The Modern Car Collector vs. the Old Thinking

[Guest BJM]

Today no one would try to restore a rough 1992 ponycar, and a mid-size coupe or anything else would only be saved if it was in good condition not requiring full restoration.

Todd,

This is a very true statement and a cause for concern for all who consider themselves stewards of the hobby - that is - they want to lift the boat of the hobby even if they personally do not see value in a period of vehicle.

In 1990, I relocated to Houston Texas where every boy racer had those late 80's Mustangs and IROCZ's. Both were clad with the trend at the time, small block V8's with spoilers, "ground effects" etc. Dime a dozen right?

Now they are gone - greatly reduced. So what about another 15 years from now? Full restorations seem hard to imagine for these low priority cars.

But I was jonesn' for an electric blue IROCZ back then, all I could afford was a Tempo

[jeff_a]

Bryan,

Your mention earlier of good prices on Porsche 928's reminds me of a '72 Lamborghini Espada someone had for sale six years ago in B.C. It was only $15,000 OBO BUT it had a missing rear seat and a seized engine. A great deal going into the ownership of such a car........but what they call a "Fright Pig" when you look at repair and operational costs. Insurance agents like to price cars like this ( the Lamborghinis not the Porsches ) off the road as far as their liability & collision coverage rates, too.

I thought the 911's were the flagship of the Porsche line. Did the 928's cost more or drive better? I've never been in a Porsche, but remember some kid in my high school drove a new 911 Targa. I remember parking next to it at the H.S. parking lot in my Model "A" Coupe and noticing that we were about the only guys there who didn't have 8-tracks!:cool:

[Dave@Moon]

I thought the 911's were the flagship of the Porsche line. Did the 928's cost more or drive better?

Most of the years they were produced the 928 was the most expensive Porsche. The only Porsche models that were more expensive were top-end Turbo 911 models and (some) Carrera4's. It was intended to be the 911's replacement, but customers generally preferred the rear-engine models.

[Barry Wolk]

It was much, much, more luxurious than a 911, know for its spartan interiors.

[poci1957]

Todd,

This is a very true statement and a cause for concern for all who consider themselves stewards of the hobby - that is - they want to lift the boat of the hobby even if they personally do not see value in a period of vehicle.

In 1990, I relocated to Houston Texas where every boy racer had those late 80's Mustangs and IROCZ's. Both were clad with the trend at the time, small block V8's with spoilers, "ground effects" etc. Dime a dozen right?

Now they are gone - greatly reduced. So what about another 15 years from now? Full restorations seem hard to imagine for these low priority cars.

But I was jonesn' for an electric blue IROCZ back then, all I could afford was a Tempo

Hello Bryan, funny you should say that, I have been fondly thinking of those electric blue IROC Zs recently!

Well, my comments were not really meant to suggest the demise of the hobby, even though I am concerned about that (BTW I am also only 42 but got in early so I was involved with old collectors of the late 1970s & 1980s). My main point is that I think car collecting in the future will be much more collecting and much less restoring, just because of the cost, time, and mechanical aptitude required.

Popular or "cult" cars like a Corvette, Mustang, or Miata will have a parts network with catalogs and reproduction parts, but anything else will be hard to deal with, which will limit the value of any such car needing work. Likewise any car needing a repaint, with a body shop paint job at $5000 and rising.

[Guest BJM]

Jeff

The 928 was - as mentioned - supposed to be the late 70's replacement for the 911 because Porsche was not certain how much longer the 911 could meet strict US emissions requirements. When that issue was eased, Porsche ran both cars.

Long derided as the Porsche AG CEO's grocery getter car, the 928 was fast, handled well and competed with the best Ferraris and Lambos, especially in late 80's and 90's guise. With laid down Lamborguini Muira style headlights - it was exotic different from anything at the time.

It ended in 1995 because Porsche did not want to invest to make it OBD II compliant. In fact 1995 ended the other popular "supercars" such as Nissan 300ZX, Mazda twin turbo RX7, and the scary fast Toyota Supra twin turbo.

By then the 928 had reached $75,000 1995 dollars. My friend Scott Van Syoc, the Porsche master tech at our dealerhsip, said he could not remember a 1995 coming into the dealership as a regular or special order.

The one to look at are the late 80's. It's a matter of semantics. The 93-95's are faster but still command $25,000 to $35,000 for a nice one. A 1987 S4 version 928 you can get for $10,000 or less and they are "just" about as fast.

Todd,

As a statistcs freak, it would be interesting to see using the AACA where the cars are, so to speak. How many total cars are owned from each decade.

Obviously it plummits in the "used car period" of 1990 to 2002.

Too bad most IROCZ's have been rode hard and put away wet.

Edited December 15, 2009 by BJM (see edit history)

[D Yaros]

What a sleeper, with issues. Many of these have driven owners nuts but they were custom made in Italy, correct?

I did not expect Reattas and Allantes to stay high relative to initial value but am surprised to see where you can buy one for 10 cents on the dollar.

Can they be restored? I think so.

The Allante is indeed a sleeper right now. They may be best described as "cult cars." One is either a fanatic over them, even with their faults, or views them with nothing but scorn.

Yes the assembly story is well known. The chassis was shipped form MI to Italy. In Italy the body was put on. They were then shipped back to MI for installation of the drive train.

Anything, and I do repeat anything, may be restored. It is only a matter of how much are you willing to pay, isn't it?

What will give the Allante real value in the very distant future is that current owners believe, and live the belief, that the car is made to be driven. I can say they are a real blast to drive!

The more they are driven, the more they will deteriorate, and go from the road to the salvage yard. With a base of only 21,430 to start, the loss of every one, means those remaining will acquire more worth. A simple application of the laws of supply and demand.

I think Reatta, and maybe Rivieras, fall into the "cult" classification too.

Having been a former owner of one, I can testify that the Corvair owners are avid practitioners of the cult art. They also believe in driving their cars. It is only now that the general public is beginning to discover, and appreciate what was something of a bit of a joke in the 60's.

Edited December 15, 2009 by D Yaros
typos (see edit history)

[Big Beat]

I find it rather hard to accept anything from the 1980's & up being collectible yet as of today, with the exception of semi-exotic stuff like the above mentioned Porsches and Allantes, and all the usual ponycar suspects (Corvettes, Mustangs, etc.).

I can imagine all the other 80's & 90's cars eventually getting there, but I think it will take decades. It seems that the newer a car is, the longer it takes for it to become collectible. As mentioned, 50's cars were already generally accepted as collectible in the 1970's, when they were around 20 years old. My '79 Monte Carlo is 30 years old this year, but it still doesn't have the same status. To many it's still just an older used car, despite being 30 years old. It may take another 10 years before its acceptance is universal. By the same token, a typical late 1980's model may need to be 50 years old before it gets any real appreciation, and a 90's model perhaps even older.

My choice of the '79 Monte was personal: I had one for my first car in the early 80's that I wish I had kept. So a few years ago I went looking for one that's the same year and color, found the nicest, low-milage, totally original example I could find, and let time turn it into a classic. "Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is..."

[Larry Schramm]

I agree with Dave that the Reattas will be a cult/collector car if they are not already. Other non pony cars would include the Buick Grand National, some of the Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs like the Fiero.

[Guest BJM]

My '79 Monte Carlo is 30 years old this year, but it still doesn't have the same status. To many it's still just an older used car, despite being 30 years old. My choice of the '79 Monte was personal: I had one for my first car in the early 80's that I wish I had kept. So a few years ago I went looking for one that's the same year and color, found the nicest, low-milage, totally original example I could find, and let time turn it into a classic. "Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is..."

The 79-81 Monte Carlos were very nicely styled. I disagree they are looked upon as 'just old cars' In fact, you fall right into my argument. YOU purchased this car because of it's sentimental value, just as so many "old timey" AACA members collected cars fromthe 50's that brought a gleam to their eye.

Monte Carlos went on to SS derivatives, which are nice looking collectible cars. Olds did it with their Hurst Olds versions, and many of those are affordable.

I would say your Monte fits my argument much better then a Porsche 928 or other "supercars" because it is domestic, mainline, yet nicely styled. We owned these as adults - or admired them.

[Rawja]

My "fleet":

'84 Seville Elegante

'88 Buick Reatta

'92 Buick Skylark GS coupe

'94 Pontiac Trans Sport

'06 Yamaha Morphous

I know I'm eccentric, but to me each of the cars is interesting on their own merits (I'm a sucker for over-styling) and I really don't care if they ever increase in value or if others consider them "collectible" or not. GM has long stopped supporting them, but I don't mind the additional leg-work keeping them supplied with the needed parts. The Trans Sport is the daily driver and I am fanatical about up-keep and maintenance, the Seville and the Reatta are now pristine and the GS is newly acquired and is the next project.

I'd say that thanks to the internet, keeping older vehicles has become relatively easy, you have the ability to search the globe for whatever you need and forums such as this to confer with the similarly afflicted.

[poci1957]

I'd say that thanks to the internet, keeping older vehicles has become relatively easy, you have the ability to search the globe for whatever you need and forums such as this to confer with the similarly afflicted.

That is a great point, it is very helpful to be able to meet the "afflicted" and see that you are not an island in your car activity and be able to find parts and maybe generate more interest in reproductions someday.

[LINC400]

I find it rather hard to accept anything from the 1980's & up being collectible yet as of today, with the exception of semi-exotic stuff like the above mentioned Porsches and Allantes, and all the usual ponycar suspects (Corvettes, Mustangs, etc.).

I can imagine all the other 80's & 90's cars eventually getting there, but I think it will take decades. It seems that the newer a car is, the longer it takes for it to become collectible. As mentioned, 50's cars were already generally accepted as collectible in the 1970's, when they were around 20 years old. My '79 Monte Carlo is 30 years old this year, but it still doesn't have the same status. To many it's still just an older used car, despite being 30 years old. It may take another 10 years before its acceptance is universal. By the same token, a typical late 1980's model may need to be 50 years old before it gets any real appreciation, and a 90's model perhaps even older.

I agree 100% with that. Many old timers still look down on 1970's cars even though they are 30-40 years old as opposed to 20-25 years old for the cars they like when they first started collecting. The 1980's cars get even less respect. I had a post on this very forum a few months ago about a 1985 car that my friend owns. A bunch of people on here that like to claim that they have a "live and let live" attitude posted all kinds of nasty and snide comments about it not being worthy of being an antique or collected. And the car is probably a lot more rare than anything they own.

My own car gets attention at car shows. However, I am convinced that it is because of the color. An olive green Mark IV in our club gets zero attention even though it is in even better shape than mine.

Most car magazines still refer to 1970's cars as gas guzzling pigs and huge oversized dinosaurs. Even though they really aren't any worse on gas or bigger than comparable 1960's cars. How much bigger or worse on gas is a 1975 Caprice or Eldorado than a 1965 Impala or DeVille? Yet the '65 is praised and the '75 is degraded. The 1970's cars were hit with this stigma when they were new, and it still plagues them 30 years later. Very rarely is anything positive said about them. So with that in mind, 1980's cars are very rarely mentioned in any car magazines, also with nothing really positive said about them. Cheap, boxy look-alikes, no performance, lousy quality, etc. is what is always mentioned. So I suspect that this stigma will stick with them for many years to come as well.

Fortunately I don't care about old timers and some magazines opinion of my car. However, I think it does keep the value down and persuade others not to buy them. I think this also affects whether anyone wants to offer repro parts. How many people want to pay top dollar for a car that gets no respect or provide parts for a car that isn't worth restoring?

The internet is an enormous help in finding cars, parts, information, and restoration services. But I think anyone that thinks the internet is going to make restoring a 1990 Cadillac as easy as a 1965 is only fooling themselves. You can pull a '65 out of a barn, put some gas and a new battery in it and start it up. Do you think that will be able to be done with a 1990 in 10 years when who knows what computer part caused it to stop running 20 years ago?

[poci1957]

Hello Linc400, I am with you on the comments about the 1970s cars. In 1980 my dad bought a 1955 Thunderbird, 25 years old and an undisputed collectors item, as they had been for years. Now I have a 1979 Trans Am, 30 years old, and it does not seem very old. I think this is due to:

a. Longer styling cycles meaning that cars do not grow "old" as fast as in the 1950s. A 1979 Trans Am used the same body as a 1970. In 1959 a 1950 Pontiac was hopelessly outdated and worth nothing to anyone who could afford anything newer

b. Partly due to item (a) a car stayed on the road in use longer. So much for planned obsolescence. I see 20 year old cars in regular use every day now and they are not conspicuously outdated.

I also agree with you on the 1970s gas guzzler stigma. Yes, they are guzzlers, but V8 big cars guzzled in the 1950s & 60s too. On the up side one can still buy a cushy 1970s sled relatively cheap. The down side is your investment potential is probably not so good, but if you would like a nice big car they are affordable and you do not have any speculators driving the price up. I could have bought a clean original 1976 Electra 225 4dr hardtop at Iola this summer for $4995 (or less). I drove home with a twinge of regret; dreaming of what the drive would have been like. My wife was happier without it though. Todd

[alsancle]

I'm 45 so I'm not sure you can call me an old timer or not but a couple points about 70 & 80s cars.

1. It's a free world and you are more then welcome to collect what ever you want. It's your money, it's your time so get whatever you like and don't be concerned with how others feel.

2. People tend to look down on cars from the 70 & 80 for some varied but I feel legit reasons. Emission control laws strangled the engines. Insurance & Crumple laws strangled the styling. Build quality was questionable. All and all, not a great era for car building.

As someone that was becoming quite car aware in the 78-82 years I can tell you that my friends and I were quite disappointing with all the new cars at the time and yearned for something pre-72. Compare that attitude with a teenager in 1955 or 1968.

Edited December 16, 2009 by alsancle (see edit history)

[LINC400]

I never thought about the longer styling cycles having any effect. Perhaps it does though. If that is the case, then it will affect 1980's to current cars much more than 1970's cars. They still had a 3-5 year body run then. Starting in the 1980's it became more commonplace for cars to remain the same for 10 years or more. The Trans Am/Camaro might have had the same body for 10 years, but it was one of very few that did, and they did get facelifted every few years. Compare that to a 1980-89 Town Car, 1980-92 Cadillac DeVille/Brougham or 1982-96 Buick Century where they barely changed from year to year.

But I think the reason has more to do with still seeing what you originally started collecting as opposed to what was new or just a used car at the time. What was just a used car 20 years ago is now an antique. But many people don't like to admit to that passage of time. It will be interesting in the future to see if anybody gets excited about cars they are growing up with now. I just don't see people jumping up and down over a 1985-present Caravan or Accord the way they do now with seeing a 1955 Ford or Chevy their parents had.

Emissions did strangle performance in the 1970's. Build quality depends on what kind of car it is. And I think the 1970's was last time cars had style overall as opposed to a few standouts here and there post 1980. Everybody loves to bash the "chrome log" bumpers. But at least they were chrome, not plastic. Personally I think the 1974-76 Mark IV looks better with the bigger bumpers. The 1972 bumpers were too puny. Even if the bumpers were not overly stylish, at least the rest of the car had style. Compare a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado or DeVille to a 1986. Most people are attracted to cars for the styling. There are exceptions, but most post 1980 cars just don't have attention grabbing style. A 1986 Taurus, Accord, Century, or DeVille just doesn't scream look at me. To me cars died in 1985-6 when GM did its second round of downsizing. For our first cars, my friends and I all bought pre-downsized 1976 (GM) or 1979 (Ford) or older, and couldn't believe anybody thought the 1985-6 and later were better.

Edited December 16, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[poci1957]

It will be interesting in the future to see if anybody gets excited about cars they are growing up with now. I just don't see people jumping up and down over a 1985-present Caravan or Accord the way they do now with seeing a 1955 Ford or Chevy their parents had.

Emissions did strangle performance in the 1970's. Build quality depends on what kind of car it is. And I think the 1970's was last time cars had style overall as opposed to a few standouts here and there post 1980. Everybody loves to bash the "chrome log" bumpers. But at least they were chrome, not plastic. Personally I think the 1974-76 Mark IV looks better with the bigger bumpers. The 1972 bumpers were too puny. Even if the bumpers were not overly stylish, at least the rest of the car had style. Compare a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado or DeVille to a 1986. Most people are attracted to cars for the styling. There are exceptions, but most post 1980 cars just don't have attention grabbing style. A 1986 Taurus, Accord, Century, or DeVille just doesn't scream look at me. To me cars died in 1985-6 when GM did its second round of downsizing. For our first cars, my friends and I all bought pre-downsized 1976 (GM) or 1979 (Ford) or older, and couldn't believe anybody thought the 1985-6 and later were better.

On the first quote above, I think it will be an issue that economy cars and basic mid sizers have never gotten people too nostalgic. Anyone who likes 1950s cars generally wants a higher end or sporty model, and anyone who came of age before about 1990 probably still has a leaning to 2drs or sporty models.

On the second, I agree on the bumpers and styling. Personally I have a lust for a Mark V (Bill Blass please) as I always thought them even better looking than a Mk IV. Real Lincoln people like yourself usually disagree, but maybe that means I will be able to get into a Mark V cheaper. The only twist I would add is that I think the 1979-85 E body Riviera/Eldorado/Toronado were very attractive in their downsizing. Too bad the next generation did not do so well.

[Guest BJM]

1. It's a free world and you are more then welcome to collect what ever you want. It's your money, it's your time so get whatever you like and don't be concerned with how others feel.

Alsuncle, this is an all too common sentiment that - nooffense - does not serve the argument, does not need mentioned. In this thread, I think I have seen it 3-4 times already. Relevant, but kind of a base understood concept here in the U.S.

I am not concerned how others feel. I generally create these topics because it is something I am thinking about and think others might have interesting anecdotal comments.

It had jsut occurred to me that I had this interest in what amounted to "used cars" and it is interesting how fast these used cars get old. As many commentors have noted including yourself - the cars frm the 70's are now 30 + years old.

It's just topical, it's not meant to have others help me decide what to own.

As for the comments in this last page about the disdain of the 70's era, it is changing and that's the truth. I think the 70's will far out number the 60's in number of retained collector cars. For one, there is more volume as GM and others set production records.

You have great diversity in the 70's. I own a 72 Buick, and have owned every 72 Buick at least 5 times, plus 73 and 71. I think magazines like Hemmings Classic Cars are almost apologetic about running articles on 70's cars and that strategy is getting really old. I am tired of HCC starting their articles off saying bad things about a car and then the owner says at the end that he ownes this car because of his admiration of it in his teens. Well duh! that guy is in his 50's now.

In fact my concept was driven by what is available after 1980 more then from the 70's. The 70's I think will take care of themselves just fine thank you very much - but some of the cars mentioned are being crushed in droves (or are already crushed) like certain Fox bodied Mustangs and the 82-93 Camaros and Firebirds.

[Guest BJM]

I never thought about the longer styling cycles having any effect. Perhaps it does though. If that is the case, then it will affect 1980's to current cars much more than 1970's cars. They still had a 3-5 year body run then.

I noticed as federal emissions standards tightened from the early 90's until now, that manufacturers ended runs of cars based on the new, tougher emissions standard coming in in a particular year. Rather then spend millions trying to save a low volume showroom car. This happened en masse for the 1995 model year, when the Federal government came out with OBD II.

Also, we have seen a lot of effort to come out with a model, lot sof fanfare but not the commitment to redesign it. The last gen Buick Riviera changed little from 1995 to 1999. It was revolutionary when GM introduced it, but was not changed at all in 4 years.

The Chrysler 300 we see today is an aged body design that most of us loved when new, but now is dated. Chrysler won't (or can't) redesign it so it's done.

Does anyone think the Camaro and Challenger will go beyond 4-5 year runs?

Ford keeps reinventing and tweaking the Mustang.

[LINC400]

On the first quote above, I think it will be an issue that economy cars and basic mid sizers have never gotten people too nostalgic. Anyone who likes 1950s cars generally wants a higher end or sporty model, and anyone who came of age before about 1990 probably still has a leaning to 2drs or sporty models.

On the second, I agree on the bumpers and styling. Personally I have a lust for a Mark V (Bill Blass please) as I always thought them even better looking than a Mk IV. Real Lincoln people like yourself usually disagree, but maybe that means I will be able to get into a Mark V cheaper. The only twist I would add is that I think the 1979-85 E body Riviera/Eldorado/Toronado were very attractive in their downsizing. Too bad the next generation did not do so well.

Falcons, Studebakers, Metropolitans, Corvairs, Novas, etc. have their following. They may never be as popular as 1957 Chevys or 1959 Cadillacs. But I still think they will have way more of a following than minivans and Accords.

I would agree that the '79-'85 Riviera, Eldo, Toro was the best downsizing ever done. The cars were still very attractive, elegant, and sporty in spite of the massive amount of inches lost.

I have owned 2 Mark V's. A 1978 base model and a 1979 Cartier. I was actually looking for a 1978 Diamond Jubilee in blue when the '76 Givenchy showed up. I still like the razor edge styling of the Mark V better. However, there was something about the combo of moonroof, aqua metallic paint, aqua velour, and chrome tiara that made me buy this Mark IV. If it was an ordinary color such as white, brown or black (or olive green), I would have passed on it.

[poci1957]

As for the comments in this last page about the disdain of the 70's era, it is changing and that's the truth. I think the 70's will far out number the 60's in number of retained collector cars. For one, there is more volume as GM and others set production records.

I think magazines like Hemmings Classic Cars are almost apologetic about running articles on 70's cars and that strategy is getting really old. I am tired of HCC starting their articles off saying bad things about a car and then the owner says at the end that he ownes this car because of his admiration of it in his teens.

That attitude has changed for me and the production numbers occurred to me too as this topic went along. I almost mentioned that for cars that people hated so much they sure sold a lot of them. And like others, as a kid in 1981-85 I was more interested in pre 1972 cars too; that was the standard car-guy mindset then. I do think the 1960s models have been saved in larger numbers, but that only makes 1970s models more unusual.

On that note, I will say that the 1970s articles in the Hemmings magazines have become very interesting to me; in fact they are the reason I keep subscribing to the Muscle Machines. After all, I have read about 1960s Mustangs and Camaros ad nauseum for 30 years, but the 1970s mid sizers I grew up with have been largely ignored and are now looking good to me. Especially since I can actually afford one and not have to fight aging boomers waving money at it.

I think of it this way: I have a 1979 Trans Am, the most popular (biggest selling) Trans Am ever. Everyone knows the 1979 was emissions choked, rubber bumper, detuned, etc compared to, say, a 455 Super Duty. I saw two very nice refinished 1979s at Hershey for $15-16K that could be driven with pride to any local show, with Air Conditioning and cruise control and attract as many smiles and thumbs up and deliver as much fun as a Super Duty for one third the price. I think the same thing could be expected with mid size cars compared to their popular earlier versions. And for all the real and imagined (mostly body & trim) quality issues would we all agree that a 1970s GM or Ford car today is mechanically very dependable? I think so, and think they are a lot of fun for the money.

[Guest BJM]

I think of it this way: I have a 1979 Trans Am, the most popular (biggest selling) Trans Am ever. Everyone knows the 1979 was emissions choked, rubber bumper, detuned, etc compared to, say, a 455 Super Duty.

I remember looking at the 79-81 TransAms on the local Pontiac dealer used car lot in 1984. I was 20. They were $6,000 to $7000 then and still in pristine used car shape. I went on Sunday and gawked for a long time. I was not a qualified buyer, so it didn't want the salesmen laughing at me.

I do not care for the 1st square headlight birds from 77-78, but that 79-81 restyle with the rear treatment was spectacular.

[poci1957]

I was thrilled to find mine, a "survivor" driver. Actually I like the styling of 1977-78 better, but this was close enough for me. It has the 403 as all automatic 1979s do, and despite being sneered at for being a smog motor it has enough torque to satisfy me and T tops for open air motoring.

They are really a great collector car bargan and I think have much appreciation potential (although that is not my motivation). And historically the 1979s represent some of the best and worst of automotive culture at GM. Linc400 and I discussed this recently.

THE WORST is that the car was heavy and thirsty for a 4 seater, with rattles and mediocre fit and finish, the things that would be said to sour the next generation of car buyers on GM.

THE BEST is that GM produced an exciting car with lots of sex appeal while using proven, regular production mechanicals and at a moderate cost. Something of an object of automotive lust on a real world budget, and they sold a huge number and made good money--they should be so lucky now!

[Big Beat]

In the early 80's, we all wanted late 60's cars. They were affordable and much more interesting than any typical used cars (which in those days meant Volares, Citations and early Japanese compacts). One of my friends back then had a Barracuda, another a 2-door Torino. These cars were only about 10-12 years old then. I really wanted to upstage both my friends with a '68 or '69 GTO, which was my dream car then. But no GTO's were available locally when the time came to stop daydreaming and actually buy something, so I settled for a clean late-model '79 Monte. Not a muscle car, but still a 2-door, V8, GM coupe, and still roughly fitting the same mindset.

Years later, my first "collector" car was of course a late 60's Pontiac. Still not a GTO, but at least I got those out of my system, though for some time 60's muscle cars remained my main interest. Eventually, though, I realized, that EVERYBODY thought along the same lines, and hence there were plenty of muscle cars at every car show, but not a single '79 Monte like the one I had. Which made finding another far more appealing. And so my next car was a return to my own personal roots, rather than just another attempt at achieving an old teenage fantasy. I guess this kind of explains why a lot of us are now looking towards the 70's & 80's cars that we actually drove then, rather than the 60's ones that we wished we did.

[tbirdman]

My first new car was a 78 Monte Carlo. haven't bought Chevy since so that tell you a little about my experience. Knocking noise on the front end the dealer couldn't fix, seat upholstery that they tried to fix, but it kept ripping through and that imitation plastic chrome on the bumpers that after about 5 years fell off evey car.

[Dave@Moon]

a. Longer styling cycles meaning that cars do not grow "old" as fast as in the 1950s. A 1979 Trans Am used the same body as a 1970. In 1959 a 1950 Pontiac was hopelessly outdated and worth nothing to anyone who could afford anything newer

b. Partly due to item (a) a car stayed on the road in use longer. So much for planned obsolescence. I see 20 year old cars in regular use every day now and they are not conspicuously outdated.

This longer design cycles combined with a general longer service life (the median car is now 9.4 years, and will likely break 10 very soon) has led to a warped sense of perception among the general public as to how old these cars are. People see a car with plastic bumpers and assume it's still modern machinery.

On tonight's Mythbusters they destroyed 2 V6 Fieros trying to skip them across a pond. When it was all done one of the cast members casually referred to them both as "15 year old cars". They were 24 and 25 years old respectively.

He probably believed it.

[LINC400]

As for the comments in this last page about the disdain of the 70's era, it is changing and that's the truth. I think the 70's will far out number the 60's in number of retained collector cars. For one, there is more volume as GM and others set production records.

I think magazines like Hemmings Classic Cars are almost apologetic about running articles on 70's cars and that strategy is getting really old. I am tired of HCC starting their articles off saying bad things about a car and then the owner says at the end that he ownes this car because of his admiration of it in his teens. Well duh! that guy is in his 50's now.

In fact my concept was driven by what is available after 1980 more then from the 70's. The 70's I think will take care of themselves just fine thank you very much - but some of the cars mentioned are being crushed in droves (or are already crushed) like certain Fox bodied Mustangs and the 82-93 Camaros and Firebirds.

1970's cars (other than muscle cars) are first starting to get some respect within the last few years. However, even in a more positive article about them, the words gas guzzler, behemoth, and dinosaur are still likely to be mentioned.

I brought them into the discussion to show that the disdain shown for them will be even greater for the 1980's and 1990's cars. In less than a month half of the decade of the 1980's will officially be antiques. Yet how often have any 1980's cars made it into collector car magazines?

Usually people want the cars that were new when they were growing up. But many people growing up in the 1980's and early 1990's did not lust after new cars. They wanted 1960's and 1970's cars as several here including myself already stated. People growing up after the early 1990's seem to have less interest in history (and cars), and wanted new cars. They gladly replace them as time goes by seemingly without any nostalgic feeling for that first one. So then who is going to collect the 1980's and 1990's cars?

Plus if you look at a Buick Park Ave for example, 4 years, 1976, 1980, 1986, 2000. I would say the least impressive would be the 1986. So again, who would want to collect a 1986 when they have the other choices? Not to mention attempting an expensive and complicated restoration.

[Big Beat]

My first new car was a 78 Monte Carlo. haven't bought Chevy since so that tell you a little about my experience. Knocking noise on the front end the dealer couldn't fix, seat upholstery that they tried to fix, but it kept ripping through and that imitation plastic chrome on the bumpers that after about 5 years fell off evey car.

Yes, those silly plastic chrome strips are one of the things I like least about 3rd gen Montes, even though mine are still mostly intact. It was a very dumb idea. And if you had one with vinyl seats, they do tend to crack. Still, what you're describing is disappointment with a NEW car. We're all impatient about such flaws in a new car. Thirty years down the road, when no longer dependent on these cars for daily transportation, one can afford to be a little more indulgent. The Monte may not be the greatest car in the world, but its competition was no better.

[Guest ktm858]

Its seems a bit wierd for me because when I go to shows now I see cars from the 80's that I remember being brand new and everywhere, now I couldn't tell you the last time I saw some of them on the road. Between my father and I we have 33 cars ranging from 1923 to 1991 and its all what floats your boat. There are cars that I have that my father hates and there are cars that he has that I hate but all in all I enjoy looking at all cars.

Some of the cars are for show and some are for just driving. Recently I got a 1985 Buick Regal T-Type for no other reason then I always wanted one when I was a kid and when they came out new and that was not going to happen.

[poci1957]

Its seems a bit wierd for me because when I go to shows now I see cars from the 80's that I remember being brand new and everywhere, now I couldn't tell you the last time I saw some of them on the road. Between my father and I we have 33 cars ranging from 1923 to 1991 and its all what floats your boat. There are cars that I have that my father hates and there are cars that he has that I hate but all in all I enjoy looking at all cars.

Some of the cars are for show and some are for just driving. Recently I got a 1985 Buick Regal T-Type for no other reason then I always wanted one when I was a kid and when they came out new and that was not going to happen.

Accurate points from everyody on this, and KTM here hits the nail on the head of what will happen with 1980s cars. "...I got a (car)...I always wanted when I was a kid and when they came out that was not going to happen." I think as long as someone is in that mind and finds that car the old car hobby will remain. It may shrink, there will be less full restoration and there may even be less points judged shows, but someone will have that car they wanted.

AND as Big Beat points out, we think of a collector car differently than an everyday driver. Fake chrome, nasty plastic parts, rattles, all were part of the GM experience circa 1979-80 and owners were not pleased. But the car that lasted through those problems and made it to a collector garage today will give someone lots of fun and servicability for small $$$. And we must be about the same age as my experience is similar; we all wanted pre-72 cars but now the smog era cars look pretty good to me. As I drive the Trans Am with it's giant bird on the hood, T tops off and cassette deck playing I have arrived at automotive paradise circa 1979....I am 30 years late, but it is OK..........

[Guest BJM]

Accurate points from everyody on this, and KTM here hits the nail on the head of what will happen with 1980s cars. "...I got a (car)...I always wanted when I was a kid and when they came out that was not going to happen." ...

That's why I bought my T Type LeSabre. I could not afford them when I saw them on the streets.

[Sweepspear]

Interesting topic.

I think of how a car will grow on you over the years, or with time's passing without seeing a particular car can make you think 'Wow!" when you do run across one.

I had one of these wow moments a few years ago when I saw an immaculate Chrysler Cordoba. Yes, I know. A Cordoba.

Never thought anything of these cars back in the day. In fact we derided them. Ricardo Montalban and his fine Corinthian leather commercials were great fodder for jokes.

When I saw this particular Cordoba it really stood out among all the dull, gray Toyotas and what not on the road that day with it's bright gold paint and white top.

I thought to myself, "Isn't it odd that a Cordoba would catch my eye."

I can see cars such these from the 70's being an inexpensive way for someone to get into the hobby, even though I wouldn't be interested in owning one myself.

My late Father, who was involved in the CCCA as I was growing up, (That's his Lincoln in my avatar) would comment that cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's would never be desirable. "Who in their right mind would want that junk?" He would say.

I think of his words when I hear or read the same comments towards cars from the 80's, 90's or cars built today for that matter.

While I love the cars he was interested in and was privileged to experience at a young age Packards, Duesenbergs and the like, being 48 years old I am mostly drawn to the cars of the 60's and the early 70's.

The Buick Riviera seem to be the car I gravitated to.

I currently drive a '96 Riviera, a car that I drooled over when they came out but was unable to afford, and can see them being a desirable car to have in the future having been probably the last coupe GM designed from a clean sheet of paper, and having a short production run of 4 years.

They can be had for a song right now, and I have toyed with the idea of selling the '70 Riviera I am currently working on once it is done and purchasing a very clean low mileage '95-'99 Riviera to have as my play car.

Who knows how much longer the fuel needed to run a large 455 V8 will be available or affordable the way the political climate is changing.

A late model car may have a longer usable shelf life for lack of a better term.

Hard to say what the future holds for the hobby. I would sure hate for all the great old cars to become nothing more than static display pieces.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sweepspear (see edit history)

[earl e rizer]

My biggest problem is that I love cars from all eras. The oldest I've owned was a '29 Pontiac (Canadian built) to my newest, '06 Charger Daytona. I just don't have the means to afford all the ones I want. I have decided to thin down the amount and currently have 3 for sale, and recently sent 2 down the road so I can concentrate on getting my '66 Cadillac convertible painted and back on the road this coming summer. Then I found a near mint Allante' and had to have it also. It's a DISEASE I tell ya!!

[Guest BJM]

A Cordoba.

Never thought anything of these cars back in the day. In fact we derided them. Ricardo Montalban and his fine Corinthian leather commercials were great fodder for jokes.

Great car. Let's break it down. Chrysler put a lot of work into the styling. One equipped with a 318 or 360 will do fine and with teh lower rear end gearing, will deliver 16 mpg. Now, doesn't a Cordoba stand out in the crowd? Yes - which makes it period unique, just like POCI's Trans Am.

The Cordoba was built in response to the Monte Carlo and it's siblings. They built thousands of these so-called "personal luxury cars" which in turn were a response to the 60's Thunderbird / Riviera / Eldorado / Lincoln Continental Mark and Toronado.

By 1976 a Toronado was an $8500 car while a Cordoba and the others were $3000 less or more. No wonder there were millions made from this market segment with subsequent collector admirers.

No derision here, I would love to own a Cordoba.

Edited December 18, 2009 by BJM (see edit history)

[Guest BJM]

I currently drive a '96 Riviera, a car that I drooled over when they came out but was unable to afford, and can see them being a desirable car to have in the future having been probably the last coupe GM designed from a clean sheet of paper, and having a short production run of 4 years.

They can be had for a song right now, and I have toyed with the idea of selling the '70 Riviera I am currently working on once it is done and purchasing a very clean low mileage '95-'99 Riviera to have as my play car.

The Riviera and it's Olds sibling the Aurora are not yet filling up the salvage yards. I visit regularly. So they are still out there. The key is what you mention - picking out and picking off the sweethearts - less then 75,000 miles, well maintained and pennies on the dollar. Imagine getting a well maintained, say 1997 Riviera for $3500 to $4500. Take your same 1970 Buick Riviera or a 1964 Riviera with same features - $8,000 to $12,000 and don't even think about comparing restoring a 1963 to 1973 Riviera versus buying a low mileage well maintained 1995 to 1999 Riviera. You are talking $30,000 to restore a Riviera to BCA 400 point status. You are doing teh hobby a service but at a tremendous personal cost.

[Sweepspear]

The Riviera and it's Olds sibling the Aurora are not yet filling up the salvage yards. I visit regularly. So they are still out there. The key is what you mention - picking out and picking off the sweethearts - less then 75,000 miles, well maintained and pennies on the dollar. Imagine getting a well maintained, say 1997 Riviera for $3500 to $4500. Take your same 1970 Buick Riviera or a 1964 Riviera with same features - $8,000 to $12,000 and don't even think about comparing restoring a 1963 to 1973 Riviera versus buying a low mileage well maintained 1995 to 1999 Riviera. You are talking $30,000 to restore a Riviera to BCA 400 point status. You are doing teh hobby a service but at a tremendous personal cost.

The last Gen Riviera, (and Aurora) seem to have proven themselves to be very durable cars.

My '96 Riviera is less than 100 miles away form turning over to 200,000 miles and it runs and drives like a dream. I paid $1200.00 for it a year ago when I turned over to my 20 year old son the '92 Park Ave I had been driving.

By the way, you would be surprised how popular the Park Ave. is among his peers.

[dship]

For me, getting into the car hobby after retirement in 2003 was a matter of "how much disposable $$ can I afford for the fun of the hobby". So, being a Riviera & Eldorado fan for many years, I found two 1992 Rivieras over time that were in very good condition that I could restore. Each, when brand new were over $29K and the most expensive Buick at the time (no way to afford them new). I got them for under $4K each. The two currently owned Eldorados ('99 ETC & '00 ESC) were had by trading in '96 & '97 Riviera daily drivers. When new, The Eldos were close to $49K each and the traded-in Rivs went for $35K each. I intend to keep the '00 Eldo for quite along time as a weekend/cruse-in car (along w/ the two '92 Rivs).

I will say that BCA, ROA, and CLC members appreciate my cars partly because they are no longer produced. But the local generic auto shows and cruse-in folks still frown at such "new" entries. So far though, one of my '92 Rivs has won three awards....so there's hope yet.

[padgett]

In the '60s I had Jags of the '50s (and one "E"). In the 70's nearly every make stayed for varying lengths of time (I still like the 124 FIAT spyder though you can by an Alpha of the same period for the same price today). There have been a prepoderance of GM cars around though since the 80's have developed an appreciation of a port FI system with feeback ("closed loop").

For a long time there was a new rental car in a different state every week and any interest in new cars faded (technologically superb but just boring).

At the moment am somewhat fixated on the period from 1986 to 1992 (with one exception that is family). If anything have too many Fiero GTs but that is a temporary issue.

Tools are available. An OTC 2000 scan tool is often found on eBay for $10-$30 (plus S&H). Am seriously considering a portable hydraulic scissors lift to make tire rotation and Power Module transplants easy.

Just as the cars of the '70s shed plastic everywhere, cars of the 80s will shed electronic modules. Fortunately GM used one common basis (the Motorola 6800) from 81-95 and it is surprising how inexpensive modules are at the U-Pull-It. (and the local one had four Reattas in the last year but are a lot in central Florida).

Strongly suspect we are soon to be in hyperinflation in the US so buy orphans while they are cheap (and they are), none of us will be here again.

ps "Today no one would try to restore a rough 1992 ponycar" Anyone recall the Firehawk ? Camaro SS ?

Edited December 19, 2009 by padgett (see edit history)

[hddennis]

Please excuse my late posting but I didn't want to jinx my luck until now. I'd like to publicly thank BJM for starting this thread and mentioning site mash : : combined classified and auction listings and DShip for providing the link so I didn't have to hunt all over the net. I went on the list out of curiousity and in several minutes spotted a 4 day old add for 4 N.O.S. Excelsior 30 x 3 1/2 tires for $100.00! Figuring it was 1. a misprint or 2. Gone the first hour, I sent an email. On the next day#5 I called and found a young fellow who said lot's had responded but nobody had shown up yet. I asked if he would hold them till I could get over there (Maryland) while visiting my family in Virginia over the holidays. Tonight tires are in my car ready for the trip home to Georgia. Thanks guys for helping my Maxwell to a new pair of shoes at giveaway prices. It never would have happened without your assistance.

Howard Dennis

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Padgett, I like that [technologically superior but boring]. Fits real well. I was thinling [ yeah, I do that once in awhile] the other day about my first car. A 1940 Chevy. ,An old car at 12 years when I took possesion. My 'NEW' car is a 1995 Park Ave. Still a young car at 16 years old. But boring, when compared to the 50's and 60's. IMO.

Ben