LINC400

The last year Cadillac offered a commercial chassis was 1984. They now offer a "coachbuilder package". But that is not a chassis. It is a stripped down sedan with some heavy duty parts that can be be used to make a hearse, limo, or flower car. Lincoln offers that also. Prior to 1984 but after 1954 when Packard offered its last commercial chassis, Cadillac was the only domestic to offer a commercial chassis. That is why most hearses, ambulances, flower cars, limos, etc. were Cadillacs. Because otherwise you had to buy a complete car, and then then throw out out half the parts. When Cadillac discontinued its commercial chassis, there was no advantage to buying a Cadillac over any other car for conversion. That is why you now see Lincoln hearses and limos as a much more common sight (and Hummers and Chrysler 300's).

I might be going up there. Not 100% decided yet. As far as what day to go, I believe we usually go on Sunday when they have the car show, car corral and swap meet. I have never been there on Fri, but I do not think there will be huge amounts of stuff that you have to get there early on Fri for. It is mostly aftermarket stuff and some junkyard parts. The only thing I would say is to get there early because even though it is supposed to go until 4:00 pm, there are always lots of people packing up at 1:00 pm. Even earlier if the weather is bad.

If you bought a Duesenberg, you purchased the engine and chassis and then took it to a coachbuilder for the body. Although I would imagine the dealership or factory took care of the arrangements. You could pick from a catalogue of body styles or have one custom designed. I have not heard of seasonal offerings for bodies. I would imagine it would work this way for any coachbuilt car.

Collectible Automobile seems to be about the best car mag in my opinion. They put a lot more effort into getting all the correct info. The Hemmings Classic Car 1970's issue seems to be a lot more fluff and a lot less facts. It has now been 2 issues since that one, and I still don't see any corrections about the errors in that issue, or the Packard issue after that. CA always prints corrections, and their readers seem incredibly nit-picky. In fact the newer issues seem more technical and dry. When they had the article about the Mark IV, they said that they would be covering the Mark V soon. That was about 10 years ago, and they still haven't covered it. So apparently they haven't covered everything yet. However, their "Cheap Wheels" segment seems to keep focusing on 1990's cars, which IMO, are not collectible yet. The only problem I have had with them is that they keep sending me "your subscription is about to expire" notices. Even when I had 1 1/2 years left on a 2 year subscription.

I think most people would have no clue what an Invicta is. Most car guys don't even know that unless they are Buick nuts. I think Riviera or Wildcat would be a much better choice. Those conjure up sporty coupes from the past. Of course it makes no difference what it is called if the car is no good. The new Cadillac CTS coupe is a huge disappointment. It looks like a cheap hatchback with a Cadillac grille. Except it isn't a hatchback, and it is nowhere near cheap.

The worst cars I have seen for gas mileage are 1970's Chryslers, not Lincolns. As already stated, the 1976 Lincoln with 7.5 liter gets 11 mpg., 2006 Chevy with 5.3 liter gets 13 mpg, and 2010 Buick Enclave with 3.6 liter gets 16 mpg. Not very impressive considering they had over 30 years to improve the gas mileage. And the little improvement there is, is from reduced weight and engine size, not any actual improvements. I don't like giving my money to an oil company, but I would much rather give my money to an oil company for a car I love to drive than give it to a bank or insurance company for a car I hate. Besides, you can control how much your car is driven and uses gas. You make payments and pay insurance whether you drive it or not. It costs my retired friend more for her new car, which she has driven 300 miles since last May, than it costs for both my Lincoln and Buick. Oh but she gets good gas mileage with her car.

I would say there there is no simple yes or no answer to this. As far as price point and pulling up the country club in something that is flashy and says "look at me" yes. As far as the Navigator and Escalade being the replacement for the Eldo and Mark the way the minivan was the replacement for station wagons, I'd have to say no. When station wagons were phased out, the next logical move was to minivans. Some went with SUV's which were the next logical move from minivans. But when full size personal luxury coupes were phased out, people went in all directions. Some got 4 door sports sedans, some got 2 seater sports cars, some went to Escalades and Navigators, and some, like me, hold out out for the last stand of any 2 door coupe bearing the slightest resemblence to what was the personal luxury coupe. One guy I know had a Mark VII, then a Mark VIII, then another VIII. When the VIII was dropped, he held onto it for a long time. Finally bought a 2000 whatever T-bird when they announced those were being discontinued, but hated dropping down from a Lincoln to a Ford. Someone said, well now the hard part is over. You're now in a Ford instead of a Lincoln. So the next drop down to a Mustang, the only remaining Fomoco 2 door, should be much easier next time. - At least the Mustang seems secure, so he shouldn't have to drop down to a Focus :eek: Plus the Eldo and Mark in spite of the back seat said, "We are single and swinging, and don't care about kids. Or at least we have enough money that we have a seperate vehicle for transporting them." In spite of their price tags and some examples being loaded with aftermarket bling, the Escalade and Navigator will still have a soccer mom quality about them that the Eldo and Mark never did.

I was talking about cars that are 50-75 years old now. And I think I have a better chance of being able to drive my Mark IV or any 1950's - 1970's car 25 years from now than a new Prius or any computer laden car. Parts for those may be readily available now. But when new technology replaces what is used in those cars 3 or 5 times over 25 years from now, who will be interested in making outdated parts for a car not many people collect? My friend likes 1980's cars. He has a hard time finding parts for the few computer controlled things in them. Maybe you can find a digital dash for a Reatta, but think how much more computer crap there is in a new car, even more in a hybrid. Much of it will not just result in the dash lights or a/c not working like now, but the car not being able to run at all.

No one would have thought that station wagons (non-woodies that is) would become the hot new collectibles 15 years ago. Yet now they are. I think the SUV's are lot more similar to Buick Estate and Impala wagons than Eldorado or Mark V's. Except no one thought wagons were cool and loaded them with bling when they were new. You did that with your Superfly Eldorado. I do not think we will see the end of SUV's too soon. People might say they want good gas mileage and talk about trading in their gas guzzling SUV's whenever gas prices go up. Some might even do it, and SUV sales might even drop for a while. But these thoughts are usually forgotten as soon as gas prices go back to normal. Americans like big vehicles, and an economy car just does not work for everyone. Whether they need the space for a big family, use it to tow things, or just want to spread out all their crap while they look cool driving it. People actually saved the last of the full size Marks and Eldos because they thought that nothing like them would ever be made again. And they were right. However, they overestimated their collectibility. There are now many more nice examples than people interested in collecting them. I don't think that anyone will be saving Escalades and Navigators the way they did with Eldos and Marks. They just discard the old one for the newest version. There is no "they won't make them like this anymore" thinking. But I think their high production numbers plus the fact that they change so little from year to year will result in the same more examples than collectors result. However, I think they will still be more desireable than an Accord or Taurus.

I never said my Mark IV got 25 mpg and went 200 mph. I said I don't care what gas mileage it gets, I like it better than an econobox. How can anyone say which car is better built? A. A new car that goes 200,000 miles and gets 45 mpg but won't be able to be used in 25 years due to the technology being outdated and no longer available or B. one that might need some things rebuilt at 100,000 miles but will be able to be used 50-75 years later. If you are only interested in daily driving until you dump it in a few years maybe A, if you want a car you will keep for life, I'd say B. If I wanted a 1975 Ford 2 door in green, I could have gotten a Pinto, Mustang II, Maverick, Torino, Ranchero, Granada, Elite, Custom 500, LTD, or Thunderbird in your choice of 3 shades of green with 6-8 interior color choices, with 3-4 engine choices for most. If you want a 2 door Toyota in 2010, I don't see any available on the website, just a 3 door Yaris. I guess the Solara is gone? No green. No 6-8 interior color choices. How is that better? Personally, I like choices. Maybe you don't. And going to the auto show this year, I do not see more choices becoming available in the future. I see less. The 2 cars I was most interested in, the Camaro and Challenger, I think would have been canceled if they were in the planning stages now instead of already in production. They don't fit with the current gas mileage and eco-friendly thinking. My furniture is all solid wood except for 2 pieces. Why? Did I have it custom built from a cabinetmaker? Is it all very high end designer stuff? No, it is just ordinary furniture that was readily available at any store in the 1920's-1950's. Except now you get particle board with wood-look paper at those places. My furniture can be refinished, darkened, lightened, painted countless times. My 2 particle board pieces will fall apart if I move them around too much. My house is now worth less than it was 10 years ago, I am worried about losing my job, my bank account pays .01% interest instead of 2.5 to 5%, My 401K and stocks are worth less. And I do not think I was that heavily affected by the current economy as others. So how is that better? So if I want to remember when times were actually better, why do I have hear that you don't think it was because you like your Prius?

This forum is about antique cars. As such, I am free to express my opinion of antique cars, and why I like them as opposed to cars made today. I do not have to have lived through the 1930's or 1950's to like the cars from those decades. And I never cared for Buddy Holly. And while people may or may not like cars from the 1950's or 1970's, I don't think anyone can deny that you had a lot more choices then in body styles, colors, how to equip your car, sizes of cars, etc. How many colors does a Prius come in? - 7. A 1976 Lincoln - 26. How many body styles are there for a 1957 Chevy? 2 door post, 2 door hardtop, 4 door hardtop, 4 door post, 2 door wagon, 4 door wagon, 2 door Nomad hardtop wagon, convertible. Prius? 4 door hatchback only. So if I want a 2 door Prius in green or burgundy, sorry can't get that. But you'll get great gas mileage driving a car you don't like. Looking at 2008 and 2009, the Prius is not even in the top ten list for car sales for either year. So while a Prius may be exactly what you want, it is apparently not what the majority of people want. So when people ask here about whether or not to use an antique as a daily driver, whether 1970's cars will ever get the respect that 1930's or 1950's cars do, or any other number of subjects, they are probably not interested in hearing the gas mileage and cubic feet capacity of a Prius, and why it is so much better than any antique car. And if people want to fondly remember the past, or even see it through rose colored glasses, why is it necessary for you to tell them they are wrong? Maybe they are unemployed, divorced, bankrupt, house foreclosing, dog died, and just want to remember a happy time when they were dating their dream girl and cruising in a new Chevy convertible and going to a favorite hangout that no longer exists. Are you going to tell them the present and future is better? And no one needs to have anything that drastic in the present just to fondly recollect something in the past if they want to. It is why many of us have antique cars in the first place.

If the car is so rare that you cannot find parts for it, that is all the more reason why I would not want to see it rodded. If it is so far gone that you have to put it on a modern frame and adapt all kinds of new parts to it, then I think it would be better off parted out to help restore other cars to stock. There is a 1941 DeSoto that shows up at the local cruise night. It looks completely stock except the motor was blown, and the guy put in a Hemi from a new wrecked Magnum. At first I thought, well I suppose it isn't too bad as long as you can't tell when the hood is closed. Better than having it scrapped. However, 2 different guys with '41 and '57 Plymouth 6 cylinders that ran perfectly fine talked to him and decided they didn't like the lack of performance from the 6 cylinders. So this guy told them how he fitted the Hemi. Now both of those cars have Hemis. They also got goofy wheels and graphics, and the '57 even got a brown and gold crushed velour interior. So I think I would have rather seen this DeSoto sitting in a garage for years waiting for the correct engine instead of encouraging others to customize otherwise fine cars.

I am very tired of hearing about how the Prius is the most wonderful car in the world in almost every topic you reply to. If you like it, fine, but quit pushing it on others. I don't care how much of a gain in interior, trunk space or acceleration it has over a Datsun. It still has nowhere near the space, acceleration, or style of a 1950's - 1970's luxury car. And unless you go to the extreme of a Prius, which I'm not willing to do, there still has not been a significant advance in gas mileage. My 1988 Town Car got 20 mpg city. Over 20 years later they should be able to offer something of the same size and power that gets at least 30 mpg. But they do not. And the 2006 Chevy Monte Carlo and 2010 Enclave are certainly still not impressive. Some people blow money on designer clothes. You can buy clothes at Walmart for $10 or less. Some people dine out at expensive restaurants or buy expensive wine. You can eat Ramen noodles at home and drink wine that costs $3 a bottle or tap water for free. Some people do drugs or smoke cigarettes. I spend zero on that. So if I want to blow my spare cash on a car that gets 11-16 mpg (not 9-13 as your chart claims), why do I have to hear about the gas mileage a Prius gets? No one harps that you have to eat Ramen noodles or shop at Walmart for clothes because it is cheaper. And I enjoy driving my Buick as well. I would not enjoy driving a Prius or other econobox everyday. I get far more pleasure in driving my Mark IV than any savings in gas an econobox would give me. It is worth it to me to pay more for gas in order to not hate the car I am driving and making huge payments on. I'd rather put that money towards paying off my mortgage early instead of making payments on a Prius or other new car. A far better investment than any new car, even if it gets 100 mpg. And since we are talking about antique cars, I have seen trophies for best prewar, postwar, best for a given decade, best paint, best original, best custom, best stock restoration, even longest distance driven. However, at no car show that I have ever been to has there been a trophy for best gas mileage. So apparently, this must not be a big priority for most car collectors. Also, if you look at the most collectible or desired antique cars, Duesenbergs, V-12 or V-16 prewar Classics, Ferraris, 1959 Cadillacs, 1957 Chevys, Mustangs, Chevelle SS, 'Cudas, any muscle car, none of them are coveted for their gas mileage. In fact fuel efficient cars are usually among the least collectible and valuable cars for any given decade. Probably one of the few exceptions would be an Amphicar, and that is because it is unique, different, and goes in water. Not because it gets good gas mileage.

I have been to many concours and museums and have seen cars from the 1900-1920's brought back from not much more than a frame, cowl, and if lucky, engine block. Many of these cars are the only one left, or one of very few remaining. I'm sure these cars would have been considered "too far gone" at some point in time. Does that mean it would have been ok to rod them then? The only remaining example of a 1915 X street rodded because it cost too much to restore it? Ok to street rod a 1934 Duesenberg in 1959 because it cost too much to restore correctly? Plus there is the argument of is it better to let it sit and rot or be street rodded and back on the street? Personally, I think it is better to let them rot in some cases. Seeing them rodded just gives other rodders ideas to do the same. Maybe that 1940 Huppmobile was a rusty hulk that was too far gone, but will the 10 copies of it made in the next few years be made from rusty hulks or nice cars? I bet they will be made from nice cars. Originally 1957 Chevy and 1949 Mercury customs were probably made from cars that were not worth restoring. But when is the last time you saw a stock one? Yet new customs get made every year, and I'm sure they are not scrounging junkyards for cars that are "too far gone" in order to do it. There are steel and fiberglass reproductions made of '32 Fords, Model T's, Zephyrs, etc. I don't care what is done with those. But a lot of customizers feel it just isn't the same as chopping up an original. And as Todd said, maybe that rusty hulk isn't worth restoring now, but it can be later. Once it is chopped and cut, it can't. Generally the "too far gone" excuse is used to justify chopping and rodding any car that they simply wanted to chop and rod regardless of its condition. Maybe this doesn't apply to your friend's, but since the chopping and cutting crowd gets way more support at cruise nights, car shows, on every cable TV show, in magazines, and everywhere else, I see no reason to support it here, one of the few places in favor of stock preservation and restoration.

There will always be people that have to comment on the gas mileage of a pre-1979 full size car. Either they get into their Honda feeling superior to a car that probably gets driven less in a year than they do in their Honda for a few weeks, or they get into their SUV not believing that it gets the same or worse mileage than the car. As far as the gas lines, I was just a kid, but don't ever remember sitting in line for gas with our big 1974 V-8. Maybe we were just lucky in the Chicago area. But in any case, since that has not happened for 30 years, I fail to see how that has any bearing on antique or new cars now. I am not opposed to good gas mileage, but in order to get it I have to give up everything I want in a car, size, style, power, interior room, etc. So I would rather pay more for gas and drive what I want instead of hating the car I have to commute in every day. What I think is pathetic is that for all the talk of improved gas mileage, there is very little improvement. Dave can make fun of a Metropolitan's back seat, but in another post he was saying how early 1970's Datsuns got 40 mpg. They have rear doors and back seats. So 40 years later with huge batteries and complicated technology he has a car that gets 5 mpg better? Not much of an improvement for 40 years. Our 2006 Monte Carlo weighs 3,000 lbs. has a 5.3 liter V-8 with V-4 to V-8 technology and gets 2 mpg better than the 5,000 lb. 7.5 liter V-8 powered 1976 Lincoln where gas was not a concern. I have to say I'm not impressed. Even at the auto show the Buick Enclave with 3.6 liter V-6 is rated at 16 mpg city. That is worse than my 1994 3.8 liter gets. For all the hype they are doing about gas mileage, I see very little improvement. The higher mileage is mostly from downsizing, reducing weight, and using smaller engines. Not any actual improvements that allows a larger powerful car to get better mileage. P.S. Thanks, I think the '70 Riviera is interesting, the only one with fender skirts and generally forgotten between the ones before and after.

Dave, why is it that only redeeming quality you can find for both new and antique cars is gas mileage? I have had my car at plenty of car shows. It has gotten both compliments and stupid comments. But no one has ever commented about remember waiting in line for gas? And I don't ever remember my parents waiting in line for gas here in Chicago in the 1970's, although I have seen newsreels of that on the east and west coast. I just got back from the auto show. Even though I have very little interest in new cars, I always like to see the concept cars and new models. There were almost no concept cars (yes the economy, blah, blah) and the Challenger and Camaro, 2 cars that I was excited about, lost all their appeal when I sat in them. I cannot believe anything can be designed and sold with such lousy visability. And such cheap plastic interiors for cars with price tags approaching $40,000. Both of these were retro-styled based on the 1969-70 versions. Yet neither of the originals had these cramped interiors or lousy visability. I also sat in several new 4 doors that have been getting rave reviews. The dashes and consoles are so huge that I felt cramped for space. And I am not a big guy. Opening the glove compartment on almost all of them resulted in my knees getting banged. And they all have lousy visability. And everyone was hyping gas mileage on cars that were bland, cramped, had lousy visability, and didn't look much different from one company to the next. Sitting in the middle of it all was a museum display including a 1959 Cadillac convert and 1953 Packard Caribbean. Both cars looked so cool, had such spacious and stylish interiors with no gray plastic, zero visabilty problems, cool styling, etc. Their gas mileage was the furthest thing from my mind. I would gladly pay triple the amount for gas if they could make something that approached anywhere near their style, spaciousness, and interior quality now. And it was a huge relief to go home in my 1994 Buick with reasonable size dash and console, good visability, and no gray plastic after sitting in all those cramped blandmobiles.

The 1961 Lincoln was not a "clean sheet design". It was originally designed as the 2 door 1961 Thunderbird. I can't remember offhand who it was that saw the design, and demanded it be made into the new Lincoln. It was stretched and 2 rear doors added. Changing the design to a four door also made it necessary for the rear doors to be rear hinged. So its most distinctive styling feature was actually an necessary afterthought. As for me personally, I like the 1970's Lincolns. I've always thought the 1960's were too bland and boxy. I'd rather have a 60's Cadillac or early 60's Imperial, 2 door of course. I have to also disagree with new 4 doors look nice, while '50's - 70's do not. Take a nice 4 door hardtop from the 50's - 70's, and with most, they look almost the same as a 2 door. While the new ones are just 4 door pillarmobiles. Just got back from the auto show, and the Mercedes CL hardtop coupe looked so much better than any of the 4 door pillarmobiles from Mercedes or anyone else. So much sportier, so much more open, so much better visability. 1949-51 Ford and Mercury woodies were 2 doors. The exact point is that it is all about choice. If you can't afford a 2 door or have a family, a 4 door is fine. However, with 4 doors being shoved down my throat for all new cars, in the era when you could get just about any car you wanted in 2 or 4 door, I am definitely getting the 2 door.

If you go to a cruise night, you will see mostly muscle cars and 2 door 1957 Chevys. Go to a Concours event, orphan show, or even marque specific club event, and you will see plenty of 4 doors. Look on Ebay or at classifeds, and you will find even more. With production numbers generally doubling or even quadrupling 2 doors and convertibles, even losing some as parts donors, there is certainly no shortage of 4 doors. As for your teenage nephew, I cannot understand how he has never seen a 2 door before. They do not have to be from 1957 or 1963. There are still 2 doors made now. And if he hasn't seen them before, it is all the more reason why they are more interesting now as opposed to the readily available 4 door.

When I buy a car, I do not look for gas mileage and safety features. You can get that with any one of the myriad of uninteresting econoboxes. (econoeggs actually). I want something that stands apart. People look back at cars of their youth and exclaim, "Look at those fins, all that chrome, etc." I highly doubt that people looking back at cars from their youth in the future will exclaim "Wow, look at that Toyota, remember what great gas mileage we got?"

100 years old is for household items and art, not cars. Although I think U.S. Customs is the only one that still goes by this.

I see one glaring error in that article. The 4 door sedan is more rare than the 2 doors and convertibles? Hardly. The 4 door sedan generally outsold the other 2 combined. It is true that you can get the 4 door for much cheaper than the same car with 2 doors. It can be a great purchase for a family or individual on a budget. But I tend to prefer the 2 door. Like tailfins and chrome, it is something you just can't get anymore in a new car with only a handful of exceptions. I have to say I really don't get that 2 doors are more valuable for antiques, but no one wants them for a new car.

Don't know about retirement villages, but when I was buying my place, I refused to look at anyplace where my car ('79 Mark V) would not fit in the garage. I found that it would usually fit in the garage if the place was built between 1960 and 1980. It would not if it was built in the 80's or '90's. Possibly post 2000 they might have increased garage space for big SUV's. But I found it was best just to immediately rule out anything built in the 1980's or 1990's.

I have been a passenger in a Prius a couple of times. Sorry I'm not impressed. I have also had a Chevy Aveo as a rental. I don't care how much either of these save on gas, I'd rather be in a larger, safer, more comfortable, more stylish, faster car. I would never buy a Met either, but at least it has style and character. The Prius just has zero appeal to me. We have 3 cars, 1976, 1994, and 2006. The newer the car is, the cheaper the materials, the worse the visibility, and the fewer choices you had when buying it new. And the 2006 really doesn't offer much that the 1994 or even 1976 doesn't except for a few computer gadgets. None of which are necessary for daily driving. Looking at the first 10 years of the 20th century, and all that came into existence at that time, I-pods and one car that appeals to a limited number of people is not a very impressive start to this century. Not to mention the fact that the one car is not all that groundbreaking considering that gas, diesel, steam, electric, propane, natural gas, etc. powered cars were all available in the last century. By the way, the Prius and Honda Insight were first on the market in the 1990's, which still makes them last century's technological advancement, not this one's.

1. So 50 years later with expensive batteries and complex technology, you have a car that gets maybe 5 mpg better than my father's Metropolitan. Most new cars will get less. And while you might think the Prius is the most wonderful car ever made, not everyone wants one. I certainly don't. Maybe if a hybrid Camaro or Town Car comes out with 300 horsepower I'd be interested, until then forget it. 2. Apparently you have never driven in rush hour in Chicago. 3. While some of us might look at the past through rose colored glasses, I think you are looking at the future through them. We are now 10 years into this next century. and what do we have to show for it? I am not talking political b.s., I mean stuff that makes our lives better. TV, radio, movies, airplanes, cars, microwaves, computers, Ebay, forums like this, all came about in the last century or even the very end of the 19th century. So what came about since 2000 to make our lives better than we did not have before 1999? I really can't think of anything. Maybe some medical advances or I-pods or something? Certainly a pale comparison to what came about in the last century so far. In the 1970's you could get anything from a Chevette to an Eldorado convertible. Cars with actual size differences, not just a price difference. And you could get most in 2 door, 4 door, station wagon, and convertible. My Mark IV came in 26 colors with a matching interior in almost as many colors. Now you get a 4 door sedan in 5 colors with gray interior, all look pretty much the same regardless of price. Yesterday's cars were rolling sculpture. Today's are rolling appliances. How is that better? Sorry gas mileage isn't everything, and there were cars that got good gas mileage before Priuses. And there is very little that is available on today's cars that you could not get in the 1970's or 80's. Basically I-pod connectors and cupholders. Both huge advancements.

Two things First, no one likes to think they are getting old. When someone buys their first old car, they do not want to think of it as a used beater. It is an antique regardless of what year it is at that time or how bad of shape it was in. However, 25 years later, people do not like to think that a car that was new when they were buying their first antique is now an antique also. So that 1955 will always be an antique, yet they will claim a 1975 is not, even though it is probably twice as old as their 1955 was when they got it. Second, cars change less the newer they are. You would not want to be driving a 1959 Cadillac in 1969 or a 1947 in 1957. It was hopelessly dated. It could never pass as a newer car. However, now, you can have a 10 year old Cadillac (or Ford or Buick), and if it is in mint condition, the average person (not car guy) will never guess it is that old. My Buick is 16 years old, and most people think it is maybe 3 or 4 years old. That would never work with a 1959 in 1975. So when my Buick turns 25, is it really that surprising that people will have a hard time thinking of it as an antique? I remember the old lady neighbor that had a 1964 Impala in 1974. It was in mint condition, probably had 20,000 miles on it. Yet everybody commented on that ancient old car of hers, they can't believe she still has that thing. Would a 10 year old car now cause neighbors to comment? Nope. Most would have no clue a car is 10 years old unless it is a beat up wreckage. It was not the quality, materials, or condition of that 1964 that caused comments. It was the style. Also, I have a hard time believing that plastic and computers are better materials than metal and wood. You can pull a 1955 whatever out of a barn, put in a battery, pour gas in it, and start it up. I do not think you will be able to do that with a 2010 anything in 2035. I can't get plastic and computer parts for my Mark IV now, and it has nowhere near the amount of either that a 2010 does.