[Big Dave]

With what new cars cost, and some of the "land mines" embedded in them, refurbishing old cars makes enormous economic sense.

I am looking at my 1996 Impala SS. A "like-kind" replacement ( a Camaro SS) costs $45,000 and gets the same MPG, and requires gymnastics to get into (thanks to a lowtop sill) where the Impala requires none.


My Impala is in great shape. For $15,000, I could get a "rotisserie" restoration and would not be ashamed to put it in a Barrett-Jackson auction. I might break even, but that is not the point of my exercise.

For about the same, I could bring it to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and cosmetic standard of a new car. LS3 engine, Tremec 6060, autocross suspension, etc. A bit more for Brembo brakes. Not to "Barrett-Jackson" bodywork and documentation standards, but a car good for another fifteen years of regular road service, and would probably get better MPG than the newer car.

There is a lot of pollution involved in steelmaking for cars. As a rule cars require high-quality steel that cannot be made from scrap, so somebody has to smelt some taconite (a dirty process) to make the new car. The old car already has the high-quality steel, made into the appropriate parts.