They constantly seem to be low on the resale value column, but shouldn't they be considered classics? Every automaker in the last ten years had bit off of their designs, from cab forward to their body lines.
Do they get underrated? I see a lot of them in good condition still out there (from the first couple years) and I wonder if they get enough respect ;)
David
Yes.
No.
Why? If a model introduces a revolutionary design trend that everyone else rips off, and becomes dominant, shouldn't it be remembered for that? When cab forward first came out, it was pretty huge.
By definition, a classic -anything- is something that has stood the test of time and is still desired. This could be a car or a book or whatever.
You need at least 25 years on a car model and year before you can even begin to determine if it's a classic.
For example, my 1968 Ford Torino is 38 years old, and if I put it up for sale I'd still get lots and lots and lots of people wanting to buy it.
But, my 1981 Datsun 210, which was 24 years old last year when I put it up for sale last year, nobody wanted.
Thus, the Torino is a classic, the Datsun 210 was not a classic.
Ted
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote
It's hard to predict what will and what won't. We take for granted now that the 55 Chev is one (and prices sure state that) but when I learned to drive on one around 1960 it sure wasn't. It was a car you crouched down in when your friends drove by in their family Oldsmobile.
They're a GREAT used car buy because they don't get respect. During the years they were built, they were among the best cars in their segment but simply because they are a Chrysler product they have low resale value. Anyone that pays triple price just because a car says "Toyota" on it is a fool- the Avalon is/was a piece of crap compared to the LH series, but it still has a higher resale just because of the name.
Sorry, but the last cars that have even the remotest shot at ever being called a "classic" (other than the Viper or maybe a C5 'vette) were the
80s Buick Grand National, or *maybe* the Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T. Cars have become generic people transportation devices, and even the Mustang and the Charger/Magnum/300C will never be "classics."Just my opinion, and I own an early-production '93 LH too. Taint no classic, though!
I vote for the Cosworth Vega !!!
Based on my enjoyment of my '95 Concord I'd definitely say no. Too soon to be a classic. The handling is very underrated, it's better than many newer designs. The reliability (except for the air conditioner) is the best I've ever experienced in a car.
Given reasonable care I'm sure mine will last the 25 yrs to be called an official classic here. I won't still have it then, must move on by at least 20 yrs.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.