DMC Houston Deloren As Daily Driver

That's all that really matters. If you have the means, buy what you like.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:24:50 -0600, Steve

If you're going to drive a 20-30 year old car, it better have some very good features. They don't make cars like they used to, and although that's sometimes said as a lamentation of modern car design, there have been a number of improvements.

My neighbor's DeLorean looks like it's 25 years old and I bet it lacks "that new car smell".

The logic that any car that is 25 years old is a "classic" is laughable. I saw a beat up old (1977) Oldsmobuick with "classic car" plates on it. It even had at least one curb feeler on it.

If I were going to drive a car with gull-wing doors, it wouldn't be the Delorean (although I could probably more easily afford one than the old Mercedes)

Damn, you just reminded me, my old beater just turned 20.

I would bake a cake, except I just bought it a set of BBS rims...

nate

Dan you really did nail this one. Driving old cars is about passion not logic.

It does serve a useful purpose to look around the collector car landscape and see what other vehicles your money could buy. You might find your passion ignited by a different car.

30k will buy you concours quality Maserati Merak. mid engine quad cam alloy V6, Lovely Citroen hydraulic system :)

30k will get you a perfect Sunbeam Tiger and then some.

Erich tomorrow is supposed to be nice, I think I'll take the Tiger to work

Well said. And if anyone asks "Why the hell did you buy that POS?!" you smile and say "No good reason". As long as it puts a smile on your face it was worth it.

30K will also buy you a full "Super" package Studebaker Lark or Hawk with enough money left over to buy another car to get groceries in. Or, say, a supercharged, 4-speed Avanti, still with cash to burn. Or maybe a Golden Hawk? But, like you say, it's all about what gets your gears turning...

nate

To "Dizzy"

I really have owned a Supra. The engine with a twin turbo was nice, fast and really sporty, but after having put tons of money into it, and then having the turbos wear out and basically kill the engine, I didnt have much money left (I was in college and needed a car to commute). So, I found my corolla with 280,000 on it and selling for $800. The Supra only lasted me 20,000 miles until it died, and it cost me a pretty penny. My Corolla has lasted me 80,000 miles with litle problems. i've serviced it since i've owned the car, which has included a water pump change a new alternator, new brakes and the such. All of these things I have done myself. i even serviced my budies cars in college, and they're all in perfect condition. Where do you get of calling me an idiot who "doesn't know jack about what allegedly killed an engine he never owned"? I know plenty, enough to know that I'll never buy a twin turbo supra again, because the same thing that happened to me, has happened to 2 of my co-workers here; this doesnt sound like a very good Supra recomendation. It really saddens me to see posts like yours, because I think "Gee. Where The Hell Does He Think He Knows What I've Owned?".

And this Is Who Mentioned Supras:

C.R. Krieger: "get yourself an '87 Supra turbo. It kinda' looks like a DeLorean (a somewhat sporty doorstop) and it's a helluva lot better car."

Thank You,

Nick

Cars that age in good condition are perfectly capable of providing good, reliable transportation. My 1975 Hornet has front disc brakes, automatic tranny, power steering, A/C, individual reclining seats, transistorized ignition, electric windshield wipers, etc.. Those features work just fine for me, thank you.

"Improvements" are frequently in the eye of the beholder.

I would say that those are both good things.

Depends on your definition of "classic."

How about a Bricklin?

For three years, I had the cachet of driving the kind of car that I have always wanted to own. My only regrets were that I could not afford one in good condition, nor could I afford to really take care of the one that I bought (1976 Ford Thunderbird). Fortunately, most of my friends noticed only the truly amazing qualities of a land yacht, without caring about the decaying bodywork. I felt guiltless driving it through three roadsalting winters, and regretted when a combination of changing needs and expensive, pending repairs, took it off the roads (my last regret was having to unload it at a low-point in scrap steel prices).

I eventually hope to own another land yacht (preferably a Lincoln with the suicide doors, as they are very handy for securing children in car seats), but, unlike owners of SUV's, I will never complain about fuel consumption.

That car was the coolest thing that I have ever owned (despite being black, with a black interior, and no airconditioning, which made it oppressively warm to sit in on any sunny day with the temp above freezing).

No feature is required beyond "I like it." I have 4 cars, the newest of which is 32 years old. One of them has many outstanding features and is very collectible, but the one I drive every day is just a 4-door American sedan with a small v8. Its most outstanding feature is brutal reliability with very low repair costs on the rare occasions when something does break. A third one falls between the first two, and the fourth is over 50 years old and just for amusement.

Agreed. My 4-door 400k mile daily driven 73 Plymouth will never be a classic by any stretch of any imagination. But it will ALWAYS be more interesting than a modern generic transportation device. My wife has one of those. I drive it when we go on vacation.

My '71 164 has all those features, too. And so does my '62 Lancer, except for the reclining seats. The OP on this subtopic is clueless.

Amen. *clink*

ObPedantry: your Lancer has electronic ignition and front disc brakes? Been doing a little upgrading have we?

Of course, a '63 Studebaker could have had all of those stock, had the purchaser checked the right boxes on the order form, so your point still stands. (I wouldn't have checked the automatic transmission box though, as the 3-speed with overdrive is a much better cruising/daily driving setup, and the 4-speed is so much more fun for hard driving... WHY did they put second-gear-start slushboxes in otherwise nice driving cars? but I digress...)

*clink* indeed.

nate

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:27:15 -0600, Steve

I'll agree with that - it's your choice. My choice is that I'm not interested in driving most cars made in the '80s.

Me either, but the 1960 thru about '75... now that's a different matter than the 80s entirely :-)

|>My neighbor's DeLorean looks like it's 25 years old and I bet it lacks |>"that new car smell".

Those of us with chemical sensitivites can do without the "new car smell", thank you. Rex in Fort Worth

Sounds like me like you are a limp wristed dipshit who is trying to sound macho.