Classic cars and new cars

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Since the MGB project seems to be progressing – slowly, but still progressing – I’ve been thinking more than ever about classic cars. I’ve enjoyed reading in 40-year-old issues of Road & Track of old marques that no longer exist, old cars from current marques before they became expensive and ‘exclusive’, and even the exotics at the time whose prices seem reasonable if you ignore you’re looking at 1966 dollars. The June 2005 issue of Road & Track has an article (Side Glances, p.48) that brings up an issue that’s been nagging me for a bit. Rebirth Of The Car Worth Having talks about the dilemma faced by people who like driving cars (as opposed to collecting neat ones).

The author asks a friend if he’s still looking for a mid-'60s Sting Ray. The friend replies that prices have risen too high – $40,000 or more for a good example. The friend says he can buy an almost-new Corvette for that price, or a nice C4 convertible for about half as much. ‘When they cost more than about $20,000 [it] takes the fun out of it.’

The author bought a tired Porsche 356B for $14,000 several years ago, and then put another $10,000 into it. After $24,000, it still needed paint. He could have bought a three-or-four-year-old Boxster convertible for that much. With a/c, CD, and 217 hp. He said it would be a tough decision, were he to have $24,000 in his pocket and the two cars to choose from. He made similar comments about his 1967 Jaguar E-Type vs. the XK8, the 1966 Mustang GT Fastback vs. the 2005 Mustang GT, and his 2005 Mini Cooper S vs. the 1964-1966 (Austin) Mini Cooper S that can sell for $2,600 more than a brand-new Mini, in concourse condition.

Basically he said that in a dollars-to-driving contest, it makes more sense to buy a newer car. Why? Because modern machines are finally beginning to deliver the ‘fun factor’ that the old cars had. He complained about watching cars ‘get slower, uglier and duller every year’, and was pleased that new cars are becoming more attractive, have more power than their old counterparts, and are better-looking than the cars that filled the gap between then and now.

As Mr. Blue Sky said in my MGB thread, the MGB is a money pit. With the money I’ve spent already, and the more money that it will take to finish the project, the car will end up costing me $20,000. I could have bought an already-restored example in concourse, or near-concourse, condition for about three-quarters of that – and could have been driving it these last two years! True, it would not have been the colour I wanted; but still…

I really, really like chrome-bumper MGBs. No, I REALLY like them! But for $20,000 I could have replaced my 911SC Coupe with a slightly-newer Carrera. And to be completely honest, performance-wise the Porsche had everything over the MGB. Looked almost as good, too. Or I could have bought a new BMW Mini Cooper S. Now, I prefer the looks and tiny size of the original Austin Mini Cooper S; but in the end I’d probably choose the former.

The MGB will not be worth the money I’m putting into it. Maybe in ten or twenty years it will be; but not now. Even then, I won’t want to sell it. I’ve learned my lesson about selling cars I like. I can’t put into words how much I’ll enjoy it, since much of the enjoyment will come from nostalgia. But if I were to do it again, I’d get one already-restored.

I may or may not restore the Herald. The more I drive it, the more I enjoy it. But it will be supplanted by the more-comfortable, faster, better-looking MGB at the first opportunity. The Herald runs well, and I’ll be getting the brakes done this week. I don’t know if I can justify dual carbs for it. Yet. And it would be nice to have a nice new Signal Red paint job. If I sell it, I’ll regret it later. But I know that it will be little-used once I get the B back. At this stage, I’m not sure I want to do a restoration and then sell it for a loss.

But enough of that. I started this thread not to talk about my particular mania, but about classic cars vs. new cars. It seems to me that the author of the article is correct that classics have, or are well on their way to, pricing themselves out of the enthusiast’s market. Why buy a Porsche 356 or a classic 911, when you can buy a good mid-'80s model for the same price or less? Why buy a classic Mini, when a new one offers more performance and more ammenities at a lower cost? When it comes down to it, I want a car that’s fun to drive. The new cars are now providing the same fun-factor as the old ones at a reasonable cost. They’re starting to look almost as nice as the old ones too. And the ‘newer older cars’ (like the pre-996 Porsches) are about as cheap as they’re going to get.

But, like the author of the article, I’ll always have a classic in the stable.

2

For enthusiasts there are always bragging rights and a sense of pride in having and maintaining a classic. I don’t think a single enthusiast can successfully argue that paying as much or more money for maintaining their classic is economically sound. But it’s not always a decision made in the cold light of reason. There is a huge emotional component that overrides the decision to cut one’s losses.

I used to have a sailboat which I loved. It was not the fastest or most attractive looking boat in the marina but I really like it’s dimensions and sailing characteristics non the less. I spent more than twice it’s market worth to renovate and repaint it. I loved it all the more after having customized and upgraded it inside and out. It didnt’ make it any faster or bigger but I took a great deal of pride and joy in it.

Having said that, with cars, I don’t enjoy the same level of nostalgia as with sailboats. I like new cars and the mechanical, safety, creature comforts and handling superiority they often offer compared to the older models. I also agree that the more recent models seem to have more character in design and driving feel.

3

The main thing for me is that a new car is less vulnerable. Crash your Miata, and you can get repair parts or even a whole new car with no trouble at all. Crash your Daimler Dart, and you’re SOL as far as parts go, and you’ve destroyed a piece of history. Take your Rambler with the expensive paint out for a drive, get a door ding, and be plunged into depression.

New cars are also less troublesome. I’ve pretty much quit driving my Rambler, because every time I went out I’d hear a new noise and there’d be something I’d have to fix. And it isn’t just a matter of taking it in to the dealer–Rambler dealers are few and far between nowadays–but rather do it myself (and my free time is pretty scarce) or try to find someone who understands the Borg-Warner M41 automatic transmission.

4

I went to Sears to get brakes today. I was worried gor a bit that they wouldn’t be able to find the pads for the Herald’s Girling discs. They tracked them down though, and I can take it in Friday.

The thing about classic cars is that they have character. They’re also fun to drive. For a long time, there was no ‘modern’ replacement for the MGB. It went out of production in 1980. There were choices, to be sure. The Porsche 924 comes to mind. Faster, more maneuverable, more reliable, more comfortable… but it didn’t come as a ragtop at the time. There was the Toyota MR2 (‘Mister Two’); but again, no convertible hood. It would be a decade after the MGB went out of production before another car came close: The Mazda Miata.

I remember the econo-boxes of the 1980s. Reliable, yes; but fun? No. It seems to me (and this is just my impression) that the author of the article is correct. Cars of the last 25 years have been dull. But in the last five years or so, I’ve noticed cars that seem to bring the fun back into driving.

5

Glad they found them! (I’m giving you enough trouble for that Herald in the other thread and since this is MPSIMS I’ll work on being supportive. :wink: )

Only compared with an MGB. Man, the whole decade sucked, automotively, but they were starting to get there.

NEVER read “Side Glances” or Egan will have you believing that driving cross-country in a Model A or Citroen 2CV is a good idea or that you really NEED and MGB–in the right color.

Man, those old car mags and books had me hallucinating once upon a time. Like how Ken Purdy convinced me that a Type 35 Bugatti had potential as a daily commuter. Or Griff Borgeson insisting that a Mercer Raceabout was still a great sports car by any modern standards. Or Henry Manney telling me how desireable a Triumph Herald was (I never fell for that one but you will now be one of the few here who recognize my occasional sig, “Yr Obt Svt.”)

6

Had I been the lucky fellow who snagged Powerball last week, I’d be looking for a '55-'57 300 SLR Gullwing. Not because it’s modern, but because it represents when Benz was a force to be reckoned with in European racing, and I think that’s when they produced a car that was drop-dead sexy. Other than the Gullwing, the only cars that really stir my soul that way are Packards, Auburns, and Cords.

But until I get that Powerball ticket, it’s like dreaming about Angelina Jolie :wink:

7

Well, the thing is… you can actually work on a period car. Personally, I favor a modern, well designed kit car, myself, like my father’s Beck Spyder… which is essentially a Porsche 550 Spyder with slightly more horsepower and a fiberglass body. The chassis and suspension is authentic enough for a gentleman who was a Porsche mechanic at the time to doubletake, examine it, realize it wasn’t authentic, then after a careful closer examination say that they built it correctly.
Also, 0-60 in 3.5-4.0 seconds. Scary car.

Personally, if I ever get a chance, I’m building a Caterham Super 7.

8

But part of the point is that the new car doesn’t need work. 100,000 mile spark plugs, coolant, time-between-tune ups is the norm now. That’s quite a long time for a second, recreational car.

I am really more knowledgable in the area of classic muscle Mopars than virtually anyone my age (28) and I wonder what is going to happen to the swapmeets and carshows I’ve grown up with. Is my generation going to keep prices high or are these classic cars going to drop in price (I hope!) as baby boomers age and, well, die?

I once was involved in an internet debate (I know…) with some guy who had a 1996 Chevy Impala and was bragging about its power. I shut him up when I provided cites showing the newer FWD Imppys are now beating the LT1 mid 90’s models in straightline times.

I see both sides. I want a bigblock B-body Dodge or Plymouth to tinker with but I also like current performance models, even the ‘ricers’. The bang for the buck factor is way up there and reliability and safety can’t even compare to the classic deathtraps. Hell, my first car, a '68 Plymouth Satellite didn’t have power or disk brakes, rear defrost, passenger side mirror, or shoulder seat belts. The stupid thing left me stranded more than once, too. I kind of wish I had got a used Neon instead.

9

The ‘value for dollar’ award HAS to go to the ‘classic’ car, for one simple reason; They don’t depreciate.

If you buy a new C6 Corvette for $50,000, and I buy a '67 Corvette coupe for $50,000, we start out even.

Ten years fro now, your C6 'Vette will be worth about $15,000-$20,000, and the '67 Vette will probably be worth $80,000.

So if you like classic cars a lot, it’s by far the cheapest way to drive a ‘nice’ car.

The problem is that ‘classic’ cars aren’t actually that nice to drive. I’ve owned a few - a '67 Camaro, three different 240-Zs, and my brother owned a '57 Chevy Sedan Delivery (like a nomad, sort of) with a 396 and a vertical gate shifter. I loved them all, but they don’t hold a candle to modern cars in terms of ride comfort, noise, handling, reliability, safety, or just about any other measure. It used to be that if you wanted the best performance you had to buy an old muscle car, since Detroit stopped making powerful cars for a couple of decades starting in the mid-1970’s. But now there are a half dozen cars available today that are faster than the fastest of the muscle cars, and all of them will outhandle just about anything made for the street back then.

Look at how many relatively inexpensive cars today have passed the 400 HP mark:

Chrysler 300 SRT-8
Dodge Charger SRT-8
C6 Corvette
2007 Mustang GT500
Cadillac CTS-V
Pontiac GTO

…and probably a couple more I’m forgetting (leaving out the Viper and above - there’s tons more cars if we start including cars up in the $80K range and up - the Mercedes AMG models, etc)

Plus, these cars are running with modern suspensions on modern tire compounds, and their horspower ratings are SAE net at the rear wheels rather than the gross horsepower ratings of the muscle cars. Some of the cars above would be rated at over 500HP using the old rating system.

Then there’s the whole range of smaller, lighter cars with less horsepower but with innovations like AWD that make them faster than the fastest old muscle cars (i.e. the Mitsubishi Evo and Subaru WRX STi). And the pocket rockets like the neon SRT-4, the Saturn Ion redline and the Chevy Cobalt SS, which would give any of the 300HP muscle cars a solid run for their money.

So the best cars you can get today are light-years better than the old cars in terms of pure numbers and quality. But if you like classics just for what they are, then go for it - choose correctly, and the vehicle will appreciate by more than the time value of your money, so you’re driving for free.

10

Think about how far we’ve come from the ‘good old days’. Take the 240-Z for example. When it came out, it was heralded as a great sports car, with lots of power, great handling, good braking, etc. It’s a ‘classic sports car’.

Now let’s look at the actual stats:

Engine: 2.4L 161 HP
0-60: 8.2s
1/4 mi: 17.7 seconds
Top Speed: 125mph
Power to weight ratio: 15lbs/hp
Brakes: Front discs, rear drums
Stopping distance 60-0: 194 ft.
Skidpad .7 g’s
Those numbers are, by today’s standards, pathetic. In fact, let’s compare it to an ‘entry level’ sports car today, the Neon SRT-4:

Engine: 2.4L 227 HP
0-60: 5.9s
1/4 mi: 14.2 seconds
Top Speed: 148mph
Power to weight ratio: 13lbs/hp
Brakes: 4 wheel discs, w ABS
Stopping distance 60-0: 116 ft.
Skidpad: .85g

And remember, the 240-Z was the fastest of the early Z-Cars. The 260-Z took almost ten seconds to get to 60. That’s slower than most econo-boxes today.

11

Of course, I have a period car with multiport electronic fuel injection, rack & pinion steering, four wheel disc brakes, IRS, DOHC inline 6, and legendary reliability. :stuck_out_tongue:
Oh, and a Lotus-engineered suspension. She’ll be 20 in November and I hope by then to have her mostly restored. Mechanical work is 4-6 hours from completion, spare seat frames are at the upholstery shop, and I’ve got a $400,000 paint booth lined up when I’m ready to shoot her.

Oh, and I traded a laptop that I had $15 invested in for her last summer. :smiley:

My baby is a 1986 Toyota Celica Supra (last of the GenII cars).
I still can’t find decent wheels. The stockers look awesome but are only 14x7. Just try to find a good 14" 225mm performance tire anymore. :frowning:

12

Funny you should mention kit cars. The latest issue of Kit Cars has a stunningly beautiful [1965 Cobra Daytona Coupé replicar](javascript:Zoom(‘http://kitcarmag.com/featuredvehicles/142_0505_daytona_01_z.jpg’,640,480)) on the cover. I would love to have that car! (I’d hate to have to build it, though.)

Years ago, when I actually owned a Porsche and was all into reading everything about them, I read an article about the 550 Spyder replicar. It was a near-perfect copy, being only an inch or two longer than the original to accommodate typically larger Americans. IIRC it used a 2.4 litre VW engine. Now, some people might smirk at a Porsche-wannabe with a VW engine; but remember that the original 550 Spyder actually did have a (massaged) VW engine! And even though replicar’s the engine came from a ‘lowly’ VW, it was actually faster and more powerful than the original. I wouldn’t mind having one of those. (Or better yet, the racing version – whose name escapes me, but has the slots on the rear fenders.)

Replicars and kit cars are an interesting subject, which I think are worthy of their own thread. Anyone want to start one?

13

Rocketeer, I’ve heard that these guys have decent prices on their parts for classics. BTW, what year’s your Rambler?

I’m sorry, Johnny, but I don’t agree that today’s cars are as fun as a classic car, for a variety of reasons. First of all, anybody can go out and plunk down money for a brand new Impressowagon and drive it all day long, just like everybody else who owns an Impressowagon. Second, if you like to tinker with your car (as in horsepower tweaks, customizations, etc.), if you tear into it (assuming you know how), you void your warranty. Third, it’s the little quirks of a car that make a car fun to drive. What years were it that the weight balance in a Porsches weas off just enough that tail wander was a worry? All these new cars drive the same. Fourth, as Jay Leno says, if you’re buying classic cars for the money, you’re in the wrong line of work. Cars are meant to be driven, not be status symbols. If you want a status symbol, you buy something, be it a new Porsche, or old Packard, and never drive it, because you’re interested in the money aspect. But if you’re interested in the car, you’ll drive it whenever you get the chance, because that’s how you appreciate a car! Fifth, a classic car speaks better of you, than a top of the line, Impressowagon DXL SUX which costs as much as a house. There’s a stand up comic’s routine which says that you can tell a lot about a person by what they drive. Porsche = Asshole with a lot of money. Ferrari = Coke habit. Camaro = That man has no penis. Of course, they’re not true, but something along those lines pops into people’s heads quite often, whereas when they see a classic car, they’re reaction is: Cool! or Wow! I’ve never seen anything like that before!

Oh, and the cost comparison between a new car and a classic car, isn’t necessarily as skewed as the article you reference claims. I saw a program a few years ago where a guy bought a 1970s Chevelle from a museum for about $15K. The car had a factory 454 under the hood, which generated 454 HP. At the same time, you could buy a new Pontiac Firebird for about $30K which had less than 400 HP under the hood. Gee, which one would I want? I’d take the Chevelle, hands down. Even if it turned out that the Firebird had more ponies under the hood, I’d still take the Chevelle. Why? Because you see Firebird’s every day. How often do you see a Chevelle?

My 1969 Chrysler Newport weighs in at 4200 lbs, has a V-8 which generates 255 HP, and gets a shameful 16 MPG (she needs a tune up) on the highway. My 1990 Pontiac Grand Am probably weighs half that, has a 4-banger under the hood that generates 255 HP, and gets 25 MPG on the highway. Which one is more fun to drive? The Chrysler, hands down. I can “feel” the road so much better in the Chrysler, than I can in the Pontiac. I’ve not figured the 1/4 mile times between the two, but I’ve no doubt that the Pontiac is faster, I don’t care. When I mash the gas pedal in the Pontiac the car just moves, when I mash the gas pedal in the Chrysler, I get that oh, so satisfying, shove in the small of my back. And hell, I rode a freakin’ bus 1200 miles to get that Chrysler, I wouldn’t do that again, unless there was another classic car at the end of the ride.

14

Sorry about the link. It doesn’t go where I thought it would go.

Here’s a link to the article, where you can click on the photo for a larger view.

15

I’d have to research it, but I think it was the '69 that was the last of those. IIRC, the 911 got ‘more civilised’ in 1970.

Porsches are a good example of a classic car vs. a new car, since the 911-series has been in continuous production since 1964. There were changes, IIRC, around 1969, more changes for '74, '75, '76, '78, '84… and so on. Mine was a 911SC, which puts it in the later-classic period. The 1973½ 911S might be the most desirable of the classics. I sure wouldn’t mind having one. The earlier models were great because of the treacherous tail that you mentioned. Besides, I like the minimalist interiors. But for living with a car day to day, I’d take my 3.0 litre '79 over the earlier cars. (I did, however, take out the bulky interior door panels and replace them with flat RSR panels, and replaced the stock suspension with Bilstein Sport Shocks.) And I’d take a newer model ('84 to '96 Carrera with the bigger engine) over the one I had. I’d take a 911-996 over the older Carrera, and the 911-997 over the '996. For me, owning that kind of car is all about the fun; and in the case of the 911-series, the newer, the ‘funner’.

Where the Porsche model falls down though, is that the dollar-for-fun-unit ratio is still in favour of the older cars. Just about anyone can afford a 911SC. I’d have to do very well to buy a '997. But! There’s the Boxster. I’ve never driven one, but I think it can outperform a 911SC. If so, then given its relatively-modest cost, I’d have to think a bit before I bought a Carrera over the Boxster. (I’d still take the '996 over the Boxster though, and I think the prices of a used '996 and a new Boxster are similar.)

16

Yeah, but can it really be said to be a Porsche if it was built after they introduced the Cayenne? :wink: And Boxster’s are nice, I just don’t like the single tailpipe in the center of the rear end. Every time I see the rear of a Boxster, all I can think is, “Hey! That car’s got an asshole!” (And I’m not referring to the driver!)

17

Replicars and kit cars

:slight_smile:

18

The 911SC was a classic in 1978. I drove a 1981 model about 18-19 years ago (when I was about 17) and fell in love. At the time, I had a 1976 914S so I was not unacquanted with sports cars. I’d also played around with some Detroit muscle so power wasn’t unknown, either. Finding both in one package was an eyeopening experience, though.
The 911 I’ve been paying close attention to lately, though, is the early 930: 1976-1979. Something about owning a 911 Turbo is compelling.

On the subject of replicas, the most amazing I’ve ever seen were at Bob Norwood’s shop in Dallas. A few years ago, he was producing Ferrari 330 P4 replicas that were nearly impossible to tell from the real thing. His 308 GTBi > 288 GTO conversions were pretty impresive, too.

19

It’s a '64 American convertible, red with red and white interior. Just like this one. Cuter than a button. (And it’s for sale, incidentally.)

20

My husband has been working on his '67 Mustang fastback for a couple years now. He bought it new in '67 and it currently has 20,000 original miles on it. Schweet! He’s doing all kinds of stuff for performance, but the outward look of the car will remain the same.

It is an emotional attachment. We have it properly insured for it’s current value (paid $3,500 new, currently worth in excess of $20K), but if anything happens to that car, I swear I’m going to have to put the ol’ man down with it. He will freak. fucking. out.

He enjoys working on it and takes pride in every little detail. The wires are neat, the parts you can’t even see are painted and perfect.

He wants to race it. This is where his brain begins malfunctioning. He wants a $7K paint job and he’s going to race it. I keep telling him most racer guys don’t put the big paint on their cars, but he’s hell bent on doing it anyway. Any opinions on that?