11 replies to this topic

[mdiv]

1973 Jaguar Squire SS100

All I would need is this, a red scarf, and a cigar!!!

Time to save up!

[TSR]

Your dream is a poorly-built plastic replica of a SS100??? :shock:

[mdiv]

Hey I like it!

If only I could find (for $21K) . . .

. . . ahem . . .

"Rolls-Royce Phantom II. 4.3 litre, 30 horsepower, six-cylinder engine, with Stromberg downdraft carburetor, can go from zero to 100 kilometres an hour in 12.5 seconds. And I even like the color. "

[TSR]

4.3 litre, 30 horsepower, six-cylinder engine

With 30 horsepower, it will take you all day to get to 100!

By the way, zero to 100 (62MPH) in 12.5 seconds is rather lethargic in today's world. Trust me Mike, for the same money you could get yourself a REAL MG TD in REAL metal instead of a bad plastic copy of a great car, and that would look a lot better and would be a lot more fun if just as slow or slower.

[edworth]

Or $21,000 will get you a decent MGA which is a bit more drivable, but still very cool-looking.

I know we are talkin' fun here, but seriously, for future considerations those things are generally $ x 1000 mistakes.

Run from the neo/retro/kit cars as 90% can't be resold for squat and there is no history or provenance.

A few neo/retro/kit cars have honest value . . . very few. Caterhams and those semi-Porsche Speedster things with v-dub engines are among the exceptions. (But they interchange parts with the real things, and in the case of the Caterham licensed and built with the same tooling)

Listen to Dokk on this. He may be sort of a snob on some slot stuff . . . but he is a real snob on 1/1 cars and really has the resume to back it up as well.

Seriously, he promotes the proper message.

(But If you could rent it for the weekend, and try to pick up some shallow women, who aren't car buffs and wouldn't spot it, I'd say go for it. :up: )

[Cheater]

Mike, Ed and Dokk are correct: few of the replicas have any intrinsic value.

BTW, I've never seen a Rolls-Royce PII listed as having "30 HP". Generally English cars of this vintage are listed with "taxable" HP ratings. In the case of a PII, it is given as "40/50 HP". Dunno if I've ever seen a measured horsepower number for a PII.

RR sold a smaller-engined car through 1936 listed as "20/25 HP" and later, as "25/30 HP". but these were not Phantom series cars.

[TSR]

Old six-cylinder or eight-cylinder Phantoms engines are overweight lethargic beasts with decent torque but little power.

[Cheater]

Dokk, it all depends on one's standard of comparison.

I've driven and ridden many miles in Rolls-Royce Phantoms: PIs, PIIs, and V-12 PIIIs. And none of them would be good vehicles for competing in stoplight Grand Prixs.

One point to consider is that in those pre-automatic days, cars, especially the larger ones we now term Classics, were geared in a substantially different manner. Most were geared to run smoothly at very low speeds in top gear and that's the way they were usually driven: once moving, they generally were left in top gear until a stop was required. Along with gearing, engine rotating assemblies of the time were quite heavy, which helped in achieving the desired low-speed performance and flexibility.

In those days, high speed performance and acceleration were not considered particularly important in the luxury car segment; smoothness and flexibility were the main goals.

[TSR]

Greg, I know, in my younger and stupider days, I briefly owned an apparently-sound '49 Rolls. What a pile of debris that car was. I gave it away to a junkyard. :x

[Russkid]

Do you have any grey poopon?

[TSR]

Only the other color and I kind of flush it as needed... :mrgreen:

[mdiv]

hahaha

I still like it If we hit the lottery at work it's mine!!!!!