OK, which are they - what cars are revered by some as classics when in your opinion they're dogs?
Which classics are sure to disappoint you if you actually got to drive one?
Against the first above I'd nominate any car built by Reliant, but especially any Scimitar. With their plasticky trim, van-with-windows design, appalling turning circle, dreadful reliability, and grotty fibreglass bodywork hiding the most boring engines Reliant could find, these are just utter dogs. The only reason anyone thinks they're classic is that they're old and the only reason they're old but still around is that the bodyshells don't rust, though everything else goes wrong.
My most overrated? Well, this has to be the E-type because I would guess that most people I've met who've driven one was disappointed. Great looks, but by all accounts they really show their age in the handling department.
2004 23:50:44 GMT and decided it was time to write:
Nobody buys a standard E-type for its handling. It's a grand touring machine or a poser's tool.
My personal opinion is that most, if not all Merkin cars are vastly overrated. Little more than oversized, overweight, uneconomical and unrefined exponents of obscene consumerism. Scrap 'em all, I say.
My vote goes to the MkI Cortina. No performance, lousy petrol consumption, uncomfortable driving position... Good heater though.
Second place to the MkII Consul. Sloppy column change, extremely thirsty for mediocre performance and seats that created a tremendous amount of static so you got a shock every time you got out and touched the car.
Ah, well, I guess I have to rise to the bait. As a long term E-Type owner (a 1966 4.2 Series 1 Roadster) with two previous to be taken into account, it's still my favorite car. I agree that the later ones - in particular the Series 3 V12 - were touring cars, but the early ones were very much sports cars, with delightful and predictable handling. Of course the roadholding is not as good as almost any modern saloon, but handling and roadholding are two very different things. Certainly at the time of introduction (1961) the handling was vastly better than anything else on the road, thanks in part to the excellent rear suspension which survived pretty much unchanged until well into the eighties in various saloons.
Back in the seventies, when supercars and sports cars were cheap once they were a few years old, I was luck enough to own quite a variety of them. So I can compare the E-Type from personal experience with for example the Astons DB4 and DB5, Ferrari 250 GTE, Maserati 3500, Facel Vega HK500 (am I the only nutter to have had two of them?), Alfa 2600 Sprint, Healey 3000, sundry TRs and all sorts of lesser machines.
In about 1974 I decided to settle down with one decent car. It had to go, handle, look good and be reasonably practical. I really wanted a Dino 246 (and still regret never owning one) but it failed dismally on the practical front - top end overhaul every 20,000 miles, new gearbox every 30,000 (figures supplied by Maranello) at £1,000 each - in 1974! So, slightly sadly, I went for the best E-Type I could afford. Only sadly because I'd aready owned a couple and I really wanted something different. However, thirty years on, I'm still glad I did. Looks gorgeous, still stunning performance - and delivers it in a totally unfussed way, with torque which astonishes drivers of moderns - utterly reliable. Although I have to admit that the reliablity etc is down to a wheels-up restoration in 1995-1997, so the car is now built as it was designed, not as originally constructed!
Re most undeserving? I have to say I deeply dislike the MGB. Harsh, rough, slow. When they were new, it used to be said that they were bought by people who couldn't afford a TR4. And TR4s were bought by people who couldn't afford a Healey 3000. And Healeys were bought by - well, you see where I'm going. However, I absolutely support anyone who runs an MGB by choice - it's a relatively cheap fun car. I personally preferred the Spridget of the same era - less pretentious, a cheap little home for the A Series engine, no performance to speak of but an absolute hoot to drive. The MGB tried to be more, but to me it failed.
I also cannot stand the original Lotus Elan. Not because bits fell off - that's the chance you take with any Lotus and most things Italian - but it just didn't suit me. I'm told the handling is unrivalled - Gordon Murray says the only way his MacLaren F1 disappointed him was that it didn't handle as well as the Elan, which he rates as the greatest car of all time. Personally I thought it a horrible little thing - looks like a Mark 1 Sprite with its eyes shut, noisy, buzzy little engine, and applying the brakes even gently on a mildly damp road would result in a wheels-locked slide even at
10mph into the nearest solid object. Not saying it was a bad car - it probably says more about my (lack of) driving ability than about the car itself. All this is just my personal experience and view.
In general I like nearly all Italian cars, several Brits, no Germans or Japanese (no soul).
And just to really upset people, I think the most overrated "classic" has to be the VW Beetle.
Sorry to bang on for so long, but I hope it is of interest.
The Jaguar E-type. Big, crude, badly made penis substitute.
The Citroen DS. Stunning styling, amazing ride, but ludicrously overcomplicated. They'd have been far better to put a spring-and-damper suspension in it and spend the development time and customers' money fitting it with a much, much better engine. And I have (and love) one!
Morgans. The 1930's are over and CAMRA membership won't bring 'em back. Deal with it.
Anything made by Ford, ever. By definition.
Or Renault.
I have never driven a Scimitar, but the wee Reliant engine - particularly in its final 848cc form - is a delight.
It's a problem with plastic cars generally - they tend to survive to a much more advanced stage of decrepitude than rustable things.
The original 3.8 coupe is stunning to look at, though. Later ones not so nice, and I think I'd be inclined to agree about the V12. Never driven one, though, so could be talking out of my hat here.
I'd be inclined to pick the Jensen Interceptor as seriously over-rated: Far too much power for its chassis, only approximately made and a real rust-trap.
And then there's the MGB - nice enough car, but stupidly over-valued at them moment. They were cheap and cheerful. Now they're not cheap.
I'm a sucker for proper Citroens, have to admit it. The GS is probably the most *under*valued classic around.
Umm.. OK - can't argue there.
I've got a soft spot for the old Renaults. 4s. 6s. 16s. I'd not say no to a good 16TX (if any such thing still exists) if someone wanted to give me one. And the original 5 (before it was fiddled about with) is a really nice piece of design.
I think this is just a question of different takes on things. I've got a Scimitar (the second one I've owned) and sure, it's flawed (as are all cars, and classics more than most - if we were honest with ourselves then we all know that rationally they don't compare with modern commodity cars). The Essex engine is a dog (the Essex was always a dog, but at least here it's in a good chassis), the front suspension wears quickly, the doors and windows leak (it's a British car from the
60s or 70s - what do you expect) and the electricals can be a disaster (ditto). OTOH the shape is gorgeous - Tom Karen really did get it right in 1967, and it still looks great, the handling is a delight and with buckets of torque and very little weight it can go quickly on a winding road without the driver having to try. The ride is something you learn to live with but the driving position is excellent. Reliability
- well, like any car that age it needs attention on a regular basis, but with that done they can serve as everyday cars. You need to get a good one though. Bad Scimitars - ones that hadn't been looked after or have been owned by people who try to run them on the same sort of maintainance budget as a MGB or a Morris Minor - can be pretty dreadful. Not as bad as buying a cheap Bristol, I'd imagine, but more than bad enough.
It also costs a lot more for a re-spray, which is the next thing to be done to it (anyone know of a good place for respraying GRP cars - i'm not after a concours finish, just something which looks reasonable and stays attached to the fibreglass..).
I'd rank the Scimitar as under-rated rather than over-rated. Same goes for the Gilbern. TVRs, on the other hand..
Driving one with a Rover squeezed into it is a good way to improve your opinion of TR8 and MGB V8 roadster conversions. A better engine serves to highlight some of the other failings, particularly the brake balance.
Ian Johnston ( snipped-for-privacy@talk21.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I'll agree on the engine (don't forget there were flat-sixes in development for it), but a D with springs? No. No way.
The hydraulics aren't *THAT* complicated. OK, the semi-auto box is, but the suspension really isn't.
Citroen's always been schizophrenic on engines - a real mix of boat-anchor (the Traction 3-bearing living through to the mid-60s in the D, and the 5- bearing replacement living through to the early 90s in the CX), and surprisingly high-tech (the flat twin and flat four, and their work on Rotaries).
Don't forget, though, that the D was one of the first cars with electronic injection in production.
Geoff Mackenzie ( snipped-for-privacy@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Add the original Mini, too. Although, to be fair, the worst single thing about the original Mini is that it's over-blown cult status has spawned the current BMW 1-series bloatyMini.
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.