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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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."
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
And hundreds more.
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
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".
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
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...
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.
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.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
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.
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.