Restoration vs. Restromod

There has never been a clear understanding between these two ways keeping a car alive.  Perhaps is not so much an understanding issue as to a delineation of the fine line between the two.

I do agree that there is a difference.  Clearly if one were to take a 1970 Camaro and put 1989 front end on it, or a Ford 8 bolt rear end and 351 Cleveland that’s a restro-mod.  A couple of car shows ago I saw a 1967 Ford Mustang with a Corvette engine (LS1) shoved under the hood.  Oh..hey..I have pics…here’s one and there on at the bottom of this post.

I spoke to the owner and asked him “why” to which he responded “Because I could.”

Sometimes it’s pretty easy to know when to call it a restoration or a restromod.  But what about finer changes, cosmetic, or safety changes.

I mentioned, in a previous posting, that a judge called my Mustang a restromod. Which I was take back a bit by.   I started thinking about after I posted that and  I’m going to have to agree with him and here is why.

I believe the swapping of the 250 for a 302 wasn’t the problem (unless your definition includes a requirement for a matching year block …I’m sure mine isn’t from 1970 at least not the short block)  or the dual exhaust.  The Center Line wheels…. maybe.  Now the rear spoiler and the Mach I mirrors might be where I crossed the line.  You couldn’t have purchased a coupe with those items, as far as I can tell with the research I’ve done.  But aren’t we now just talking about accessories, like dice hanging from the mirror or a locking gas cap?

Now what if there was just a brake change (drum to disk) for upgrade for safety, or seat belts added or something as simple as steel belted tires.

Where would you draw the line?  Drop me a comment and let me know.

Thanks for reading.

Tim