Late Model/Antique Cars not getting their due

[MarkV]

I know we are all into the great antique cars around here, but, as the 1980's era becomes recognized I was thinking about some of the cars not getting their due. The one group of cars that comes to mind are the GM H platform from 1985-1991. These cars (unlike the lauded K cars from Chrysler) are comfortable, sturdy, reliable, peppy, big, great trunk space and get great MPG. They come in all forms from 2-4 doors, a base Lesabre or Delta 88 with no power and cloth seats all the way up to the Lesabre Limited (I have owned 2) with power everything, digital climate control, leather seats and the Park Avenue or 98. There is also the Pontiac Bonneville from this era which is super rare and is a sportier version of these cars. The survivor rate on these is good and I see many from a junked up version to a well preserved model driving around. The parts are also cheap and plentiful. Also they have a great design for the era, and I am starting to get compliments from folks when I drive mine around post paint job. My sister owns a 1989 Park Avenue and I own a 1991 Lesabre Limited. At 150k I had to replace a water pump and the harmonic balancer this week, I have never been stuck in it and most of the things I have replaced are just wear and tear (battery, etc.) So, why doesn't anyone write about these great cars? What are some other cars that you know of that are similar to this?

[keiser31]

I think that like most of us in our 60s, those cars are mostly "just used cars" and not that special. We tend to not praise things that are a few years old, but when they age past the 20 years that you may have owned one, they gain attention. When I joined the WPC Club (Walter P. Chrysler Club), I was telling the president of the club about my "new old car"....a 1955 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer 2 door hardtop. The guy who was in his late 60s said, "I thought you said you were getting an OLD car?" To him, my collectible car was "just a used car."

[TexRiv_63]

I bought a 1988 Buick Electra T-type sedan new. It was our family car for many years, then became my older son's college car for 4 years. After that it was my younger son's high school car for a year including a wreck that I repaired with junkyard parts. Hard use and 157,000 miles, what finally did it in was the breakdown of all the electrical and power options. Still had the original drivetrain and CV joints and ran great, one of the few new cars that I felt I really got my money's worth out of.

As far as these being "antique" or "collector" cars I am too old to ever see them that way but I could easily see younger enthusiasts going there. The biggest issue for people restoring or maintaining these cars will be the high quantity of easily deteriorated plastic parts and modular electrical components and a lack of aftermarket support - although that has never stopped real car people!

[TerryB]

I'm not quite ready to put 1980's era cars in the antique category just yet. One reason for that was brought out in the original post, people are still driving a lot of 1980's cars for everyday use. I'm 61 and to me a true antique is one that dates to at least pre 1970. Someday I might long for the 80's cars but at this time its only the music of that time that brings back memories.

Terry

[Rusty_OToole]

I wouldn't mind a good early Cordoba (with round headlights). When they were new I considered them a dinosaur, an instant antique, but they are a very good car in their own right with a vintage look to them.

Ricardo Montalban said the Chrysler company gave him a new one every year for seven years when he was their spokesman and they were the best cars he ever had. Never a minute's trouble with any of them. More than you can say of a lot of 70s cars.

[alsancle]

The distinct memories of the low mileage Cordoba I had revolve around how often I broke down. It was a 78 however. As for the 80s, blah.

[Guest my3buicks]

The Buick Reatta's are still sleepers in the market and not yet getting the due they deserve. Considering the high luxury content, ultra comfortable seats, Buicks great 6 cyl, great styling, and hand built in the GM Craft Center. These cars ranged from $25K to 38K when new between 88-91. Numbers are dwindling out of the 25 thousand built, of that 2,437 convertibles.

[Bleach]

I'm still trying to accept cars of the '70 as antiques or even worthwhile considering as collectable. I never had a problem with cars of the 60's as some were the best looking cars ever made with some really good features. They were great as used cars. The build quality was far better than anything made in the 70's. Just remembering the shoddy quality, cheap plastics and emission equipment that choked any performance makes me cringe. To me 80's cars aren't much different if not even worse in some aspects. I'm surprised that the electronics in the 80's cars haven't disabled more cars from being usable. Maybe the collectabilty of 80's cars will ultimately depend if they and their accessories remain operable in the years to come.

[john2dameron]

When I think of the cars I had from the 1970's about the only thing I can say is UGH!!! Worst of all was a 1979 Dodge Omni I bought to use to commute to work. It had less than 10,000 miles on it when I bought it and already had more problems than most cars have in 100,000 miles. Every thing that could possibly go wrong with that car did; most of them multiple times. With about 30,000 miles on it I took it to the shop to find out what was making it miss so bad (It apparently had an invisible crack in the distributor cap and moisture was building up in the distributor) the whole car was shaking. While drying the distributor out the mechanic asked my how many miles was on the car. When I replied 30,000 he advised me to get rid of it. Said it would start using enormous amounts of oil. By the time it had 33,000 on it I was adding a quart of oil about evry 150 miles. Apparently Chrysler built some sorry trash in the '70's. It's a wonder they stayed in business. I guess that's why I have little admiration for a lot of cars built after 1970. At least quality did improve in the late '80's if you didn't mind the paint peeling off of them.

[whtbaron]

I have to say I would classify most 70's, 80's non muscle cars as pretty blah, but that's also what is about to make them extremely rare. Nobody bothered to save them. Try to find a decent Vega that wasn't rodded, or a MustangII that hasn't lost it's front suspension. When recycling came in vogue, that was the junk we wanted to get rid of and save our precious old iron. I've had my eye on a few "resting and rusting" relics locally that have sat dormant for years, but this year they have disappeared at an alarming rate. I've missed the boat on some very docile but complete vehicles including a 41 Ford, and short box 4x4 62 Chevy pickup, a 55 Cameo pickup and a 2 door 63 Dodge wagon... all got scrapped. Those ones made me cry but the 73 Impalas have been going in the shredder with them and nobody noticed. As hard as it is for me to call them antiques, they are very quickly disappearing.

[Bleach]

Even the so called muscle cars were blah. In California, an 82 Corvette could only be ordered with a 305 and automatic transmission! The C4 model that replaced it in 1984 was quality nightmare that rattled horribly right off the showroom floor

[Dave@Moon]

I know we are all into the great antique cars around here, but, as the 1980's era becomes recognized I was thinking about some of the cars not getting their due. The one group of cars that comes to mind are the GM H platform from 1985-1991. These cars (unlike the lauded K cars from Chrysler) are comfortable, sturdy, reliable, peppy, big, great trunk space and get great MPG. They come in all forms from 2-4 doors, a base Lesabre or Delta 88 with no power and cloth seats all the way up to the Lesabre Limited (I have owned 2) with power everything, digital climate control, leather seats and the Park Avenue or 98. There is also the Pontiac Bonneville from this era which is super rare and is a sportier version of these cars. The survivor rate on these is good and I see many from a junked up version to a well preserved model driving around. The parts are also cheap and plentiful. Also they have a great design for the era, and I am starting to get compliments from folks when I drive mine around post paint job. My sister owns a 1989 Park Avenue and I own a 1991 Lesabre Limited. At 150k I had to replace a water pump and the harmonic balancer this week, I have never been stuck in it and most of the things I have replaced are just wear and tear (battery, etc.) So, why doesn't anyone write about these great cars? What are some other cars that you know of that are similar to this?

Almost everything said here about the 1980s GM look-alikes could also be said for the 1940's Mopar line of cars, or Ramblers for that matter. Being a great/practical/durable/reliable car and being a collectible car are two VERY different things. If that wasn't true the bulletproof Asian cars that ruled the 1980s and 1990s would be worshiped by our hobby. Seen any dedicated Camry restorers lately?

ALL desirable cars appeal to one's passion in one form or another. Cars that do that, really, are collected before they are old, whether they're dead reliable (Mazda RX7) or terribly unreliable (Triumph Stag). The Studebaker Avanti appeared on the cover of Special Interest Autos when it was 8 years old. The 1960s Mustang and Camaro had several reference books (besides the usual Chilton-style manuals) published about them before 1980. I have books on the shelf here at home written about the Triumph TR sports cars that were published while the cars were still being built, as were many similar books about MGs, Thunderbirds, Corvettes, Ferraris, etc.

Passion left the auto industry by 1980. They were building commodities then, much like Norelco and Whirlpool. It seems the complexities of having to update the essence of their products to meet modern demands of economy and environmental responsibility just overwhelmed the voices of passion that once ruled the auto industry. It's been trickling back in slowly since about 1990 (Viper, Miata, New Beetle/Camaro/Challenger/etc, Mini Cooper, ZR1 Corvette, etc.), but even so I just don't see the passion returning to what it once was. People just have too many other things to get excited about today, and the designer understand that. We used to complain about convertibles disappearing, now just trying to find a 2 door car of any description is hard.

That's why about 1/2 the cars sold these days have some form of the word "utility" in their name (mostly crossover SUVs). Build and interesting car that arouses passion over practicality (Toyota MR2, Honda S2000, 2002 Thunderbird, etc.), it's eventually going to fail. Build a 50 mpg mid-size hatchback and people will beat a path to your door, no matter what it looks like.

That shift took place around 1980. It did it in all of us.

[1937hd45]

Bought a 1982 Chrysler Lebarron for $500. at a tag sale earlier this year, plates cost another $184. It's a USED CAR. Huge trunk that I can fill with scrap metal. Some day I'll fill it with scrap for the last time remove the leather seats and get close to all my money back. Bob

[DonMicheletti]

I knew a Man who owned a Chrysler dealership in the 60's or about then (He sold European cars later). He said that he was embarased to sell the cars because he knew the door handles would fall off before they got home! Dealer repairs were killer for him.

[MarrsCars]

My view is based on the devolving overall quality of cars in terms of construction, and the fact that early cars were quite literally built to last a lifetime in many cases while cars in the 80's were largely consumer goods with few high end exceptions. That's what we're overlooking here. Not to offend those who enjoy the looks and joy they get from driving an 80's car but even the manufacturers built these to only really work well for a set period of time, built in obsolescence. I remember even when K cars were new thinking at first how much they looked like a Mercedes SL in the nose (as Chrysler also did with the Daytona/Porsche 928 and their 944 look alike too), yet when I first climbed into one a friend had realizing how thin the doors were, the paperlike sheet metal, the plastic trim covering every surface that would off gas horribly in hot weather. Sorry, for me these cars may have technically come of age, but they were built without a soul.

[trimacar]

I've been looking for an Astro van to bring to Hershey, was looking for a 1988, but since I missed this year guess next year a 1989 would do.....

[Bleach]

I remember reading in Car & Driver back in the 80's that they compared the "Bread Box" Astro to the "Dustbuster" Aerostar. I don't remember the outcome as to which one they preferred, but the "comparisons" have stuck with me.

[CHAD THOMAS]

age wise I probably fall right in the middle of this forum (47) and I remember these cars when new as we owned a few. Would I want to own one as a collectible? No, not on your life. Ours sat in the driveway as daily drivers as the garage was reserved for the collectible cars ( all 1930's ) and personally they all look alike. I wont discount there merit as a good driver and if need be I would consider one for a daily driver and drive it until the wheels fell off. But with the large amount of plastic they had plus the problems we had with our not sure I would ever want to "restore" one.

[Joe Block]

yes it is strange to see car I own in late 30 and early 40 at Hershey now, I love another clean 83-85 olds tornado, red leather interior digital dash white with white pad rear quarter. Sunroof.

Sold to some young Hispanic in the early 90's, not room to park it. It drove like a dream, plenty of room 3 in the back the door were a meter in length at least.

[Guest]

I wouldn't mind having one of these.

http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2011/06/cars/1993_Cadillac_Eldorado-2.jpg

Or these;

http://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/1983_Cadillac_Eldorado_Hank_Greenberg_Front_1.jpg

Or these;

http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/638/4701/26594850022_large.jpg

Or this;

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBqKeA4nxMeL25yETy5c3zEyBk78TMLyY2tWoTAFtxRZPtDFMN

Or;

http://www.analogstereo.com/images/om/buick_riviera.jpg

[plymouthcranbrook]

Call me goofy if you will but one of my most fun drives is my 1980 Plymouth Volare with a slant 6 and an automatic. Been reliable as a atomic clock with almost no parts failures. Now has about 22,500 miles on it. I drive it in summer most places I go, except when I take my 52 Plymouth out.

[MarkV]

Well I understand some of the arguments! I am just surprised that there are no clubs or recognition for the GM body style I mentioned. We see a lot on K cars and a few others from the era but, I have yet to read anything regarding these! (Or some of the others from the era). They are really not that hard to keep running, especially if you buy one with the '3800' from the square ish body style! There are not many computer parts on these at all. Also the kinks from the early 80's cars were worked out by this point. My Lesabre pictured below has 145k on it. It sounds and drives as good as a new car. The only things I replaced were just average wear and tear. They are very safe (my first car accident a guy hit me at 50 mph running a red light when I owned my white 1989 Lesabre) and they are comfortable! As for the Reatta I own one of those too! ! I use it as a daily driver along side the lesabre. I enjoy it for very different reasons!

[Guest Flivver250]

Worthy topic. I mentally identify everything after 1970 as transportation. 1970 and earlier are cool. Perhaps it is my age.

[Restorer32]

My view is based on the devolving overall quality of cars in terms of construction, and the fact that early cars were quite literally built to last a lifetime in many cases while cars in the 80's were largely consumer goods with few high end exceptions. That's what we're overlooking here. Not to offend those who enjoy the looks and joy they get from driving an 80's car but even the manufacturers built these to only really work well for a set period of time, built in obsolescence. I remember even when K cars were new thinking at first how much they looked like a Mercedes SL in the nose (as Chrysler also did with the Daytona/Porsche 928 and their 944 look alike too), yet when I first climbed into one a friend had realizing how thin the doors were, the paperlike sheet metal, the plastic trim covering every surface that would off gas horribly in hot weather. Sorry, for me these cars may have technically come of age, but they were built without a soul.

Gee thanks, I had almost blotted my memories of the K-car disaster we bought many years ago. The end came when the battery apparently exploded and the car caught fire sitting here at our shop. I rushed out the shop door, flung open the door to the car and yanked on the hood release, which of course came off in my hand. Finally put it out with an extinguisher thru the grille. Had it not been so close to the shop I would have happily left it burn. Only car I ever hated as much as that wagon was Mom's '81 Chevette. Totally worn out, plastic faded, seats disentegrating at 38k miles. You could almost watch that thing deteriorating before your eyes.

[Dandy Dave]

Young to old nothing dazzels the Crowd like an Early Automobile. The Chartreuse Lady Just turned 99 this past October. To me, A Real Antique Car is pre 1930. It is all in how one looks at it. Love My 82 Riv also. The newer cars will not get their due until they are rarely seen on the highway. Dandy Dave!

[Restorer32]

We have a '65 Falcon Van that came here for some restoration work. Until I saw it I wasn't even sure I wanted it in the shop but have to admit it's kinda cool, makes me smile just looking at it. It's amazingly crude. I guess it's all relative.

[LINC400]

I remember these cars when they first came out. I thought they were horrible. It looked like GM took a chainsaw and chopped off the front and rear of their pre-1984 full size cars. I could not believe anyone would trade in a 1984 Park Ave, Olds 98, LeSabre, Delta 88, or Deville for one of these dinky fwd boxy things. Let alone a much nicer 1976 or earlier. I thought it would be the end of GM.

They didn't exactly end GM, but I do think that they turned a lot of people to Toyota, Honda, and other imports. The buyer of a 1976 GM full size would never consider a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord unless they wanted something totally different. But by 1986, there was not much difference in size, features or price between a GM full size and Camry or Accord. So with all the hype the imports got (and still do), why not check them out? I think these cars ended GM's automatic dominance in the U.S.

They might be reliable and make fine antique cars now, and many have nice interiors. But they still just aren't as interesting as 1950's - 1970's GM full size cars and never will be. At a car show, what is going to get attention, a 1959 Cadillac, 1976 Eldorado convertible, or boxy 4 door 1985 Deville? So with plenty of earlier cars still around, I can't imagine too many people seeking these out as a collector car of choice. Probably most of the ones that will be someone's collector car will end up that way because someone found a really clean cheap one.

Most full size 1970's cars are finally starting to be appreciated now at 30-40 years old as opposed to 1950's cars that already started being collectible when they were less than 20 years old. I imagine these more ordinary post 1985 GM full size cars will take even longer. They just don't create the type of positive nostalgic feelings that earlier cars do.

Edited November 1, 2013 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[alsancle]

You guys are really stretching. The most uninteresting car from the 20s 30s 40s 50s and 60s is more interesting than almost anything from the 80s.

[Centurion]

1948 Lincoln, as you might recall, I love this generation of front-wheel drive LeSabres and Park Avenues. Two weeks ago, we gave away our '89 LeSabre Limited Coupe with 240,000+ miles. The car still ran and drove like a new car, and its new owner is a Buick Club member who was thrilled to get it.

My 18-year old twin daughters share use of our '90 LeSabre coupe, which is living up to the comfort, reliability, and fuel economy example of the '89. Like you, I am amazed by the number of these LeSabres and Park Avenues from the late-1980's/early-1990"s still on the road.

You might want to check out the http://www.lesabret.com/ forums, where you'll find others who appreciate the qualities of these cars. These Buicks may not be collectible yet, but there are certainly many people who recognize the virtues of these cars. As "cheap wheels", they're tough to beat.

[MarkV]

No for sure! Look there is a big divide between the 1979-1985 model years. The carry overs from the 70's were generally good (Caprice, etc. etc.). I agree that a lot of stuff was garbage (can you say Citation?!) and I think some of you are lumping everything from 'that era' together. Yet, there are some pretty great cars from the later 1985-up 1980's like these Lesabres and Park Avenues. I think that all of Cadillac looked like a mess during this era and has continued forward. I am by no means saying everything is great but, there are quite a few bright spots. It seems like the Buick 'full size' from the era is ignored as we recognize the Ford Taurus and the K cars, which have been greatly written about. Yet, these have been ignored! I bet if you were to do a survey you would find many many more 3800 1988-1991 era Lesabres on the road than K cars or Taurus'. I would like to know why they decided to put the hood opening out? Who decided on the radical redesign? Questions like these that we have yet to answer and nothing has been written about. As to the plastic mine sat in the desert for years before I bought it and had zero problems and it was not garaged. I do however, have a crack in the dash on my 66 Mustang, which was covered and garaged for years! I do know however that during the early 80's there were problems with the plastic. Also we need to separate higher quality build cars like a full size Buick from a lower quality car such as a Chevy or Ford.

[Harold]

I was working at an Oldsmobile dealer in the mid-80's when the new FWD full-size cars came out (88-98 in this case). They were definitely well-built and drove nicely. I think one reason for a relatively high percentage of surviving cars today is the demographics of the original owners....they were older and tended to take better care of their cars.

[Guest billybird]

You guys are really stretching. The most uninteresting car from the 20s 30s 40s 50s and 60s is more interesting than almost anything from the 80s.

X2.

[LINC400]

No for sure! Look there is a big divide between the 1979-1985 model years. The carry overs from the 70's were generally good (Caprice, etc. etc.). I agree that a lot of stuff was garbage (can you say Citation?!) and I think some of you are lumping everything from 'that era' together. Yet, there are some pretty great cars from the later 1985-up 1980's like these Lesabres and Park Avenues. I think that all of Cadillac looked like a mess during this era and has continued forward. I am by no means saying everything is great but, there are quite a few bright spots. It seems like the Buick 'full size' from the era is ignored as we recognize the Ford Taurus and the K cars, which have been greatly written about. Yet, these have been ignored! I bet if you were to do a survey you would find many many more 3800 1988-1991 era Lesabres on the road than K cars or Taurus'. I would like to know why they decided to put the hood opening out? Who decided on the radical redesign? Questions like these that we have yet to answer and nothing has been written about. As to the plastic mine sat in the desert for years before I bought it and had zero problems and it was not garaged. I do however, have a crack in the dash on my 66 Mustang, which was covered and garaged for years! I do know however that during the early 80's there were problems with the plastic. Also we need to separate higher quality build cars like a full size Buick from a lower quality car such as a Chevy or Ford.

There is no way I would take a 1985-1990 Park Ave over a 1984 or 1976. I am sure many people feel the same. when they were new, you either got a new downsized one or old used one. Now, you can choose an antique based on personal preference. There is no more new car warranty or don't want a used one I want new choice.

K-cars, for better or worse, are what saved Chrysler in the 1980's. So of course they will get a lot of attention for that. Taurus/Sable are the cars that brought aerodynamics into the mainstream family car as opposed to specialty cars. There were others before. But they are what changed everything for car manufacturers.

The post 1985 full size GM's really had nothing unique like that about them. And many people, myself included, did not like what replaced the 1984 and earlier cars. So there is no happy nostalgic feeling there that entices many people to buy an antique car.

[John_Maine]

My first "old" car was a '64 Impala that I bought in '84 - at age 20 with 56,000 miles, it seemed old to me. In 2013, a 1993 Caprice is 20 but it doesn't seem as old as the '64 did in '84. I think this applies to any car of the 80's as well, whether it is a full size or down sized GM, K-car or whatever. In Maine, a car qualifies for antique plates at age 20, but I haven't seen any '93 Caprices with antique plates - yet. I still have trouble thinking that my '72 LTD is an antique but it's 41 years old now. I bought my first new car in 1972, so I guess that's why.

In the Sunday paper today, the comic strip "Big Nate" sort of takes the same tack. Nate is referring to songs 25 years old as oldies and is trying to prove to his father that they are indeed, oldies. He asks his father if he was listening to oldies in 1988 - 25 years ago. 1988-25 is 1963 and to his father, songs from 1963 were oldies so therefore, music from 1988 is considered oldies now. His father just runs away yelling "Noooooooo.................."

Edited November 4, 2013 by John_Maine (see edit history)

[Guest]

My first "old" car was a '64 Impala that I bought in '84 - at age 20 with 56,000 miles, it seemed old to me. In 2013, a 1993 Caprice is 20 but it doesn't seem as old as the '64 did in '84. I think this applies to any car of the 80's as well, whether it is a full size or down sized GM, K-car or whatever. In Maine, a car qualifies for antique plates at age 20, but I haven't seen any '93 Caprices with antique plates - yet. I still have trouble thinking that my '72 LTD is an antique but it's 41 years old now. I bought my first new car in 1972, so I guess that's why.

In the Sunday paper today, the comic strip "Big Nate" sort of takes the same tack. Nate is referring to songs 25 years old as oldies and is trying to prove to his father that they are indeed, oldies. He asks his father if he was listening to oldies in 1988 - 25 years ago. 1988-25 is 1963 and to his father, songs from 1963 were oldies so therefore, music from 1988 is considered oldies now. His father just runs away yelling "Noooooooo.................."

The sad part about oldies music today is the stations won't play anything from the 50's and hardly anything of the early 60's. Can't get round calling music from the 80's as oldies.

[John348]

Intersting thread....... I get more comments and looks from my 75 Cosworth Vega the I did with my 31 Chevrolet which I sold at Hershey this year. 70's and 80's are very hard to find parts for (non mechanical) The parts were all on inventory and sold after 7 seven years for scrap. It's hard to believe that a car from 1978 is 35 years old, but if you get a chance to look any of the sale lit for these cars notice the clothes and hair styles of the people shown in them, you will realize its old. I took my 1978 Skyhawk out tonight just to give my 29 year old son a ride to his house, it was his suggestion to take an old car. I asked him which one and he said the "take the Buick." Its older then him, so what is considered old is in the eye of the beholder, as it should be.

We seem to overlook that many of the 50's and 60's car rotted out when they were 2-3 years old, and started burning oil 70,000 miles

Around here in the it's rare to see something on the road older then a 2000.

The question is not what one considers to be antique, but what one considers to be new

Edited November 4, 2013 by Biscayne John (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

The question is not what one considers to be antique, but what one considers to be new

I disagree. IMHO it's a question of what one considers interesting. I personally knew people who were collecting and preserving '56 Lincoln Continentals when they were 15 years old, and a guy who restored and preserved a '71 GTO Judge convertible when it was all of 8 years old. I saw my first nut and bolt stock 100 point restoration of a '56 Chevy Nomad in 1974. Those people had "interest" and/or "passion" for those cars long before anyone considered them "old".

No one collects old things they never liked.

Watch for a new bulge in interest in "old" cars when Vipers, MR2s, Miatas, (sadly) Hummer H1s, etc. begin to disappear from the roads. There simply wasn't anything like them from the 1980s for comparable consumer interest/affection.

But it won't be like the old days, at least our old days.

[Guest Scott Roberts]

I think we have to look at what we each think of as a collectable car on a personal level.

Is it because the masses say it's a collectable car and it is valuable, or is it because that car is our personal preference or that it brings back fond memories. I'm restoring my 58 buick special because of my fathers storys of the car. At the same time I'm collecting parts to restore my 1995 F150 4x4 with a 300 straight 6. The truck is one of millions produced but my wife and kids have had a lot of fun in that truck. I have a friend back home that restored his dad's AMC Gremlin to it bilious green glory. I can't stand the car but he loves it. Will we ever see a Gremlin on Barrett jackson, probably not. Will my truck be worth $100,000, who cares. I do it because my family enjoys it, and we can pass them on to our grand kids along with the storys.

Scott

[TG57Roadmaster]

Had a great conversation with a 20-year-old MP from MO who was in dog-training school at Ft. Bragg, staying at the same hotel. Very personable, he was leaving soon for his second deployment to Afghanistan, and our talk eventually led to old cars. He was very proud of his '87 Silverado, as he liked its "classic" looks, and talked at length of the motor-mods he was making. Showed pictures of it and another he had just sold that had big Tonka-truck wheels, and his enthusiasm was obvious. His future plans included GI Bill schooling post-service, of the engine-building go-fast type, and opening a shop to do it.

Granted, the design of those trucks goes back to '73, and my eyes start glazing over when the topic is mods, but he spoke of his many buddies who enjoy these trucks, and the comments he gets when he drives it. Much has been made of young folks not driving or even having licenses, and we didn't talk of '80's Buick sedans, but I'm not quite ready to give up on the younger generation's interest in the hobby. It may not be the same as mine but, if you grew up in the back seat of an '80's sedan, I think the nostalgia effect is still there. Different from what we experienced, but still there. As these kids marry and have children, they'll need comfortable family transport that may well include low-mileage, smooth-riding highway cruisers, bought-on-the-cheap.

The young man's name was Shane and, once I got over the idea that I was old enough to be his grandfather, our random, half-hour conversation was very encouraging. I really hope he gets to realize his dream.

TG

[caddyshack]

I guess it just boils down to what you grew up with and what passionate response a particular auto generated. As a mid 60's member, 50' and 60's vehicles were taken for granted because everyone either had one or wanted one. Classic era autos were admired but too expensive to acquire. Brass era, teens and 20's were true antiques, and depending on the rarity of some of them, were obtainable. The 70's, 80's (with exception of '87 mark VII) just left me with an empty desire to own any of them. This is where the age factor kicks in. If you were just starting to drive in this dead zone era, you did not know what performance and was all about. Not unless Dad had something in the garage that made you curious. The 80's and later stuff may not be getting their proper recognition, but from my perspective, they have not earned it. Special Interest classification, maybe, classic or antique, definitly not. Just my opinion.