*CCW reserves the right to edit letters for space reasons and cannot return hard correspondence.
editorial@classiccarweekly.co.uk
The best letter we receive wins a bottle of Mothers Ultimate Hybrid Car Wash. If your letter is here, please claim by emailing editorial@classiccarweekly.co.uk Your Letters is sponsored by Mothers
*Don’t forget to tell us where you’re from in your letters
Remember what they’re for
I would like to commend Richard Barnett’s comments on the valuation of classic cars in your Buying and Selling section (CCW, 31 January). Classic cars should be bought to be used and enjoyed by both the owner and the public. Owning a classic car gives you access to many enjoyable activities that a modern car would not. We make a point of travelling to Europe in our car and as a result travelling in a classic car really makes the holiday special.
Instead of looking at values, which are depressed at the moment, you should think of the enjoyment you get. Plus, any work that you do to keep a car on the road is a good cause for future generations to enjoy. If I owned a brand-new car, I think
I would have nightmares thinking of the depreciation and expensive repairs bills to sort out the dreaded engine management light on the over-complex cars made today.
Hear hear, Steve. While we regularly talk about values in CCW so that enthusiasts can make informed choices about their next buy, we should never lose sight of why we own old cars – to enjoy them! – Ed.
A ‘common sense’ decision
At last– common sense from the government in its decision to retain existing regulations regarding annual MoT inspections (CCW, 31 January).
I have a friend who owns an MoT service station. Some of the horror stories he tells me regarding the unroadworthy, even dangerous condition of some of the vehicles brought in for test make my blood run cold.
One such instance was a three-year-old car brought in for its first service and MoT. On draining the sump oil there was barely enough to cover the bottom of the waste oil pan. There were other issues too numerous to list. When questioned, the owner said that the bonnet had never been opened in the three years that they had owned the car. The reason? The manufacturer service interval was 12,000 miles.
