Revitalized Malibu Takes on Accord and Camry

Page 4 of 5  


The "antique" or "Classic" appelation is beside the point.
To the purists, anything post-war is considered "modern". No post-war car is "antique" or "Classic".
You're absolutely right that a 17 year-old Honda or Toyota is "just an old car". So were Model A's and '57 Chevrolets at one time too. All cars go through the "just an old car" phase before a few of them eventually get famous and valuable.
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite true - but my point was simply a response to a red herring interjected into the conversation which introduced the terms and concepts of antiques and classics.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

You're onto something here.
I often have people refer to my old, (1955 & 1956), Studebakers as "Classics" which is just not so.
In fact, the Classic era covers the period from about 1927 to about 1948 and only unique cars (styling and engineering) are considered "full classics." This is high brow shit and when I bought a 1931 Studebaker President Q4 coupe about ten years ago I started to practice holdin' up my end pinkies when sippin' high tea.
There's nuthin' like invoking the term "full classic" to start all kinds of flame wars. Some folks just like denying the truth even though is has snob appeal.
Needless to say, I never got around to restoring the car and sold it about three years ago. Now, I'm content with playin' around with the two "modern" Studebakers and a small flock of Gen II Honda Civics...
JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They may be informally referred to as "classics", with a lower-case "c". But that would be purely a subjective opinion.

And fraught with controversy even within the CCCA, which homologates vehicles as "Classics".
There are advocates for acceptance of certain post-war vehicles as "full Classics", although CCCA officials have so far resisted them. What, do they think that there is not one single car made after 1948 that is unique or significant in any way?

To properly fit the mold of the true "Classic" owner, you need to start sneering at owners of aging "modern" cars, especially Japanese cars.

I stick with my '91 only because I don't WANT anything newer. I don't WANT air bags, OBD-II, an all-electrical interior, even more plastic than I've already got, etc. If my previous older cars hadn't all rotted out from under me, I'd probably still have one of them.
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

The period from 1948 to I believe late 1960's when the guv'ment became over involved (with everything) is considered Milestone era though that club has almost dissolved into nothing. They simply accepted too many brands and models many of which weren't really significant. A victim of early politically correct don't offend anyone syndrome I believe.
<G>

LOL
That just ain't in me my friend. Of course, the majority of "Full Classic" cars were furrin'...

I hear you loud 'n clear! Being a former resident of the northeast, I finally fled to Texas where fifty year old bolts/nuts still turn on a parts car. I have sworn on a stack of shop manuals never to get/own/or work on a rust bucket again. Of course, the latest '82 is a compromise as it spent time in Kansas...
It's just that freakin' heat in the summer that slows me down but then again that's why gawd invented air conditioning!
JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some good reasons:
* to get newer safety features, so that you get more safety
* your needs have changed--maybe you need a van or truck
Some bad reasons:
* "because I want to"
* "because I deserve it"
* "Well, Mr. Sharx, that's only $430/month. Just sign right here."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is not a car in the world with that many kilometers/miles in MINT condition. Learn to use the definition properly for better credibility.
Reasons it is NOT mint: Wear on the brake pedal Wear on tires, wiper blades Pitting on the windshield Seat cover wear Weather-stripping wear or compression Dust in the engine compartment Oil anyplace at all Brake pad and rotor wear Dirty mats
And hundreds more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Two words for what YOU are: ASS HOLE.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That should be one word asshole, asshole.
But thanks anyway. When my wife asks me later "did anyone call you an asshole yet today?" I can tell her that yes, they did so you will not be first today.
Meantime, keep that car washed and waxed and out of the sun. The UV can dull the finish and it can go from "excellent" to only "good" in a season. It is years beyond "mint".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Good to see that you have a sense of humour, Ed. At home, the Camry is always garaged--your point is well taken.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Actually 130K is only about 80K miles; that's hardly getting broken in for a decent machine.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Indeed!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have enough safety, thank you.

Nope.
Those last 3 reasons are put of the big credit problem in North America. Clue: one can NOT buy happiness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you say so. Funny - I'm not a payday or so away from financial ruin. I simply see no reason to keep a car for 17 years. There are lots of reasons why that would make no sense - other than what some may consider bragging rights that they have a 17 year old car.

Maybe reading for content would benefit you - note that I did not say 10, I said 17.

Very good for you. That is a commendable thing. It does not change my position that keeping a car to age 17 still causes me to wonder why. There is a lot of ground between reckless financial behavior and miserly behavior. I'm just one person who does not see such great nobility in keeping something like a car to age 17 just so I can say I have a net worth of close to a million.

You're not as impressive as your question seeks to make you feel.

It's easy to begin to believe that any form of spending might be considered a waste by you. Oh well...
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Inter yourself--then, for once, you will have contributed something to the Earth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now we've gotten to where you really live. You're impressed with yourself, and quickly succumb to childish postures when others around you aren't equally impressed. Carry on - you've become quite amusing.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

Me, for one... actually I think cars got past the point of diminshing returns with added technology before then. My personal car is an '88 944 and I don't know that there's anything newer than that that I'd want that doesn't cost a silly amount of money. If/when it dies I will probably replace it with something used and cheap.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

A 15 year old Toyota or Honda is just getting broken in. Most price comparisons of Toyotas and Hondas versus Fords and Chevys leave out one key factor in the equation, and that's that you'll need two of the Fords or Chevys to last as long as one of the Toyotas or Hondas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.