Anglia Auctions With Another RS
Discussion
https://angliacarauctions.co.uk/classic-auctions/2...
Its been restored and I am not too sure what's gone on with the rear panel under the bumper ? As always its interesting to see where it will end up money wise . A long way ahead of the Dolomite Sprint which has been destroyed by the fitting of that sun hatch . What a bargain these Sprints are for the money .
https://angliacarauctions.co.uk/classic-auctions/2...
Its been restored and I am not too sure what's gone on with the rear panel under the bumper ? As always its interesting to see where it will end up money wise . A long way ahead of the Dolomite Sprint which has been destroyed by the fitting of that sun hatch . What a bargain these Sprints are for the money .
https://angliacarauctions.co.uk/classic-auctions/2...
Mark A S said:
Both cars look Very nice, although why someone could not take the effort to hoover/clean the interior of the RS before taking pics baffles me!
My thought as well when I looked through the photo's, but, I'm guessing looking at them, someone drives them to this site to take photo's and where they are driven from isn't too clean, hence, they've got in a nice clean car, to drive it to somewhere to take nice photo's of what is then a not clean car.The white RS looks quite nice, it seems a nice original spec standard car (apart from the black painted wheel spokes
) so seems a low estimate based on what we can see in the photo's. Its only downside is it is white.Of course the low estimate might be because its full of filler.......or a close inspection could mean it could be a right bargain.
It's amusing to consider these cars side by side.
Same age (bar a few months. 2.0-litre 4-cylinder, mid-size saloon from a major manufacturer. 4 / 5 seats, manual, front engine rear wheel drive. Both restored, to some extent.
Decent motorsport heritage (although most famous Escorts were flat-fronts), good handling, relatively simple mechanicals. But...
Triumph is streets ahead in terms of interior appointments and technical features (16 valves, single camshaft). More practical (4 doors) and refined (overdrive, one of the world's best dashboards).
Ford is a relative horse-drawn cart, mechanically. but has an image the Triumph could only dream of.
Is the Ford really worth 5 times the Triumph, as the estimate suggests? I love an RS2000, but out of these two I'd go with the Triumph every day, and enjoy the £20,000 saving.
Same age (bar a few months. 2.0-litre 4-cylinder, mid-size saloon from a major manufacturer. 4 / 5 seats, manual, front engine rear wheel drive. Both restored, to some extent.
Decent motorsport heritage (although most famous Escorts were flat-fronts), good handling, relatively simple mechanicals. But...
Triumph is streets ahead in terms of interior appointments and technical features (16 valves, single camshaft). More practical (4 doors) and refined (overdrive, one of the world's best dashboards).
Ford is a relative horse-drawn cart, mechanically. but has an image the Triumph could only dream of.
Is the Ford really worth 5 times the Triumph, as the estimate suggests? I love an RS2000, but out of these two I'd go with the Triumph every day, and enjoy the £20,000 saving.
Turbobanana said:
Is the Ford really worth 5 times the Triumph, as the estimate suggests? I love an RS2000, but out of these two I'd go with the Triumph every day, and enjoy the £20,000 saving.
Having driven both in period 40+ years ago, I'd have the Ford in a heartbeat over the Triumph, despite the premium.While, the driving situation is now very different, as they are classic cars doing limited mileage, not daily drivers, but the Triumph has terrible seats, terrible driving position, terrible brakes....and not a great chassis.
Yes, if 4 doors for taking the family to car shows is a must have, then the Triumph makes sense, as does the overdrive, but those are its only two advantages over the Ford (and given how easy it is to put a later 5-speed in the Ford) the overdrive isn't much of an advantage in that regard, unless you want an trophy winning stock concours show car.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 4th April 13:45
aeropilot said:
Turbobanana said:
Is the Ford really worth 5 times the Triumph, as the estimate suggests? I love an RS2000, but out of these two I'd go with the Triumph every day, and enjoy the £20,000 saving.
Having driven both in period 40+ years ago, I'd have the Ford in a heartbeat over the Triumph, despite the premium.While, the driving situation is now very different, as they are classic cars doing limited mileage, not daily drivers, but the Triumph has terrible seats, terrible driving position, terrible brakes....and not a great chassis.
Yes, if 4 doors for taking the family to car shows is a must have, then the Triumph makes sense, as does the overdrive, but those are its only two advantages over the Ford (and given how easy it is to put a later 5-speed in the Ford) the overdrive isn't much of an advantage in that regard, unless you want an trophy winning stock concours show car.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 4th April 13:45
Classic & Sportscar did a giant test years ago, July 1984, featuring these two protagonists, a BMW 2002tii and a Firenza Droopsnoot. Without rummaging through the 42 years of collection in my loft I can't remember which won, but I suspect it was the '02.
Which would you choose today? I'd be happy with any of them, but the wacky looks of the Vauxhall would probably swing it for me.
Turbobanana said:
Classic & Sportscar did a giant test years ago, July 1984, featuring these two protagonists, a BMW 2002tii and a Firenza Droopsnoot. Without rummaging through the 42 years of collection in my loft I can't remember which won, but I suspect it was the '02.
Which would you choose today? I'd be happy with any of them, but the wacky looks of the Vauxhall would probably swing it for me.
I remember that edition....as I still had a year later when I was shopping for another car, and looked at pretty much 3 of the 4 (BMW was still too expensive for me in '85) the other 3 could be fixed with a hammer and screwdriver at the side of the road, and from easily obtained spares......the BMW was still one of those fancy foreign jobs Which would you choose today? I'd be happy with any of them, but the wacky looks of the Vauxhall would probably swing it for me.
The Vauxhall was almost the one for me back then, but, not great seats.......and ultimately, I went back to what I already knew best, and got another RS2000 Mk.1.
Fast forward 40 years, and which one would I have of the four, and likely it would be the RS2000 Mk.2, as still a great drive, plus easy to look after, parts readily available including lots of repro stuff. As much as I'm more a AVO fan rather than a Mk.2 RS fan, I'd still take the Escort. It would be like putting on an old pair of slippers from decades ago. I'd be worried about finding a Kugelfisher expert these days for the 2002, and parts for the Firenza are not easy to come by, as much as I love the Firenza (I even have a mint sales brochure still for them!)
The Sprint wouldn't get get considered.
aeropilot said:
Turbobanana said:
Classic & Sportscar did a giant test years ago, July 1984, featuring these two protagonists, a BMW 2002tii and a Firenza Droopsnoot. Without rummaging through the 42 years of collection in my loft I can't remember which won, but I suspect it was the '02.
Which would you choose today? I'd be happy with any of them, but the wacky looks of the Vauxhall would probably swing it for me.
I remember that edition....as I still had a year later when I was shopping for another car, and looked at pretty much 3 of the 4 (BMW was still too expensive for me in '85) the other 3 could be fixed with a hammer and screwdriver at the side of the road, and from easily obtained spares......the BMW was still one of those fancy foreign jobs Which would you choose today? I'd be happy with any of them, but the wacky looks of the Vauxhall would probably swing it for me.
The Vauxhall was almost the one for me back then, but, not great seats.......and ultimately, I went back to what I already knew best, and got another RS2000 Mk.1.
Fast forward 40 years, and which one would I have of the four, and likely it would be the RS2000 Mk.2, as still a great drive, plus easy to look after, parts readily available including lots of repro stuff. As much as I'm more a AVO fan rather than a Mk.2 RS fan, I'd still take the Escort. It would be like putting on an old pair of slippers from decades ago. I'd be worried about finding a Kugelfisher expert these days for the 2002, and parts for the Firenza are not easy to come by, as much as I love the Firenza (I even have a mint sales brochure still for them!)
The Sprint wouldn't get get considered.
I passed my test in late '85 so wasn't in the market at this point (although I already owned a Mk1 Escort 1300 and learned to drive in it on a beach).
Turbobanana said:
Interesting, isn't it? As I said, I'd be happy with any and I don't worry about spares availability until I need them: I just buy what I like.
I used to be like that, even used to enjoy trawling around autojumbles etc looking for elusive bits, as it was all part of the fun.But that was years ago, and now at 60+, if it needs fixing I just want to be able to fix it, and easily, so parts availability for me now, would be a big factor in any choice. As you can see your years ahead getting fewer, you want more time driving them, rather then seeing them laid up for months at a time as you have to go on the hunt for that elusive widget, and then oh look another year has passed me by with the car still in the garage. That was fine when you are in your 20's and 30's but not in your 60's+
aeropilot said:
Turbobanana said:
Interesting, isn't it? As I said, I'd be happy with any and I don't worry about spares availability until I need them: I just buy what I like.
I used to be like that, even used to enjoy trawling around autojumbles etc looking for elusive bits, as it was all part of the fun.But that was years ago, and now at 60+, if it needs fixing I just want to be able to fix it, and easily, so parts availability for me now, would be a big factor in any choice. As you can see your years ahead getting fewer, you want more time driving them, rather then seeing them laid up for months at a time as you have to go on the hunt for that elusive widget, and then oh look another year has passed me by with the car still in the garage. That was fine when you are in your 20's and 30's but not in your 60's+
[quote=reddiesel A long way ahead of the Dolomite Sprint which has been destroyed by the fitting of that sun hatch.
https://angliacarauctions.co.uk/classic-auctions/2...
[/quote]
I'd guess that was fitted about forty years ago, when the car was just about swerve the slide into banger territory.
https://angliacarauctions.co.uk/classic-auctions/2...
[/quote]
I'd guess that was fitted about forty years ago, when the car was just about swerve the slide into banger territory.
aeropilot said:
Mark A S said:
Both cars look Very nice, although why someone could not take the effort to hoover/clean the interior of the RS before taking pics baffles me!
My thought as well when I looked through the photo's, but, I'm guessing looking at them, someone drives them to this site to take photo's and where they are driven from isn't too clean, hence, they've got in a nice clean car, to drive it to somewhere to take nice photo's of what is then a not clean car.The white RS looks quite nice, it seems a nice original spec standard car (apart from the black painted wheel spokes
) so seems a low estimate based on what we can see in the photo's. Its only downside is it is white.Of course the low estimate might be because its full of filler.......or a close inspection could mean it could be a right bargain.
The engine and rocker panels should be black. The inside of the 'A' pillars also wouldn't have been body colour. Headlining would have been white. Rear fog light gone. Mismatch of some interior plastic, chocolate / black. All just details, on the plus side basically original specification and probably worth a journey for a close inspection.
Plenty of us happy with Diamond White !
This auction company, in my opinion, quite often have lowish estimates to encourage interest.
gt40steve said:
aeropilot said:
Mark A S said:
Both cars look Very nice, although why someone could not take the effort to hoover/clean the interior of the RS before taking pics baffles me!
My thought as well when I looked through the photo's, but, I'm guessing looking at them, someone drives them to this site to take photo's and where they are driven from isn't too clean, hence, they've got in a nice clean car, to drive it to somewhere to take nice photo's of what is then a not clean car.The white RS looks quite nice, it seems a nice original spec standard car (apart from the black painted wheel spokes
) so seems a low estimate based on what we can see in the photo's. Its only downside is it is white.Of course the low estimate might be because its full of filler.......or a close inspection could mean it could be a right bargain.
The engine and rocker panels should be black. The inside of the 'A' pillars also wouldn't have been body colour. Headlining would have been white. Rear fog light gone. Mismatch of some interior plastic, chocolate / black. All just details, on the plus side basically original specification and probably worth a journey for a close inspection.
I keep forgetting about the change of head lining on the last 12 months or so production.....always wondered why they did that, so close to end of the line, and against all RS's back to the beginning of AVO. Typical Ford
Turbobanana said:
It's amusing to consider these cars side by side.
Same age (bar a few months. 2.0-litre 4-cylinder, mid-size saloon from a major manufacturer. 4 / 5 seats, manual, front engine rear wheel drive. Both restored, to some extent.
Decent motorsport heritage (although most famous Escorts were flat-fronts), good handling, relatively simple mechanicals. But...
Triumph is streets ahead in terms of interior appointments and technical features (16 valves, single camshaft). More practical (4 doors) and refined (overdrive, one of the world's best dashboards).
Ford is a relative horse-drawn cart, mechanically. but has an image the Triumph could only dream of.
Is the Ford really worth 5 times the Triumph, as the estimate suggests? I love an RS2000, but out of these two I'd go with the Triumph every day, and enjoy the £20,000 saving.
Because the few fat and grey over 50’s who lusted after or owned a dolly sprint back in the day already own one because they are cheap.Same age (bar a few months. 2.0-litre 4-cylinder, mid-size saloon from a major manufacturer. 4 / 5 seats, manual, front engine rear wheel drive. Both restored, to some extent.
Decent motorsport heritage (although most famous Escorts were flat-fronts), good handling, relatively simple mechanicals. But...
Triumph is streets ahead in terms of interior appointments and technical features (16 valves, single camshaft). More practical (4 doors) and refined (overdrive, one of the world's best dashboards).
Ford is a relative horse-drawn cart, mechanically. but has an image the Triumph could only dream of.
Is the Ford really worth 5 times the Triumph, as the estimate suggests? I love an RS2000, but out of these two I'd go with the Triumph every day, and enjoy the £20,000 saving.
Whereas the same demographic who wanted escorts and cossies is far larger and therefore through the laws of supply and demand they are priced accordingly.
(Old fat bloke who bought a cossie because he always wanted one)
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff