LINC400

A 1980's pick up is no comparison. Try backing a 2006 Monte Carlo SS out of a grocery store parking lot. You can't see anything out of the rear or rear side windows. Mirrors are useless as they only show you the cars parked behind you, not cars coming down the aisle.

I frequently go to the Auburn auction but decided to skip it this year. This info makes me glad I'm not going this year. What a shame. It was always interesting just to check out all the cars even if you weren't buying. I wonder if this will be the beginning of the end of this event.

While a 1960 Buick was still destroyed, I guess I am glad that it was a much more common 4 door with no engine or trans, than the nice running, more rare convert. I'm surprised that they actually spent the time and effort to make the mock up 4 door and spared the nice car. Car wrecks have always been a bit hit in movies (yes, pun intended). I just hate when they do it with fully restored antiques. Especially when a new car could be used with no change in plot. At least this was a compromise.

It sure looks like disdain for postwar cars to me. Some older people think that anything they might have purchased new, 1950-1984, will never be old or good enough to be called antiques. Very narrow view, and they miss enjoying many interesting cars built during that time. Nothing like a 1961 Imperial or 1976 Eldorado will ever be built again. Many people collect what they remember from their youth, and have no interest in cars built before or after that. I have no interest in pre-1930's cars. I take long road trips in my car and want air conditioning, heat, power windows, a nice stereo, all kinds of creature comforts. But it doesn't mean I can't appreciate a 1920 Packard if I see one at a show. On the other hand, the 1960's, 1970's or whatever postwar era cars will never be good enough to some of the old timers.

Antique furniture and household items are a different story. The traditional is 100 years old. If you waited for cars to be recognized at 100 years old, there wouldn't be many still around. As far as household stuff and furniture, when I first started collecting in the 1990's, 50 years and older was considered collectible antiques, but not fine antiques yet. 1950's stuff was considered "kitschy", collectible, but not real antiques yet. Now I see 1970's and 1980's garage sale junk in antique stores listed as "genuine antiques".

Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Magnum have no side and rear visibility? My mom's 2006 Monte Carlo has no visibility. She thought about replacing it with a new Camaro or Challenger, but those also have no visibility. I sat in several new cars at the auto show, and none have decent visibilty. Apparently everyone likes to talk about airbags and antilock brakes and energy absorbing crumple zones which would not be needed if you were able to see that you were going to hit something before you hit it. Very interesting that all the consumer magazines in the 1970's complained about the opera window in the Continental Mark IV and V, and how it reduced visibility. The Mark series has very skinny A pillars, no B pillar, and the C pillar has a opera window in it. Yet they complained about it. Now, apparently these same magazines find it unneccessary to see out of any car.

I always hate when they tell me the rotors can't be resurfaced, and I have to buy new ones. At least this guy is sure he got his money's worth out of these.

The only comments about the Edsel transmission I have heard is about the pushbuttons. Which I believe are no more or less reliable than Packard's. The problem was the Edsel was developed in 1955 when medium priced cars were really selling. It was marketed as an all new wonder car of the future. so people were disappointed to see an ordinary car with only a strange front end to differentiate it. It was launched at the worst time of the 1950's, recession year 1958. And both Ford and Mercury dealers and insiders wanted it to fail and go away because they were worried it would steal from their sales. I don't think it is possible to make up a "worst list" because no criteria is ever mentioned. Is it mechanical problems, poor sales, ugly cars? Poor sales don't make it a bad car. Duesenberg didn't sell many cars. Mechanical failures? Many English cars such as Jaguars and Triumph were mechanical nightmares, but they are not considered worst cars, in fact they are quite collectible. Ugly is simply opinionated with no basis in fact. As far as new cars, I don't think you can really say they are ugly. Cars have to have styling and pesonality in order to be considered ugly or beautiful. For example some people love/hate the 1971 Buick Riviera. Today's cars are simply too bland to stir up any love it/ hate it controversy.

Yep, and even at 2/3 to 1/2 the original price, I don't think anything was "given away".

I disregard anything that lists the Edsel as a lemon. The only unique thing about it was its styling. Chassis and drivetrain was either Ford for the junior ones or Mercury for the seniors. So they could not possibly be any more or less of a lemon or reliable than the same year Ford or Mercury. As far as styling, the front end of the '58 was questionable, but the side and rear were not much different than any other 1950's car. As far as a flop, they sold 63,110 the first year, outselling DeSoto, Studebaker, Lincoln, Continental, Imperial, Metropolitan, and only trailing Chrysler by 550 units. Most of those brands had been in business for decades and Edsel outsold them in its first year. You can figure anyone unaware of these facts is just hyping myths about the Edsel and everything else they are listing on their "worst" list.

It looks like a real car to me. Unfortunately it costs a lot less to destroy the real thing than to make up a fake and destroy it. The purchase price for the Buick is probably only a fraction of what the actors make for that episode. Actually I had this sinking feeling that the car would be destroyed as soon as it showed up on the show. It simply stuck around longer than I thought before it happened. Guess they didn't feel like storing it until next season.

There is nothing wrong with buying a car and not wanting to deal with a restoration. Personally, I do not have the spare time to do a full restoration on a car or rebuild an engine. I want a car that I can just get in and drive and enjoy when I have the time. But I was talking about the guy who pays $75,000 for a car that with a little time and research could be purchased for $35,000. The closest I came to buying a car from a collector dealership was when one recently went under here. They auctioned off all the cars. Most went for less than half the orginal price. A few went for about 2/3 the orig price. Of course the one I wanted was not originally for sale at the dealership, but brought in only for the auction. Two old geezers with too much money bid the car up to about 1 1/2 times its value. It looked ok, but would eventually need a paint job and new interior. They also would not let you drive or even start it. The same 2 geezers also bid another similar car up higher than its original sale price (which it sat at the dealership at for 3 years).

Many people in the Cadillac club remove the sensor/computer chip from the V-8-6-4 and they run just fine on 8 cylinders all the time. Many laugh about how they picked up a very nice car very cheap becuase the previous owner didn't bother to do that.

I have wondered how these dealerships stay in business myself. Eventually some sucker with too much money and no brains or at least no knowledge of old cars sees something they want and will pay the ridiculous price for it. They have no clue that they could wait a couple weeks or months and find the same or better car for much less. I suppose some cars are sold at more reasonable prices. And I wonder if a lot of these places are just a tax write off for someone with too much money.

Raising taxes on gas does not get everyone to dump their big SUV and buy a Focus or Prius. While a few people might do that, it hurts a lot more people instead. In order to make a decent income where I can pay my bills (because I pay all mine, not just minimums on credit cards), I must work in area X. However, I cannot afford a house in area X, so I live in area Y. The commute is not that bad if my gas bill for the month is $150-$200. However, last year it was $350-$400. My car does not qualify for clunker status because it gets too good of gas mileage. And it will cost me much more than $200 per month to buy and insure an Prius or Focus. So it will cost me more than I will be saving in gas since I have no car payment now. My friend works for a bus company where a lot of retired people work for extra money to supplement their social security. Last year many of them had to quit because it cost them more to commute than they were making. Plus you can ride a bicycle, drive a Prius, have a solar and wind powered house, and higher gas prices will still affect you. Why? Because of trucking. Trucking companies cannot afford to eat the increase in gas prices. So they pass that on to their customers. When it costs more for trucking, stores pass that cost on to consumers by raising the price of everything they sell. So you will pay more for food, clothing, car parts, and anything you buy. Plus I work for a transportation company. I like to use smaller independent truckers when possible instead of big national conglomerates. Several of them went out of business last year because of high gas prices. That put a lot of people out of work, and now we have to pay more to ship the same stuff with another company. More price increases passed on to you, the consumer. Meanwhile, the guy with the Escalade or Hummer keeps driving it with higher gas prices. He just doesn't pay his gas credit card bill. He files for bankruptcy or just keeps paying the minimum like he has always done.

There is a car museum here that also sells cars. A 1959 Cadillac hearse came in on trade. After trying to sell it for 3 times what it is worth, they turned it into a Ghostbusters car. The Ghostbusters car is a 1959 Ambulance, not hearse. If you look at pictures of the two, (or the Ghostbusters model they have sitting on its hood) you can see that the roof and windows are nothing alike. The rear window is completely different. Yet they swear that this car was used in the movie, and they have it for sale for $125,000 dollars. My friend knew the previous owner of the hearse. It still has his Cadillac/LaSalle club sticker in the front window. They showed it one year at the Chicago Auto Show. We kept telling people it was a fake, (not starting a riot or making a scene, we just told people it was a fake when they commented on it). The museum people said they would get security to throw us out for making up lies. I would love to know if there was some way to nail them on this. They also have a Dukes of Hazzard Charger, with black interior. A '57 Christine Plymouth with black interior, The hearse from one of the Terminator movies, with roof still attached when the roof gets ripped off in the movie, which by the way they are showing next to the car. And every year George Barris stops by to sign the hood of every car including ones he had nothing to do with. Seems that in his old age he thinks he customized every car ever used in Hollywood. Including the fake ones at the museum.

Thanks I think some people are missing the point though. An open to anything car show is one thing. My own car club awards trophies for a 1990 - 1999 and 2000 - new. That is fine. I don't get the point of awarding a trophy to a car that just rolled off the dealer lot. But if it makes someone without an antique car feel included, fine. My problem is that many places you cannot take your 1985 or newer ANYTHING, BUT you can show ANY Corvette, or sometimes Mustang or other new muscle cars. So why are Corvettes or Mustangs considered so superior that they alone, not Hondas, or Oldsmobiles, or Lincolns or Citroens or anything else newer than 1984, are exempt from the 25 year old rule? If any year Corvette is allowed, then you should allowed to bring any year of anything else. If cars have to be 25 years old or older, that should include Corvettes as well.

I would say that now is not any better than last year as far as looking for a collectible car. Sales prices for million dollar muscle cars have dropped. But for good cars in the $5000-$25,000 range, I don't think prices have dropped any. People have lost their jobs, can't afford storage, etc. So they are looking to sell their cars. So if they need money, they want the absolute maximum they can get for their car. Buyers on the other hand, are only looking to buy if they get a great deal. So what I am seeing is the same cars on Ebay or Craigslist over and over again, not coming down in price, and not selling. If you find a good deal on a car you really want, then buy it. But I would not be looking to buy something just because now is supposed to be the time to get deals.

It has nothing to do with young guys getting an interest in the hobby. Young guys generally do not buy new Corvettes. If it is an open to anything car show, that is one thing. However we are talking about everything having to be 25 years old or older. UNLESS it is a Corvette or maybe Mustang. So what about the guy with the '93 tuner Honda, '91 Fleetwood, or '86 Fiero? This is telling them that Corvettes and Mustangs are superior to their cars and allowed in while theirs are not. My friend has a very flashy '85 hearse. Anything was allowed to do the driving cruise, but only 25 year old and older cars were allowed in the show afterwards. Unless it was a Corvette, Then it could be any year. Since the hearse is rather bizarre and flashy, it was waved in. When they asked what year it was, he lied and said '79. No one knew the difference. A local sportscaster was covering the event and said on the news that night that the hearse was his favorite. If my friend told the truth, his car would never have been allowed in. But if it was an '85 Corvette, it would. While there was a ton of Corvettes there, the only Citroen that showed up was turned away because they told the truth and it was off by 2 years. I attend tons of different shows including cruise nights. My comment is not a complaint about one specific event, but rather that it seems to be getting more common that Corvettes and other muscle cars are seen as superior and do not need a year cut off like all other cars and trucks do. The hearse and Citroen incidents both happened at the Lake Shore Drive Cruise and Show (or whatever the specific name for that was). I do not go to that event anymore. Not because of the Corvette thing, but because they have changed the route and discontinued the show afterwards. So it sucks now.

I applied for a job at a dealership many years ago. Since I knew about cars, I thought this would be a great job for me. It was not. I focused on things car guys wanted to know, horsepower, displacement, engineering advancements or specialties. The three people that did best in my training class were a woman that sold appliances, a guy that sold electronics, and a woman that sold furniture. None of them knew anything about cars or had any clue about what a Studebaker, AMC, or Olds 442 was. But they knew how to close deals. So I would assume by now that if these people have not moved on to selling real estate or something else, they would be sales managers by now. So why would they now suddenly need to know about an Olds 442 or other possible collectible vehicle? How many of these are going to come in on trade for a Prius or Focus? Plus there is a local dealership here that has a 1979 Collectors Series and 1978 Diamond Jubilee in very good condition. Two of the most collectible Continental Mark V's. They have been sitting on their lot for over 10 months and on Ebay about 6 times each. I love Mark V's and am not interested in either because they are not equipped the way I want, I don't like the color, and are priced at the very high end of what they are worth. So if someone specifically interested in these cars is not interested in them, how long is it going to take to sell them? I don't think this dealer would look at a 442 coming on their lot thinking "Oh goody, if we let this one sit here for 10+ months, maybe we can get $6500 for it instead of $4500 clunker cash". Plus the guy in the story offered $5000 for the 442, not $9000. Would he still have been interested in it if it was priced at $9000 on the used car lot instead of lined up waiting to be destroyed for $4500? Probably he would have walked over, said nice car, and walked away. So with dealers having 100+ cars stacked up for the clunker program, and more deals coming in every day. I highly doubt that they are going to sit there and look for collectible cars that they might get $1000 or $2000 more for. They are interested in making money on the new cars they are selling. As far as the top 10 vehicles being Explorers, minivans, and Cherokees, I will not miss these vehicles at all. But those are only the top ten. Same as when the WWII scrap drive was around. The top ten vehicles scrapped were probably Ford model T and A's. But there were also Pierce Arrows, Duesenbergs, Packards, and Cords that were scrapped. And now we even lament the loss of the Model T and A's. So there will be 442's, Impala SS's, IROC Camaros, and Fleetwoods destroyed now and lamented later.

Trying to get a good deal on everything is not the same. If someone brings in a truck worth $10,000 and the dealer tells them it is only worth $4500, the dealer is trying to fleece them. If someone brings in a truck worth $10,000 and demands $4500 for it. They have fleeced themselves through their own stupidity by not knowing what it is worth.

No they don't know. Many car salespeople are not car people at all. They are salespeople. If they weren't selling cars, they would be selling aluminum siding or appliances. Most dealerships distribute information when the new models come out. The salespeople read them over and remember the what they think are the important points to make a sale. Anyone spending a little time on the internet can easily know more about the car they want to buy than the salespeople will. My own mother, in her 60's knew more about the Monte Carlo SS she was buying than the salesman did. Plus how many collectible cars are going to come in on trade that salespeople will need to know something about them? My friend was looking to buy a Ford County Squire (1991) or Caprice wagon (1990 for the boxy style) around 2001. He had to explain what they were, and when they were made. The dealer then told him they wouldn't have anything THAT old on their lot. I remember driving with another friend in his 1968 Lincoln Continental in 2005. We stopped at a Lincoln dealership because a Town Car on the used car lot caught his eye. The salesman looked at the 1968 and said "What is that? Are you going to be trading it in? (A most definite NO) So if a Lincoln dealer can't even identify the famous suicide door Lincoln, do you think someone is going to pay attention to a 442 badge on an '80's Cutlass? With most trade ins, they just look up the value and then try to offer as little as possible without insulting the owner so much that they walk out the door. With the clunker program, there is no need to look anything up because the $3500 or $4500 value is already in place with no haggling.

The problem is this is beginning to be the norm almost everywhere except concours and some other more exclusive events. If I didn't go to anything that allowed new Corvettes, my activities would be cut by about 2/3. If trophies were important to me, I wouldn't be driving the car that I have. However, it annoys me to see beautifully restored 1950's and 1960's cars passed over for one that just rolled off the dealership lot. You can buy nice antique cars for a lot less than a new Corvette, so thinking that a new Corvette owner is just getting into the hobby or will suddenly trade up for an antique doesn't make sense. I think all cars should have to abide by the same year cut-off. Corvettes are nice, but not so spectacular that they are above all other cars.

You are assuming that new car dealers are interested in collectible cars and know their value. Most car dealers can't even tell you very much about the cars they are selling aside from a few points listed in their sales notes, much less one from another manufacturer from 20 years ago. Probably a rwd Cutlass doesn't even show up on their value guides so they figure it is worthless. A 442 package isn't going to mean anything to someone that doesn't know what a 442 is.

That is exactly what is being said by allowing in new Corvettes and muscle cars, but not other less than 25 year old vehicles. My friend's father has a 1991 Olds Vista Cruiser wagon (very low production). He has a 1991 Cadillac limousine. When is the last time you saw a 1984 Citroen? But these are not allowed in shows, but new Corvettes are. Of course it is so difficult to clean up and detail a car to look like new that has been off the dealer lot for 3 days. That deserves a trophy.