Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
XP715

Would-Be Classic Cars

26 posts in this topic

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118...8986501078.html

Interesting article from the Wall Street Journal about the future collectibility of today's automobiles. Anything any of you agree/disagree with? Any cars the people in the article, in your opinion, failed to mention?

Personally, I don't think much of anything from today will be collectible. Of course the exotics and supercars will always have their place in history, but the normal stuff will never have any value. The cars of the masses from the days of old have a value, but do you think anything built today could ever equal that? I don't see anybody bulding a retirement fund by sitting on a barn stuffed with Intrepids and Grand Ams and Tauruses.

Thoughts?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riviera

Aurora

Allante

Reatta convertibles

CTS-Vs that aren't thrashed out

SKY

Eldorado coachbuilt convertibles

Mark VIIIs

SSR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as classic cars or collector's cars go, there's really no way of telling what cars are going to make it there.

I doubt that Chevrolet really anticipated back in the 50s that the Bel Air and Impala were going to wind up being classics fifty years later. Fifty years from now, the world might revere the '08 Malibu as much as we all revere the '57 Bel Air now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add the GTO and certain F-bodies. Also the ImpalaSS and the Monte SSs from the 1980s.

And all El Caminos.

Minis.

BMW Z8

BMW M5 and M3

Ford GT

Certain Mustangs.

Yeah, there will always be collectibles.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure... something like a 2007 XLR-V will no doubt be a classic, &

a valued collectible but it will never surpass something like a

1931 Cadillac V16 or even a 1959 Cadillac ANYTHING. IN the end

many of todays cars will end up as parts cars not only because of

stuff like rust & high milage but also the unsurmountable amount

of electronics gremlins, diagnostic issues & over-coplication in

todays' wiring harnesses.

Good luck fixing a 2007 Lexus SC's engine control module in 2057.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, though, a collectable is only worth as much as someone wants to spend. I'm constantly amazed at these fools blowing several hundreds of thousands of dollars on a low-rung Charger or Camaro at an auction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the newer cars listed will be CLOSE to being a true "classic" IMO except "certain Mustangs".

The first car that is modern that would get a "future classic" designation already IS basically a "classic"- the Ford GT. How it could be separated from the GT40 though would be interesting. It's not "one and the same" car, but it is to those who don't know much about cars.

The Chevy SSR would be looked at in the future I'm sure, because it would be radically different.

The Plymouth Prowler would be looked at for the same reason.

Performance vehicles like Corvette Z06s, MoPar SRT's of any sort or supercharged Mustangs will be DESIREABLE, because of their performance and looks, but "classic" isn't the right term for them IMO.

*shrugs*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Z06 with 505hp will not be a classic BUT a FORD Mustang will be?!?! :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Z06 with 505hp will not be a classic BUT a FORD Mustang will be?!?! :blink:

I don't think "ANY" Mustang will, not by a long shot. CERTAIN Mustangs. Not any Mustangs. The majority of Mustangs will be dime a dozen IMO.

The Z06 will be DESIREABLE for sure. The performance numbers don't lie. Bang for the buck it can't be beat.

The early Corvettes were almost ALL "classics" imo, but once the rubber bumpers came it's been about performance for the Corvette, not unequalled personality.

When the 1963 Corvette came out it was in a class all by itself IMO. Nothing was close. Nowadays the Corvette isn't in the same predicament, it needs a boost in IMAGE. Not performance, it already has that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... the Mustang does not have "rubber bumpers"?

If it was not for the performance the Mustang would just be a $h!box Ford.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... the Mustang does not have "rubber bumpers"?

If it was not for the performance the Mustang would just be a $h!box Ford.

I think you missed what I posted.

A Mustang could be termed a "rubber bumper" car, but what I posted was posted about the CORVETTE. Nothing to do with the Mustang at all.

So, "again"... doesn't have a way to be responded to..??

The new Mustang is a good looking car, performance wise or not. It LOOKS good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few I think will be collectible...

Mazda Miata

Mazda Millenia S

Mazda RX7

Mazda 929

Mazda RX2/3/4

Pontiac Fiero

Pontiac Turbo Trans Am

Pontiac SLP Firehawk

Pontiac McLaren Turbo Grand Prix

Pontiac Grand Prix GTP (1997-2003)

Pontiac Grand Am (1973-1975/1978-1980)

Edited by blackviper8891
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don;t get what you're trying to say...

IMO the Mustang looks no better and no worse than the average 2007 anything...

Certainly NO BETTER than the Corvette, Z06 or not. But I guess that's relative.

As far as rubber bumpers, again.... this is a plague/curse of all morder/safe cars.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don;t get what you're trying to say...

IMO the Mustang looks no better and no worse than the average 2007 anything...

Certainly NO BETTER than the Corvette, Z06 or not. But I guess that's relative.

A Tucker, it isn't phenominally good looking, yet it's a "classic". A Max Wedge Dodge of the early 60's is FAST. Maybe the fastest car of it's time, but it's not a true "classic". A classic isn't the fastest, nor necessarily the best looking. It's something that will be told in time IMO. Usually it's a car that stands out, head and shoulders, above the "other cars".

I see a few posts of cars that people who post them own. "Auroras" and "Millenias". Are these tongue in cheek? I hope....?

*shrugs*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of odd, but I just read that link in the first post again- Gilles claims the "Chrysler 300 in modified form" will be a future "classic"..?

Huh??

A MODIFIED car being a "future classic"? Doesn't make much sense to ME..?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's enough Buick DNA in the 2003-2005 Buick Park Avenue Ultras to make them classics. Going to the Buick shows, it could (and will) easily sit among the Buick classics and hold its own.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auroras are a standout in design and engineering for its time, perhaps the high watermark of a two-decade period for GM and the styling is certainly unique. Classic doesn't necessarily imply '57 Bel Air, but something that will be recognized as a significant car in certain circles years to come.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auroras are a standout in design and engineering for its time, perhaps the high watermark of a two-decade period for GM and the styling is certainly unique.

Not meaning to be dispespectful or anything, but HOW is an Aurora a "standout"?

I'm not talking like "Pontiac Aztec standout" where a vehicle truly sticks out for a reason, but an Aurora? I truly don't see it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not meaning to be dispespectful or anything, but HOW is an Aurora a "standout"?

I'm not talking like "Pontiac Aztec standout" where a vehicle truly sticks out for a reason, but an Aurora? I truly don't see it?

Its the absolute height of the aero styling trend, before some models started getting...weird. Yes, there were 'rounded' cars before and after, but the subtle details set it apart. The are no oblique cutlines; body panel seams flow into molding seemlessly and wrap around the car completely. There is wasp-waist contouring that smoothly bulges around the fender wells without sticking out too much. There are alot of complex curves in the design when viewed from different angles and they all flow together perfectly. 'Flow' turns out to be a good word to describe the styling elements here. Alot of the curves and treatments are things I haven't seen on any other mass production car. The interior is likewise very sculpted to match the exterior and then there's the powertrain, which was a remarkable engine for its time.

The MX6, Lumina, Continental, Mark VIII, and some other cars were also designed in such a fashion, but the results aren't nearly as organic as the Aurora. You look at cars like the Taurus/Sable and the second-generation LHS and you see where aero styling goes waaay too far and falls flat on its face. The LHS especially looked melted and gloopy. In my opinion, even the sister Riviera missed the mark because of poorer proportioning. I would say the Mazda 929 was closest to the Aurora in advanced styling for the time, but some of the detailing spoils the car. Plus, I wouldn't want to constantly fix electrical gltiches.

And I've always thought this since I first saw the original show car; I didn't buy it, like it, then deem it a classic. And also you can't make people see the subtle nuances I described; you either see it instantly or you don't. That's what it seems anyway. And among those that see it, the Aurora will always stand out. It looks like no car on the road before it or after it and it certainly cannot be confused with some completely unrelated model like so many automobiles today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never have picked the Aurora as a classic, but Fly makes some valid points.

I remember when the car debuted, it stood out in a crowded showroom as something decidedly different.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't see it? I honestly have no thoughts about them one way or another, I never thought there would be "Aurora enthusiasts" to be honest. To ME they look like they blend in with the crowd....

I've always loved Jensen Interceptors though, and my friends have always HATED them. Not dislike, more of a really strong dislike. LOL

I still love Jensen Interceptors, and can't figure out why other people don't like them more.

Maybe it's the same situation? I just can't see what people would like about an Aurora, and I'm sure many people more than my friends don't see what I like in a Jensen Interceptor...?

:AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't see it? I honestly have no thoughts about them one way or another, I never thought there would be "Aurora enthusiasts" to be honest. To ME they look like they blend in with the crowd....

I've always loved Jensen Interceptors though, and my friends have always HATED them. Not dislike, more of a really strong dislike. LOL

I still love Jensen Interceptors, and can't figure out why other people don't like them more.

Maybe it's the same situation? I just can't see what people would like about an Aurora, and I'm sure many people more than my friends don't see what I like in a Jensen Interceptor...?

:AH-HA_wink:

Well, I still have my doubts about the Aurora reaching classic status though it broke the mold when new.

And I like Jensen Interceptors too. :AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6000 STE AWD anyone?

post-3366-1188094468_thumb.jpg

Edited by K.C.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think only special editions of most of the aforementioned cars will be collectible in the future, like the Final 500 Auroras (and other Oldsmobiles), Riviera Silver Arrows, Select Sixty Reattas, etc. Outside of those, there will always be those ultra low mileage pristine examples that demand a high price, but nothing from today will be as universally collectible as the vehicles from decades past. People are saving even the most bargain basement, stripped out, low-rung models of vehicles simply because they're a certain age; I doubt seeing the same trend following with ex-rental Malibus and Intrepids with tape decks and manual windows. Another reason I don't see it in the cards for modern vehicles is quality and types of materials used. New cars are cheap and have many plastic components in them. As plastic gets older, it gets brittle. Restoration requires disassembly and reassembly and this could often mean breakage for these components. The construction of new vehicles is not conducive to saving. It's almost as if most modern vehicles were meant to be used up and thrown away by design.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... you know what I say all the time, modern cars are throw-away cameras on wheels.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0