I understand that newer cars are more complicated. But that’s just sad. Dump your Contour. I’ll take my wifes '02 Grand Jeep over my '93 Pathfinder any time. Although the Pathfinder has never let me down.
On the GM turbo kick, the Grand National and GNX for sure.
Also from that era the ZR1 Corvette or any Vette. The V8 Mustangs and F bodies (RS, SS, Z-28, Trans-Am).
Today - The Viper, the new GTO???maybe???, Ford Lightening, Mach 1.
The '57 Chevy and the '59 Cadilliac (El Dorado, should have mentioned that) weren’t limited production vehicles. The '57 Chevy was the base model Chevy, and was simply a design variation on the previous years models that’s famous because of the tailfins (the '55 Chevy and the '56 Chevy are also highly collectable, though they don’t command the prices that the '57 does). The '59 Cadillac El Dorado is also notable because of it’s enormous tailfins, and was scorned by collectors for years because of them.
YPOD brings up a good point, but there are people out there who back engineer some of the computer chips in cars so that they can manufacture high performance chips for the cars (thus getting around the electronic speed limiters on the cars), however that’s not the same as developing new computerized dashboards, or onboard diagnostic system, but I can see people designing “emulators” so that one can mod a PC and slap it into the car and have it look like the original dashboard display. Still it won’t be cheap or easy to do, and I can’t imagine that there will be as many cars collected from today as there are from the past. Simply too expensive for most collectors.
The difference is that back then, people would keep their car up to 15-20 years, maybe more. today we keep our cars for 3-5 years and then we buy a new one. People today don’t keep a car long enough to fall in love with it.
I thought that the stereotype was that the typical suburbanite would get a new car every two or three years. It was before I was born, but my dad had a '59 Oldsmobile. Then he got a '60-something Triumph Herald. Then there was the '66 7-litre Galaxy 500 (dad’s) and the '66 MGB (mom’s), the '72 Toyotas (Corona Wagon for dad, Celica GT for mom) and the '74 Toyota pickup.
As for me, I only bought my first new car (I’d had new bikes before then) in 1999.
The average age of cars on the road is now something like nine years. And most of the people I know hang on to their cars until it’s uneconomic for them to repair. Of course, it was easier to repair cars a couple of decades or so ago.
Sure- why not? It is nearly impossible to tell if any car wil be a “classic” 40 years later. Yes- cars like the Prowler are an exception- or so we can guess.
Cars nowadays last (on the average) way longer than the average car from the age of “Detroit Iron”. And way safer. Sure the cars from that age were easier to repair- but then again they needed repairs way more often.
In general- the cars of two decades ago are pieces of crap compared to todays automotive marvels. Oh sure, you might think your '65 Mustang is great- and that’s fine- it does have style I’ll admit. But think about this- out of how many cars made in 1965 does it take to find the one great one? What was the Mustang in terms of %? Less than 1% I’d say.
This is more a matter of opinion than fact, so I’ll move this thread to the IMHO forum.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Why is that hard to understand? What practical use is a sports car? Usually has no cargo carrying capacity and often terrible in the snow. And unless you live near a track or some place with pretty lax speed enforcement policies, no one really needs that kind of horsepower/weight ratio.
Surely you jest. Granted, the sports cars of the late 80’s and early 90’s are no longer, but take a look at this list of sub-$35k sports cars I’m making off the top of my head:
Acura: RSX
Audi: TT
BMW: 325Ci coupe
Ford: Mustang
Honda: S2000
Infiniti: G35 coupe
Lexus: IS300
Mazda: Mazdaspeed Miata, RX-8
Mitsubishi: Eclipse, Evolution
Nissan: 350Z
Pontiac: GTO, the new Solstice (~$20k) looks to be a real winner
Saab: 9-2X
Saturn: Ion Red-Line (okay, maybe I’m pushing it with this one…)
Subaru: WRX, Impreza
Toyota: MR2
Volkswagen: R32
I’ve bolded (completely arbitrarily) my picks for future classics. There are many fine cars to choose from, although I echo your sentiments about the SUVs. I know I can’t wait until I can afford to buy one of these cars 
(/eyes the BMW).
The 2005 Mustang is an instant classic. But wait for the SVO model, which will have fully independent suspension and is going to be aimed smack at the BMW M3. It may also wear the Shelby Cobra logo. The new Mustangs kind of look like the old GT-350’s.
Those are the types of vehicles that are really collectible - expensive special edition and high performance options. A basic '67 Camaro coupe with a V-6 can be had for $5,000. A Z-28 with the biggest motor might be worth 10 times that amount.
I dunno about 40 years from now, when I was in high school (late 80’s) the muscle cars from the late 60’s were totally collectible, or at least that’s how it seemed to me. That’s only 20 years. That collectibility never translated to cars from the mid 70’s or early 80’s. Would anyone really be that excited to pick up a '82 Mustang? Can a beautifully maintained '82 Corvette turn heads today like a nice '67 Vette would have back in 1989? I don’t think so.
Honestly, I don’t see future collectibility in today’s cars either, outside of your Vipers and other instantly collectible cars. Even cars like the Miata, which was a HUGE hit when it first came out 15 years ago won’t ever acheive the future desirability of the early Mustangs.
I saw a brand new Maybach on the street last week.
It looked pretty damn classy to me.
Me likey Maybachs. I’d just rather buy a house though.
What people forget…the demand for a “classic” car depends on who has the money and is in the market. The people who pay big money for cars now are people in their 40’s and 50’s…and they LIKE the cars they liked as teenagers. I was at an antique car show last year, and everybody was looking at the Camaros and Mustang GTs. However, one poor schmuck had a PERFECTLY restored '62 RAMBLER sedan. My reaction was “WHY”?? That car (the rambler/rumbler) was a dog when it was new! Now it is just an expensively restored, 42 year old dog! Just about worthless!
What kind of a question is that? There actually are people who would rather have a sharp looking roadster or coupe with snappy handling and power to spare. Not everyone needs to carpool the soccer team.
Sam, the car might wear a Cobra logo, but my understanding is that the great man himself is pretty wary these days about lending the Shelby name to anything he’s not directly involved in. If he does, he’s usually getting a very nice kick back for it apparently. Certainly, we probably won’t be seeing a situation where Ford is giving 1,500 Mustangs a year to the Shelby factory and letting them go through an entire performance tuning makeover. That’s what made the original Shelby Mustangs so collectible I rather think.
Interestingly, I found out a rather humourous bit of trivia regarding my own '66 GT350 the other day… apparently it has a lower aerodynamic drag co-efficient going in reverse than it has going forward! Bummer! Hah!
And you know something, the aerodynamic factor is, in my opinion, part of the reason that so many modern cars look so bland and similar. Apparently, computer aided design software plays such a pivotal role nowadays in car design that after the engineers factor in the need for low drag co-efficients there is an extremely high chance that a 4 door saloon is going to look very similar to most other 4 door saloons on the market. And so on for 2 door coupes etc.
To prove my point, take note of the windows nowadays. Notice how lovely and flush to the bodywork and silent they are. Great technology to be sure. But in doing so, most windows on most cars look identical - save for some subtle changes in shape or size.
The same thing goes for headlights too. Nowadays, the CAD CAM software allows engineers to build wonderfully smooth integrated headlight housings which include the indicators and parking lights etc etc. But in doing so, those same flowing “whoosh like” bonnet lines seem to feature on almost every modern car being sold.
Now, go take a close look at the 2005 Mustang again. The designers have actually made a sacrifice to aerodynamics, and have done so quite knowingly too. Take a look at that front bonnet line with the Mustang Horse featured as a grill emblem in front of the radiator. By today’s standards that is an unusually high front bonnet line with an unusually large frontal area for the radiator etc. And it doesn’t need to be - certainly not in terms of functionality or aerodynamic efficiency.
HOWEVER, the choices that the designers have made have allowed them to absorb certain styling clues going back to my Shelby GT350 and it’s a fantastic thing. Personally, I wish the new Mustang could have also managed to include a genuine wrap around solid chrome bumper bar too but I imagine there are certain design rules preventing them doing that nowadays. Still, I’m hoping you’re starting to get my drift here. That is, almost every Le Mans prototype race car tends to look the same with their bubble canppies and curvaceous wheel cowlings. It’s no mistake they end up so similar. Well, that’s what we’re seeing in modern car design too. Technologically they’re awesome, but from a purely aesthetic point of view, the designers have to be prepared to sacrifice certain aerodynamic efficiencies if they want their products to “stand out” somehow in the future.
Boo Boo Foo:
I read an article in either Car and Driver or Road and Track about the new SVO Mustang, and they said that Carrol Shelby himself was taking an interest in working on the car.
Here’s a press release from Shelby’s site: CARROLL SHELBY PARTNERS WITH FORD MOTOR COMPANY
TO DEVELOP PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS
I lust after your GT-350. Beautiful cars. Might have to buy a new Mustang just so I can pretend I’m in one!
Absolutely true, but changing. My understanding was that the first generation of computer-aided design and analysis had to work with more simple shapes and simpler analysis, and that’s what led to all the egg-on-wheels designs. But the newer, advanced systems can do more complex modelling, so we’re seeing more complex and unique shapes again. Look at the Honda Element, the Chrysler 300, the Scion xA and xB, and lots of other cars including the new Mustang. It’s not like these newer-styled cars get horrible gas mileage - it’s that we’ve learned how to combine unique design with high efficiency.
As for why cars stopped being collectible in the 1970’s - I think it’s simple. Most cars from the late 1970’s and 1980’s SUCKED. There’s no reason to collect them, because they were uninspiring junk. New EPA rules, catalytic converters, 5mph bumpers, and changes to the market due to high oil prices destroyed the auto industry. The cars were just underperforming, uncomfortable, ugly rust buckets. Even the nice ones were rust buckets. I was a Datsun 240-Z fanatic, and owned three of them. All of them rusted to pieces and became unsafe to drive over time. They just didn’t survive the Edmonton climate. My 1967 Camaro, on the other hand, had a little surface rust on a couple of panels when it got its first paint job in 1982, and I hear it still has that paint job and looks great.
But today’s cars are excellent, and I think there are a few potential classics. The new Mustang, the Viper, the Vette, maybe the GTO (although the styling is uninspiring), the WRX STi, Mitsubishi EVO, and lots of others. We’re living in a golden age for cars. A WRX Sti will spank pretty much all of those 60’s muscle cars 0-60, out-corner and out-stop all of them, carry four people and get 20 mpg. Fantastic car.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. As another poster mentioned, the “standard” time to buy a new car was after two years. All the marketing was geared toward this. Further, the quality of 50s and 60s American cars was basically total crap–yes, much worse than it is today. (I have read stories on the Web about new Edsels being delivered to the lot with doors off the hinges, etc., just to get them there “on time.”)
Vance Packard gives a searing account of the US auto industry and car consumption practices (and consumer culture in general) of the time in his book The Waste Makers.
Dude, can you say “chick magnet”?
Spiff, proud owner of a gorgeous jet black 1995 Honda Prelude with custom detailing. (Doesn’t have the V-Tech performance engine, so it’ll maybe become a ‘lesser’ classic in 15-20 years …)