When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Not sure why a repaint is viewed as a negative. There is a bizarre obsession among commentors on BAT about repainted panels but it's not clear that actual buyers have the same view.
The chances of a 30-year-old FD having decent original paint are close to zero. And a car with crappy paint looks like crap (except, often, in photos). And who wants to pay $60k+ for a crappy-looking car?
Not sure why a repaint is viewed as a negative. There is a bizarre obsession among commentors on BAT about repainted panels but it's not clear that actual buyers have the same view.
The chances of a 30-year-old FD having decent original paint are close to zero. And a car with crappy paint looks like crap (except, often, in photos). And who wants to pay $60k+ for a crappy-looking car?
People over there don't know the difference between a collector's car and a driver's car. Sub 10K mile FD definitely a contender for collector status. 30K mile FD no way. That's a driver's car 100% and should be expected to have driver's car issues.
Nice original paint will always be more desirable in the car hobby than a repaint, for lots of reasons.
In general, original paint cars are perceived as less risky, less chance of prior accident damage. With a repaint, there is always the question of why it was done, and whether it was done well.
There is also the question of quality. With a repaint you usually get a skim coat of body filler (less durable than OEM paint) and tape lines in places. Was the car re-assembled properly? Is there any overspray? How durable is the paint compared to the OEM process? I actually looked at the car that just sold quite thoroughly because I was trying to buy it before I found my current car. There were already places on the bumper where the new paint is peeling - stuff like that is not uncommon on a repaint.
Granted, the FD is so old and so many have been repainted (especially with the factory primer adhesion issues), that a repaint is not as big of a negative as it would be with say, a brand new Porsche.
Nice original paint will always be more desirable in the car hobby than a repaint, for lots of reasons.
In general, original paint cars are perceived as less risky, less chance of prior accident damage. With a repaint, there is always the question of why it was done, and whether it was done well.
There is also the question of quality. With a repaint you usually get a skim coat of body filler (less durable than OEM paint) and tape lines in places. Was the car re-assembled properly? Is there any overspray? How durable is the paint compared to the OEM process? I actually looked at the car that just sold quite thoroughly because I was trying to buy it before I found my current car. There were already places on the bumper where the new paint is peeling - stuff like that is not uncommon on a repaint.
Granted, the FD is so old and so many have been repainted (especially with the factory primer adhesion issues), that a repaint is not as big of a negative as it would be with say, a brand new Porsche.
Agreed. Also, the EPA introduced the Clean Air Act in the early 90s and most auto manufacturers hadn't found a good solution to lead-based paint yet.. Here's a little passage from a long, boring .gov page
Originally Posted by EPA crap
In 1992, Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, amended the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. This act expanded the concept of lead-based hazards in homes from paint chips to lead-contaminated dust and soil; shifted response to lead-based hazards from reactive to preventive through a national strategy to eliminate those hazards; and recognized the need to use emerging technology for evaluating and reducing the risk of hazards blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda
Not sure why a repaint is viewed as a negative. There is a bizarre obsession among commentors on BAT about repainted panels but it's not clear that actual buyers have the same view.
The chances of a 30-year-old FD having decent original paint are close to zero. And a car with crappy paint looks like crap (except, often, in photos). And who wants to pay $60k+ for a crappy-looking car?
It's only original once.
IMO, i'd rather have a car in original condition than one that's gone through a rotisserie resto. To me, they look fake. And FWIW, my FD still wears it's original paint
I guess I don't understand the fetish of originality when applied to frequently driven cars. For very low-mile collector cars I can see the logic.
There is nothing special about OEM paint, and there is definitely nothing special about early '90s Mazda paint. Modern paint (properly applied by a good body shop) will look much better and will be far more durable.
I've had several cars partially repainted over the years due to minor accidents and each time the results were indistinguishable from OEM paint. In fact, the painted panels were often better than OEM because they did not have factory orange peel.
My 56k-mile BB R1 also looks extremely nice when photographed from 20 feet. On closer inspection, it is starting to look tired. I find no appeal in tired-looking paint. To each is own, I guess.
Aftermarket paint is much thicker than factory paint. This means that the radiuses at the edges of body panels are not as sharp... I know what you mean.
I do all the assembly/dissemble myself and let the body shop focus on only the paint. I've learned the hard way that they never get it right putting things back together. Sometimes it will take me forever to get a single component back in place but in the end it is worth it. Sometimes it is even better than original.
As long as you know a good painter I see no issues having it painted. I figure in this market you are looking at 10+ just to paint it right. I document everything in case one day I decide to sell.
Also tell the painter that you will check it with a meter after
I think we can all agree that factory paint is best. However, the point (or question) is why are people expecting a driver's car to not have any paint issues? It's a car that has significant miles on the road and because of that it's subject to rock chips, door dings, and well... the elements. All things that are not conducive to keeping a pristine paint job.
...the question is why are people expecting a driver's car to not have any paint issues?
its what separates the cream from the other really nice cars. if you go to Pebble Beach its the exception that any of those cars have not been painted though so its not like you can't paint a car, it just needs to be perfect, or better.
i saw a little new yorker type comic once and the caption was "at Pebble Beach after finding all the cars were perfect they started checking the owners" and it had a picture of the judge looking in the guys mouth (for fillings?)
My 56k-mile BB R1 also looks extremely nice when photographed from 20 feet. On closer inspection, it is starting to look tired. I find no appeal in tired-looking paint. To each is own, I guess.
my dads friend had a Type 35 Bugatti that was real and his friend had one that he built in his garage. the one built in the garage was nicer, no patina
its what separates the cream from the other really nice cars. if you go to Pebble Beach its the exception that any of those cars have not been painted though so its not like you can't paint a car, it just needs to be perfect, or better.
(With respect to FD's with 30k+ miles)
It is my understanding that pebble beach cars aren't driver's cars though but instead are true show/collector vehicles. Although, I have never been so I'm not speaking from a first person perspective.
Any case, thank you for bringing up a good point. It seems that people want to scrutinize FD's and put them in the same category as those very high dollar pebble beach examples. While at the same time not have the price tag that those vehicles carry.
With a $500,000 car the owner is completely justified in spending $20k (or more) for a repaint. No way that applies to a $60k FD. It seems to me that we are at a weird spot where the standards are extremely high yet the value isn't there yet to justify that level of scrutinization.
Originally Posted by j9fd3s
i saw a little new yorker type comic once and the caption was "at Pebble Beach after finding all the cars were perfect they started checking the owners" and it had a picture of the judge looking in the guys mouth (for fillings?)
It is my understanding that pebble beach cars aren't driver's cars though but instead are true show/collector vehicles. Although, I have never been so I'm not speaking from a first person perspective.
the rule is that the judge should be able to put his white glove anywhere on the car and have it come up clean. so it makes driving the car kind of tricky, just because its a TON of cleaning.
some of the cars there are drivers, or get driven. its by invitation so when they pick an interesting car, sometimes those get driven. one of my dads other friends had a 1961 Ferrari 250GT SWB, and he bought it at Oldsmobile of San Francisco for $5000 in 1969 (sound like an FD?) and in the late 80's he got invited to Pebble Beach because his car was rare for some reason (i forget why, its either the last one, or the first with disc brakes, something like that).
he lost because the head bolts were not the correct ones...
the rule is that the judge should be able to put his white glove anywhere on the car and have it come up clean. so it makes driving the car kind of tricky, just because its a TON of cleaning.
some of the cars there are drivers, or get driven. its by invitation so when they pick an interesting car, sometimes those get driven. one of my dads other friends had a 1961 Ferrari 250GT SWB, and he bought it at Oldsmobile of San Francisco for $5000 in 1969 (sound like an FD?) and in the late 80's he got invited to Pebble Beach because his car was rare for some reason (i forget why, its either the last one, or the first with disc brakes, something like that).
he lost because the head bolts were not the correct ones...
This video shows the amount of detailing (let alone paintwork) that goes into producing a Pebble Beach-winning car:
It is my understanding that pebble beach cars aren't driver's cars though but instead are true show/collector vehicles. Although, I have never been so I'm not speaking from a first person perspective.
Any case, thank you for bringing up a good point. It seems that people want to scrutinize FD's and put them in the same category as those very high dollar pebble beach examples. While at the same time not have the price tag that those vehicles carry.
With a $500,000 car the owner is completely justified in spending $20k (or more) for a repaint. No way that applies to a $60k FD. It seems to me that we are at a weird spot where the standards are extremely high yet the value isn't there yet to justify that level of scrutinization.
Actually that's kinda funny lol
YEP, that's why you try to avoid a bad repaint on a collector car because you are going to want it right at some point and it will cost 20k LOL. This r1 just sold for 70k, that's a hella high price for a used vehicle even in today's absurd market. IMO a 70k used/collector car deserves a stellar paint job. However the seller didn't repaint and likely paid a lot less for the car.
I was surprised at how much the value of a nice FD has gone up recently. Mine sits under its car cover most of the time and some years the only mileage is from my garage to the inspection station and back to the garage. I restored a 1968 Corvette convertible a couple years ago, so I have competition what car to drive. I bought it in 1999 in NC with 20k miles, a pristine exterior, Ziebart rustproofing (it spent about 6 months in PA with the previous owner), and.....an engine with failed coolant o-rings that overheated. I paid $15k for it and spent the next two years upgrading the turbos and suspension and replacing the motor with a RotorSports stage II engine. Now it is even faster, better handling and "funner" to drive. Think I will hold on to it and see how high the sales price goes on nice FDs.
For anyone who has sold an FD recently and made a s-ton of money, are you claiming the capital gain on the old tax form?
In principle, if you make a gain, that gain is taxable as a capital gain. If you have owned the car for more than a year, a lower long-term capital gain rate will apply.
Selling a vehicle for a profit is considered a capital gain by the IRS, so it does need to be reported on your tax return. But figuring the dollar-amount of that gain is not as simple as comparing your purchase price to your sale price.
You’ll need to add the cost of the improvements you made to the car to your original purchase price (listed on the bill of sale you received when you first bought the car). An improvement is anything that's long-term, like new paint, a new sound system, or upgraded mechanical components. It does not include regular maintenance costs like oil changes or brake replacements. Again, paperwork is important—it's best to have receipts detailing the cost of each improvement to help you remember exact figures and to use as proof if needed. Keeping track of the details makes it easier to check your figures with an online tax calculator, too.
In Australia, there is an absolute exemption for capital gains tax on cars and motorcycles (even where you acquire them as collectibles), which on reflection may have something to do with the fact our second hand car bubble is even worse than other countries. This exemption makes a very desirable asset class for people looking to dump money - way better than real property, crypto or shares.
For anyone who has sold an FD recently and made a s-ton of money, are you claiming the capital gain on the old tax form?
Remeber insurance cost, maintenance, yearly tax, etc. I highly doubt more than a handful of people truly make money. The best you can hope for is to break a little more even.
Remeber insurance cost, maintenance, yearly tax, etc. I highly doubt more than a handful of people truly make money. The best you can hope for is to break a little more even.
i bought a 1985 Rx7 a few years ago that was owned by adults, and it actually had all the paperwork from new in it, including all of the registration cards. the registration in California is some random number, which is weird, its NOT the same amount every year, but just to make the math easy lets say $169 a year. times 35 years, $5915. insurance was probably about the same amount, so nearly the purchase price of the car just in fees (Oregon is $62 for two years, so that would be like $1116... ymmv!)
i didn't get the window sticker, but it would have been around 18k...
oh and for the first 35 years the car needed two sets of tires, two sets of front brake pads a set of rear brake shoes and a clutch slave cylinder. not bad for 118k on a totally unreliable car
02-04-22, 01:48 PM
