercedes-w116-280se/18986045

Would that not have a brown logbook?

kadman

Really 10k for a rusty beetle, thats supposedly restored.
Looks like major rust in the pic below the rear window.

Beautiful condition???

https://www.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/volkswagen-beetle/19148657

kadman

EPAndlee wrote: »

Would that not have a brown logbook?

Well, it is an import. Interior looks great whatever about the book

Seweryn

kadman wrote: »

Really 10k for a rusty beetle, thats supposedly restored.
Looks like major rust in the pic below the rear window.

Beautiful condition???

https://www.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/volkswagen-beetle/19148657

That is terrible. Maybe it is a typo with too many zeros in the asking price or maybe the seller has no idea about good condition or restoration.

Dades

kadman wrote: »

Well, it is an import. Interior looks great whatever about the book

Looks beautiful on the outside but waay too much green going on inside for me.

Also, no NCT. *shocker*.

11wingnut

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/mercedes-benz/220d/1916730.html

flatty

Quick bit of advice, pristine w140 low mileage and quite literally as new, but grey with grey velour, vs metallic brown w126, good enough to have been worth a full respray, black leather Singapore import 70k miles.
Which would people choose?

w124man

You go for the W126 and I'll go for the W140

flatty

Why do you say that??

Bigus

flatty wrote: »

Quick bit of advice, pristine w140 low mileage and quite literally as new, but grey with grey velour, vs metallic brown w126, good enough to have been worth a full respray, black leather Singapore import 70k miles.
Which would people choose?

I've had both, you don't mention which engine in either which would be a deciding factor , also if they are for uk use rather than here , that's also a different matter as w140s are way off vintage tax here.

flatty

Bigus wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Quick bit of advice, pristine w140 low mileage and quite literally as new, but grey with grey velour, vs metallic brown w126, good enough to have been worth a full respray, black leather Singapore import 70k miles.
Which would people choose?

I've had both, you don't mention which engine in either which would be a deciding factor , also if they are for uk use rather than here , that's also a different matter as w140s are way off vintage tax here.

I'm not at all concerned by the tax tbh. The 126 is a 300se. I think the other one is too.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/1988-nissan-president-sovereign-v8-h250/19195181

Nissan President 1988



Different if nothing else.

ELM327

Looks like a late 60s yank tank but downsized.
I had a 67 polara and it looks like the same lines. Love it.

Love it even more (for a true 80s irish feel) to put a nissan diesel in it

Bigus

flatty wrote: »

I'm not at all concerned by the tax tbh. The 126 is a 300se. I think the other one is too.

In response to pm from flatty re more info here's my tuppence worth.

The 126 would be much more like older Mercs, and is a 116 developed, (116 been a clean sheet design)which is a positive , it would be the most modern of the old style traditional Mercedes.

The W 140 is a different beast altogether and a clean sheet design . Almost nothing is carried over ( except engines , Mercedes had a habit of developing engines in previous run out models)They're physically a much bigger car with a lot of completely new ideas.

The W140 was probably the last Mercedes made with money no object.Completely new seat design, new glazing, dash design ,door locks, handles, keys, remotes, safety devices suspensions brakes etc , a lot of which was not carried on to the 2000 w220 , not because of faults, but to save money as Mercedes modernised and went downhill.

They also feel a lot heavier, but this is not necessarily a bad thing . I'd go as far as to say they are so different, they are like cars made by different manufacturers.

I'd say The main reason they haven't taken off Classic wise is because the looks were/are not the prettiest.

So if you like the look of the w140 go for it , I think they will be more scarce than the 126 in time.
They will also be more complex to maintain, especially electronically.
My w140 was a 500sel , but I have driven an S320 which wasn't a whole lot slower and had a nice 6 cyl growl. I also had a good few V8 and straight 6 cyl 126 , and indeed 116s in 450 SE , 350 SE, 280 s and SE the older w108 280se and 280se 3.5.
I'd very much be swayed by an individual car rather than choose between 140 or 126 , ideally I'd have both as they are SO different.
I hope this helps.

flatty

I'd like to officially thank Bigus. Had a grand chat with him. Sound advice and thanks.

w124man

flatty wrote: »

Why do you say that??

Because I have a w126 !!

supervento

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/1988-nissan-president-sovereign-v8-h250/19195181

Nissan President 1988



Different if nothing else.

I am quiet cautious but i would wonder why it is being re offered for sale after it was sold on the 20th of May this year..... of course their could be loads of genuine reasons for this....

amazing looking car in my opinion

flatty

w124man wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Why do you say that??

Because I have a w126 !!

Aaand?

w124man

flatty wrote: »

Aaand?

I don't need another W126 but would like a W140

flatty

Ah right. I'm going with the 126, though Bigus reckons I should buy both. I can't be bothered though.

w124man

flatty wrote: »

Ah right. I'm going with the 126, though Bigus reckons I should buy both. I can't be bothered though.

Good man. Where's the W140?

flatty

London

Duke O Smiley

https://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/bmw-502-baroque-angel/19220952



Look at this!

Sam2005

kadman wrote: »

Test them for who. I do all my own mechanics, engine rebuilds and body repairs, and have done for years. So I know they are in good mechanical shape.

Nct'd car is no 100% guarantee of a roadworthy safe vehicle.

Apologies for bringing this up again and no disrespect intended, but I am also curious about people not getting their classic cars (post 31/12/79) NCT'd.

My concerns are as follows:

1) For my classic car, when my insurer sends out the annual documentation it states that the car must have a valid NCT. My concern (significantly) would be if I needed to make a claim arising from an accident that they could declare the coverage invalid or otherwise drag out any financial settlement.

2) I also perform the mechanical work on my car to a reasonable standard but I feel the NCT gives an additional piece of mind in conducting tests that are not readily available to some mechanics or enthusiasts such as steering, suspension or emissions tests. It's also good to have a second set of eyes looking things over in case I've missed something.

3) From a future re-sale standpoint, I would be concerned that someone selling a car without an NCT might not have the confidence that their car could actually pass it, are trying to stay under the radar (it's low cost) or are possibly trying to hide something.

4) The NCT also provides a convenient and trusted record of the odometer readings which provide some independent mileage validation in addition to any service history.

Thanks in advance for any feedback that might illuminate either side of this debate.

Duke O Smiley

https://www.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/ford-cortina-mk4/19225910?campaign=3



This is absolutely lovely.

kadman

Sam2005 wrote: »

kadman wrote: »

Test them for who. I do all my own mechanics, engine rebuilds and body repairs, and have done for years. So I know they are in good mechanical shape.

Nct'd car is no 100% guarantee of a roadworthy safe vehicle.

Apologies for bringing this up again and no disrespect intended, but I am also curious about people not getting their classic cars (post 31/12/79) NCT'd.

My concerns are as follows:

1) For my classic car, when my insurer sends out the annual documentation it states that the car must have a valid NCT. My concern (significantly) would be if I needed to make a claim arising from an accident that they could declare the coverage invalid or otherwise drag out any financial settlement.

2) I also perform the mechanical work on my car to a reasonable standard but I feel the NCT gives an additional piece of mind in conducting tests that are not readily available to some mechanics or enthusiasts such as steering, suspension or emissions tests. It's also good to have a second set of eyes looking things over in case I've missed something.

3) From a future re-sale standpoint, I would be concerned that someone selling a car without an NCT might not have the confidence that their car could actually pass it, are trying to stay under the radar (it's low cost) or are possibly trying to hide something.

4) The NCT also provides a convenient and trusted record of the odometer readings which provide some independent mileage validation in addition to any service history.

Thanks in advance for any feedback that might illuminate either side of this debate.

You quoted me, so I think i,ll answer:)

Just for your record, any post 80 cars in my family, of which there are 4, are all nct'd as required by law, and pass without too much hassle.
My 87 camper, which needs a CVRT also passes .

Thanks mainly to my mechanical skills and fanaticism with safety. I dont replace anything with second hand breaker parts at all. I replace with new. Thats why all my passes are simple enough
Any fail I had in recent years was visual rip off.

I personally believe that all vehicles regardless of year should have some basic steering and brakes check ect.

But at the end of the day I personally dont need anyone to tell me what a safe car is, and what an unsafe one is. If you need that type of re assurance, then the NCT is for you. If you dont then why bother if its not a legal requirement. Unless you have intentions of selling it at some stage, and you want to document its history.

My documented history of my most recent on going resto is over 500 photographs. beats the hell out of any NCT:D

kadman

Sam2005 wrote: »

kadman wrote: »

Test them for who. I do all my own mechanics, engine rebuilds and body repairs, and have done for years. So I know they are in good mechanical shape.

Nct'd car is no 100% guarantee of a roadworthy safe vehicle.

Apologies for bringing this up again and no disrespect intended, but I am also curious about people not getting their classic cars (post 31/12/79) NCT'd.

My concerns are as follows:

1) For my classic car, when my insurer sends out the annual documentation it states that the car must have a valid NCT. My concern (significantly) would be if I needed to make a claim arising from an accident that they could declare the coverage invalid or otherwise drag out any financial settlement.

2) I also perform the mechanical work on my car to a reasonable standard but I feel the NCT gives an additional piece of mind in conducting tests that are not readily available to some mechanics or enthusiasts such as steering, suspension or emissions tests. It's also good to have a second set of eyes looking things over in case I've missed something.

3) From a future re-sale standpoint, I would be concerned that someone selling a car without an NCT might not have the confidence that their car could actually pass it, are trying to stay under the radar (it's low cost) or are possibly trying to hide something.

4) The NCT also provides a convenient and trusted record of the odometer readings which provide some independent mileage validation in addition to any service history.

Thanks in advance for any feedback that might illuminate either side of this debate.

You quoted me, so I think i,ll answer:)

Just for your record, any post 80 cars in my family, of which there are 4, are all nct'd as required by law, and pass without too much hassle.
My 87 camper, which needs a CVRT also passes .

Thanks mainly to my mechanical skills and fanaticism with safety. I dont replace anything with second hand breaker parts at all. I replace with new. Thats why all my passes are simple enough
Any fail I had in recent years was visual rip off.

I personally believe that all vehicles regardless of year should have some basic steering and brakes check ect, but its not a legal requirement at the moment.

But at the end of the day I personally dont need anyone to tell me what a safe car is, and what an unsafe one is. If you need that type of re assurance, then the NCT is for you. If you dont then why bother if its not a legal requirement. Unless you have intentions of selling it at some stage, and you want to document its history.

My documented history of my most recent on going resto is over 500 photographs. beats the hell out of any NCT:D

Sam2005

Kadman,

Thanks for your response, it's always beneficial to understand other people's perspectives on these things to get a balanced view.

I read one of your earlier posts "I know more classic cars with no NCT, than those with NCT, and i own classics with no NCT" as well as your most recent one "Just for your record, any post 80 cars in my family, of which there are 4, are all nct'd as required by law, and pass without too much hassle".

My interest in this topic was initially piqued around the question of insurance and any adverse affect on its validity if there is no valid NCT in place. Perhaps there are insurers who provide coverage without the NCT requirement- I didn't find any when shopping around for my cover. Perhaps it isn't a concern or issue, but it would be interesting to know if this is a problem.

Just for your record, I initially got the NCT to ensure that my classic car insurance would be valid in the event of an accident. As per my policy documents.

As to the other points I mentioned, I thought that they were beneficial consequences of the NCT, given that I was getting the car inspected due to my insurers requirement, namely; second set of eyes, future resale and odometer record.

I suppose my view of the NCT may not be all that dissimilar to yours (ie: concern about a visual rip-off and/or subjectivity of the inspector) but I wouldn't buy any car newer than 31/12/79 unless it had a valid NCT or guarantee of return/rectification from the seller if it failed within a reasonable time post-purchase.

Cheers,

kadman

My classic insurance has never requested an NCT for any of my vehicles, except the CVRT for my camper.

They have requested proof of my daily driver, which is a 2008 vehicle with current NCT.
And they request me to sign a declaration of mileage, and odometer readings on my classic vehicles,
all of which I provide. Should they require NCT on any classic, they will get it.

I would buy any pre or post 80 classic, with or without an NCT, as i would give it a full
inspection myself regardless of what documentation it has, before I would part with any money.

oceanman

kadman wrote: »

My classic insurance has never requested an NCT for any of my vehicles, except the CVRT for my camper.

They have requested proof of my daily driver, which is a 2008 vehicle with current NCT.
And they request me to sign a declaration of mileage, and odometer readings on my classic vehicles,
all of which I provide. Should they require NCT on any classic, they will get it.

I would buy any pre or post 80 classic, with or without an NCT, as i would give it a full
inspection myself regardless of what documentation it has, before I would part with any money
yeah I would be the same myself.