Classic Cars

How do you define what is almost an intangible personal perception? As the description of this new forum says, no one definition of a Classic Car would satisfy everybody. So to start this off, what attributes and qualities do you think identifies a classic car; is it build quality, appearance, performance, character, exclusivity, or original purchase price? Maybe it is a combination of some or all of those. Does age make a car that was fairly ordinary when new become a classic. What do you think makes a Classic Car?

Not being much of a traditionalist or an afficionado, I'd say it's very subjective.

Go to any "Classic Car Show" and the impression you'll gain is that a classic car is anything that still looks pristine 25 years after it rolled out of the factory.

To me, it has to have achieved something. Beautiful lines, revolutionary design, motorsport success could all be a factor.

Beyond that, I really couldn't give you a formula. But if you fired a list of car makes and models at me I'd be able to fire back a thoroughly subjective "Yes" or "No" just as quickly!

Given the term "Classic" is used as a period descriptor like Vintage, the 25 year thing is probably about as close to a definition as you will get. A 1925 Allegro-equivalent is just as much of a vintage car as a Bentley. That someone likes Allegros may seem a poor choice but is still a valid one. The term classic when applied to cars that have achieved something as you say is a different use of the word in my opinion.

Mind you at the moment it is getting to a tricky point with the 25 year thing, ~1980 metal bumpers began to disappear so that will be a bit of a test as to what people accept as a classic. I know in the States different states have capped their classic car provisions at 1980-81, others did too but have changed back.

Very good points, John. I had suggested the term 'Classic and Collectable Cars' with a cut off date but withdrew that suggestion when it was pointed out that practically every car now which is regarded as collectable features in the various Classic Car mags anyway, whether or not they have the qualities that you and Garc outline above. It is also why, in the description of this new forum, we have left it open to posters to start threads on what they consider 'Classic'.

I've completed my first trawl of the Road Car Forum to move appropriate archived threads here. Here is an interesting (but brief) thread on the subject:-

http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8231

For those who wish to see the old threads moved here, just go to the 'Display Options' box, at the bottom of the page, select 'Beginning' in the 'from the' box and then hit the 'Show threads' box.

Have to agree with John's original comments. I don't think you'd every get a definite dictionary definition of what makes a 'classic car'. It's like trying to definite why something is 'cool' or 'stylish', although of course you don't need to be either to qualify as a classic. In some respects if you need to define what makes a classic then you don't truly understand. For any test you care to apply I could easily find something proves to be an exception.

I don't buy the age rule, 25 years or otherwise. Take 2 Minis, one a 1980 model the other a 1985. Aside from a few minor trim differences they are essentially identical. Does that mean one is a classic and the other isn't? I can think of a number of 25+ year old cars which I would never consider a classic and equally any number of more modern examples which I would.

Build Quality?
Trabant anyone? Or any early Lotus, or almost anything produced by BL for that matter.

Exclusivity?
There's been more VW Beetles made than almost any other car yet few would dispute it's classic status.

Purchase Price?
Fiat 500 was as cheap as chips but still as much a classic as a Jaguar E-type.

Motorsport success?
The Morris Minor is better known for district nurses than rally drivers and has almost no motorsport credentials.

My parents have a mid 80's Pug 205, low mileage, fairly good condition, been in the family since new, and even a rare 'Look' model but I wouldn't consider it a classic. A similar condition GTi model on the other hand would be a different story altogether. But that doesn't necessarily mean that spec or badging is important. An RS2000 Escort is far more desirable than it's '1100 Popular' counterpart yet I would still consider the poverty-spec model to be a classic.

Even condition is not a factor. Forget the sanitised indoor show with it's club stands and concours condition displays and go to a typical outdoor show, the sort where real people drive in with real cars. Most will be anything other than 'factor fresh'.

As if to disprove my own argument maybe the best definition of what makes a classic car is one which is loved or appreciated for what it is or what it represents rather simply as a mode of transport.

What is a Classic Car? It’s a bit subjective really …

In 1969, on a Wednesday evening, I was sitting with a pal over Dinner and a bottle of White Burgundy. “It’s the French Grand Prix this week-end” he said. I said “O.K., let’s go”.

The next evening, Thursday, we caught the night ferry from Portsmouth. We arrived at Rheims at 09.30. “Let’s go further South” he said. I said "O.K."

We drove on: we stopped for lunch and an odd glass or two. We arrived at The Hotel du Cap, Antibes, just as the sun was going down. What a drive. What a car. What a trip. What an experience. I will never forget that drive.

We were in a Ferrari GTB 275 Long – Nose.

Now THAT was a classic car!

Geoff.

True Geoff, a classic and beautiful with it. No. plate should be on a Triumph, though! ;)

Yep I've always liked Enzo's take on the Marcos. ;)

Quite rightly you can't really define a classic car. But in my case I have an MGB of 1965 vintage and a Mondeo of 1998 vintage plus the obligatory off roader Jeep Cherokee 60th Anniversary model (which is a classic in its own right).

So why would any of them be considered a classic?

The MG is easy. A marque which at that time had continuous history goiong back over 40 years. Parts bin it may have been but 500000 examples later it had a following. The design was advanced for a sportscar (ok use the term loosely) but it still has charm. I've recently installed a fast road engine and it is certainl a more interesting car to drive.

Then the Mondeo. This is the 2.0 Si version with sports supension, c/r gearbox and uprated brakes. The handling is better than any car of its era that I tried including Cavaliers and Vectras. So I'd call it a classic for that reason and because it broke the mould for mass produced vehicles at that time.

The Jeep? Its the end of the "box" shaped version. No more to be said, the character has gone now. And they don't make that straight 6 four litre engine anymore. That has serious grunt.

So three cars that in some way would qualify as classic to me.

(I've left the racing car out of this).

True Geoff, a classic and beautiful with it. No. plate should be on a Triumph, though! ;)

In 1970, I sold my car with the number on it. I was under the impression (!) that it would be transfered back to me.

The chap who bought the car was on the TV yesterday - Alex Henshaw - in another classic machine - the Spitfire .....

Geoff.

classic noun a great work of art; something typical and influential of its kind; adj excellent; standard, typical of its kind: a classic example ; simple and elegant in style.

So I doubt that an Austin Allegro would count however a Ferrari 250 GT SWB would be a dead cert!

:cool:

I am much disappointed that there have been no recent posts about "Classics".

I am a "sixties" man myself, and have had the pleasure of many great experiences.

Maybe this illustration of one of my favourite models may provoke a response.

Geoff.

Steve put the brakes on.

Ursula was pretty stunning but as we know her looks have sadly faded whilst looks in a classic are definitely not everything. Otherwise how would the Morris 1000 qualify? ;)

classic adj excellent; standard, typical of its kind: a classic example ; simple and elegant in style.

So I doubt that an Austin Allegro would count however a Ferrari 250 GT SWB would be a dead cert!
Based on that definition the Allegro would qualify as a classic example of the output of the 70's British motor industry.

Here's a picture taken at the launch of the new XK 120 alongside what was then, a not very old Frazer-Nash.

Geoff.

Incredible contrast between those two, but both classics, (as is the HRG which was closely related to the Frazer Nash).

I was thinking the exact same thing John, especially since the HRG (not to mention MG T-series) were produced at the same time!

Now that the motor racing season has ended in the UK (for me, anyway!), I'll try to kickstart this forum again with some new threads and maybe resurrecting some old ones, too. However, any help gratefully received!

Great minds John? Iwas thinking that this is the time to get those ads On the coffee table so that the correct Xmas presents are given. ;)

What is a Classic Car? It’s a bit subjective really …

In 1969, on a Wednesday evening, I was sitting with a pal over Dinner and a bottle of White Burgundy. “It’s the French Grand Prix this week-end” he said. I said “O.K., let’s go”.

The next evening, Thursday, we caught the night ferry from Portsmouth. We arrived at Rheims at 09.30. “Let’s go further South” he said. I said "O.K."

We drove on: we stopped for lunch and an odd glass or two. We arrived at The Hotel du Cap, Antibes, just as the sun was going down. What a drive. What a car. What a trip. What an experience. I will never forget that drive.

We were in a Ferrari GTB 275 Long – Nose.

Now THAT was a classic car!

Geoff.

Somehow....one word (Jealousy) ...... is not enough :wine:

Indeed, I agree ........ but it's not surprising that YOU would say that, anyway! :laugh:

This forum has been allowed to wither, I'm afraid, and I am sorry for my part in allowing it to do so. As a hardcore motor racing website, I suppose this forum is likely not to attract the same level of interest as others. However, I work on the premise that many motor racing enthusiasts will also have, like me, and interest in classic road cars! Am I wrong?

Anyway, I'm trying to kick this one up the backside a bit by opening new threads and reopening some old ones. How about joining us in this rejuvenation? Also, if there are any classic car clubs out there who don't have websites with their own discussion forums, please let us know. The Owners and Administrators have indicated that they are prepared to set up sub forums specifically for individual marque clubs.

Hi John, if yourself and any other classic 'amigos' would fancy a tour down to the Valencia region sometime then let me know.
I would be happy to see you and accomodate...just a thought and might raise a little interest...and then again it might not ??
From Calais it's approx 1400 miles and taking it steady about 16 hours driving.
Of course you'll need a reliable bus....not for the faint hearted !

Great invite, thanks, torola, and sorry for delay in responding! Probably not on the cards for the forseeable future, though.

Now, it seems to me that there is a core of about 6 posters contributing to this forum. Come on folks, let's build on it. Sign up and start a thread on your favourite marque or model. There must surely be a big classic car following amonst the motor racing fraternity?

I've been a bit quiet of late, probably because I have been going to a few shows and taking more photos than I know what to do with - 1200 at 4 shows in 4 weeks! Not to mention looking at at least 5 times that many cars, and chatting to people... As well as this (http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93295) show I've "done" the photos for, there was a display on Australia Day (26th Jan), Picnic at Hanging Rock on 7th Feb and an American car show at Gembrook last Sunday 14th.

At the Hanging Rock show the entry stickers are numbered, and a friend's car was higher than #2600, they were saying there was well over 3000 cars. Unfortunately a brief thunderstorm came over - and I mean brief, it rained for approx 5min then because it was over 30° everything dried up again quite quickly. However a lot of people were making a dash for home by that time. There was a famous book and movie set at Hanging Rock some may know of.

So I now have photos of everything from A to Z it seems, which I will try and post up when I get a chance.

On the subject of what makes a classic...

Age on it's own doesn't tell the full story - but it's a good start - a modern car can be a "modern classic" or a "future classic". The example with the minis is interesting - early minis are classic cars, one that's only a few years old is a classic design, but in my eyes can't be a classic car (the same applies with morgans)

I think the point about "achieving something" is good - whether it's a technological innovation, or just a real shift in the manufacturer's path. My classic is a Droopsnoot Firenza - which was intended to be a mainstream production car - I think it qualifies as a classic not on the grounds of rarity and age, but because it marked a shift from vauxhall's quite ordinary competent family saloons to something a bit more exciting. The designer then went on to produce the Manta and Calibra (my shopping car) which was another car that stood out amongst Vauxhall's range as something a bit different and special.

And yes I know the Firenza shares some of it's underpinnings with the Viva, as the Calibra shares plenty with the cavalier!

There was a famous book and movie set at Hanging Rock some may know of.



Picnic at Hanging Rock

Yes that's the one Peter, I think it is a reasonably well-known film - it is hard to gauge these things from the perspective of other countries. It was made in 1975, directed by Peter Weir who also did The Truman Show, Dead Poet's Society, The Year of Living Dangerously, Gallipoli and also The Cars That Ate Paris - you really know your films if you've heard of this one, I actually saw it on tv once.

The film is based on a book by Joan Lindsay, and set in 1900. The plot is simple, a group of school girls go on a picnic at Hanging Rock (yes, really) and disappear. Although it is a novel, there was always the rumour that it really happened, which added to to the aura & mystery of the film.

The actual place is quite interesting too. http://www.hangingrock.info It is "a rare volcanic formation of solvsbergite situated in the Hesket plains". It is like a hill of rock, with crevices everywhere, and because it is surrounded by trees and it is always very quiet there is a sense of isolation.

Photos to come from the car show (eventually)

The cars that ate Paris (Texas) had a VW Beetle with spikes all over it. Not entirely off topic then.

That's the one. Very wierd movie from what I remember...

(Hmm, was going to link a photo but then I remembered about the copyright rules John, I'm learning slowly!)

Sorry John, a bit late responding to this. No problem in posting a link to a photo if it's on topic. You just can't move the photo here!

This forum really isn't self sustaining is it? There are just not enough classic car fanatics on here, I guess. I'll have one more crack at fizzing it up before the racing season really gets under way, but then we'll have to leave it to its own devices!

That's what I meant ("moving" photo with img tags, didn't think of the url tags)

Could be like me & just busy. There were some nice cars down at the Philip Island historic races in the carpark as well as on the track, still haven't got photos online (or films processed) though. A very nice Lambo Miura, and almost complete range of Bolwell cars - working backwards (to jog memory) Nagari coupe & convertible, Mk7, SR6 race car (one off), Mk5 and a few Mk4s. There was also a Rochedale Olympic believe it or not! For sale too.

I've finally started a thread with some of the cars from the Philip Island races - a thread for cars in the carpark in this section and cars on the track in the Historic Racing Today section of the forums.

As a preview, and because I mentioned it above and have not included it in either thread, here is the Bolwell SR6 race car which was actually in the carpark in the Bolwell club's display.
http://images.fotopic.net/ymwk1y.jpg

While I'm on a roll, also a shot of the 1971 Tyrrell F1 car in the pits...
http://images.fotopic.net/ymwjv8.jpg

... and the Shannons Insurance Goggomobil Dart
http://images.fotopic.net/ymwjq0.jpg

Hum. On the topic of what makes a classic car, my feeling is that one man's meat is another man's poison. The only reliable definition is an objective one based on (a) age and (2) whether there are any left, otherwise you fall into the trap of being subjective, or even snobbish.

Classic car ownership, let's face it, is a (largely) male mid-life crisis thing. Hence, classics are defined by a generation about 25 years after the fact looking back and thinking "yeah, I thought that was a great car when I was a kid".

I was quite partial to the Allegro when I was a kid. It was the first car I remember coming out as a new model - yes, that's all it took. I had a friend whose parents had the estate version, and I liked the way the rear of the car flicked up slightly in what I now think of as an ironic mockery of a rear spoiler. If I see an Allegro (estate or saloon) on the streets today, cared-for or beaten up, as far as I'm concerned, it's a classic.

I had another friend who had a Cortina estate that we always got ferried around to football matches in the boot of. Can't say I have the same feelings for the Cortina (apart from the Lotus-tuned version of the earlier model, of course), but I know people who do, so who am I to say that it's not a classic?

Perhaps what really defines a classic is whether, after a set time period, say 25 years, the car generates sufficient interest still for there to be sufficient critical mass for an owner's club to be born.

I'm not sure popularity should be a criterion for "classic" status. :)

I think it is important that we retain examples of old cars regardless of status, but I agree, Adam, that this does not make them classic. Collectable yes, meriting preservation, possibly yes, especially if you want to recapture your youth, but Classic, no! We constantly devalue words by broadening their meaning, but I struggle with the concept that any car becomes a classic, merely because it has become old. In car terms, 'classic' is almost indefinable, but design, appearance and build quality are surely some of the constituent elements.

Hmmm..., at the risk of a slap, if we can't define "classic" how can we devalue its meaning? ;)

No slap, and clever thinking, but actually, I think you do really know what I mean, unless you really think that all old cars whatever the make are 'classic' merely because they are old.

Yes, I think there is a difference between merely an "old" car and a "classic". The trouble is, I struggle to think of a car from, say, the 80s, that I can't imagine somebody describing as a classic - there being that irritating little niggly subjective element. Plus, different cars may be seen as being a classic for different reasons.

The VW Beetle is a classic for a number of reasons - it was a design innovation, it was deliberately made for the masses, it became an icon for people with a certain lifestyle, etc. But that makes it no more of a classic than a car that was only a design innovation. Or does it?

I just don't know!

At the end of the day, though, surely if a car is advertised for sale in "Practical Classics", it must be a classic? Otherwise the mag needs to call itself "Practical Classics including Old Car"

Mind you, I have to say that there's rarely anything practical about classics...

Interesting discussion.

I have an '86 Audi ur quattro tucked away around round the back here. Mechanically it's sound as a bell, but the bodywork could do with some TLC.

Now to me that's a classic, even though it's not 25 years old yet, because of the iconic nature of the car and the importance it had in the history of the motor car. Anyone agree, or am I just kidding myself?

Yep, definitely a classic! As I said, age shouldn't be the defining criteria.

Excellent, thank you! I shall treat it with more respect now and hopefully give it some of that TLC it needs.

Definitely a classic, one might make a comparison with a Mk2 Jag (3.8 if it is a turbo!). I have a couple of old classic car mags from the 70s (UK mags, not sure if there were any out here then!), and they are full of "classic" cars such as big Healeys, some of the feature cars were not even 10yo at that time

I am just a little confused regarding the definition of classic. How would you define a 1955 or 1956 Ford Thunderbird......a Classic or just an old car.

I think that we have agreed that defining what constitutes a classic is a very difficult task but a T'Bird is surely regarded as a classic, isn't it, especially in its home country?

I would have thought a '55 T-Bird would be easy, a '75 or '85 perhaps less so! Just wait until they are nearly all gone, they will be then (seems to be the way it works)

Its a good thing that classic cars are subjective otherwise all the odball dogs would have gone to the scrap heap. Think also of all the classic saloons like MG ZAs and ZBs that were the mainstay of Stock car racing in the 60s and early 70s, that must have got rid of loads ! I had the use of one a while back and I found it to be a very practical good handling car with no problems at all. Also it attracted attention when in traffic. (after all whose going to say look there's a polo! )
Looking to the future I personally can't see something like a Peugeot 205 owners club in 30 years time, but somebody 40 years younger than me might !

Its a good thing that classic cars are subjective otherwise all the odball dogs would have gone to the scrap heap. Think also of all the classic saloons like MG ZAs and ZBs that were the mainstay of Stock car racing in the 60s and early 70s, that must have got rid of loads ! I had the use of one a while back and I found it to be a very practical good handling car with no problems at all. Also it attracted attention when in traffic. (after all whose going to say look there's a polo! )


My grandad had one of those!

Good point Gordon, one of those car built as a "sports saloon" but actually more like a mobile brick outhouse!

Wanna race one?

My Dad had a ZB; great car. Always one of my favourites and prettier than so much other stuff around then, and certainly nicer than its Farina styled replacement. Actually, I think sports saloon wasn't a bad description, again compared with most other saloons at the time. It would do 85mph when other saloons in that class were struggling to hit 75. Don't forget, it was only a 1.5 litre engine hauling it around. However, it has to be said that the similarly engined Riley 1.5 was a bit quicker because it was a bit lighter. Nothing like as pretty though. Anyway, despite what the MG purists at the time felt the ZAs & ZBs are definitely classics in my book. A good mod. on these, I believe, is to upgrade to an MGB engine as it's the same block.

Yep the 1800 B series slots straight in.

Whilst it's true the definition is in the eye of the beholder, there is usually a consensus of opinion. Take the MGB for example, most people would acknowledge it is a classic, even though mass produced by BL and factory build quality was crap, but it caught the public's imagination and when I finish restoring my 72 roadster it will be a shining example, and yes it is also my everyday car.
Come along to Silverstone on June 23/24 and see thousands of MGs of every description and even more enthusiasts in one gathering and you will be impressed - guaranteed!

One thing I am sure about is that crap build quality does not rule out a car from being a classic. In some cases quite the opposite!

One of the worst "crap" build classic cars were Lotus Elans. I would think that most Elan owners would agree. Although a lot of the problems were caused by poor (or no) maintenance . This is my opinion as I have worked on quite a few over the years including one that is driven round our local off road cycle track ! I won't start on Italian cars just yet !

Clive you do know what the "B" in MGB stands for don't you? :rotate:

Clive you do know what the "B" in MGB stands for don't you? :rotate:

No. Do tell:innocent:

Bellybutton - everyone's got one!

My Classic,
http://inlinethumb40.webshots.com/5031/2019875030082974540S600x600Q85.jpg

That is a serious piece of kit iwb, do you race it or is it on permanent display in your showroom there?

If the latter do you have security issues?

Whatever it is jawdroppingly gorgeous.

We do some vintage racing 4 to 5 events per year plus tt but I spend more time protecting the car on the track than racing, it might be more appropriately called "stretching her legs". The photo is from display at Summit Racings showroom. It is a bit much car for a beginner at 654 whp/#2564.
Thanks David

ps, what is kit iwb?

"kit" = "equipment". "iwb" = "imsawidebody" ;)

An interetsig thread and an interesting question.

To me, a "Classic Car" and a "Thoroughbred" are one and the same.

Which of course is precisely why many years ago, the VCC classified them as PVTs - Post Vintage Thoroughbreds.

Now, for example, an Alvis TD21 is a throuroughbred and captures the ethos of its age. To parody Jaguar's adverts of the 50s, "Grace, Pace and Space!"

To me, the MG Magnette ZA/ZB was very much a sort of thoroughbred as it encapsulated the ethos of pre-war MG saloons: which I am sure was the intention. Leather upholstery; veneered dash etc. Same with the Riley Pathfinders of the same era. Provided it wasn't you who had to remove the head!

For me, the later Farini A55/A60 clones, i.e. the MG Magnette, Wolseley amd Riley were simply, as one well known scribe (may have been Bolster??) described them in Autocar as "An Austin or Morris with a false moustache and glasses!"

That said, I ran an A60 clone MG Magnette as my road car for six months, simply as I bought it for twopence from a service customer, since: it was taxed and after we'd dozed it out a bit straight and re-sprayed it it was nice. (It had been parked outside his house and smashed up the bum by a builder's truck!).

OK, I know there ae enthusiasts who regularly meet and extol the virtues of their Mustard Coloured Hillman Avengers; or their dull maroon (weren't they all?), Austin 1800 - or as we called 'em, a Hydrolastic Haggis!

But, but, neither of these awful ugly clunkers can by any stretch of the imagination be called "Classic": unless one means, of course, Classic Mistake!:rofl:

And, sadly, there were plenty around at the time! From Rootes; Ford, BLMH and Vauxhall!

hi there

does it matter if it can be called a classic or not?

surely if you like it then thats all you need

after all one of my favourite cars is a 1979 Oldsmobile 98 Regency
is it a classic? probably not
are there any left? who knows
do i like it? yes
and thats all i need


db

(not a sermon just an observation)

Michael, something to consider is without the dull, ordinary cars to compare them to, appreciating the qualities of the exceptional cars in context of their era is harder, particularly for people who were not around at the time and don't have any memories of them.

A very astute observation, John. Maybe we should get the forum retitled Classic and Collectors Cars, because then we are catering for everybody who likes or owns old cars regardless of their status..

I don't think it's necessary John, it's a common enough term. Tastes will always vary.

For me, a Classic has always offered almost instant eye appeal: even when young!

For example, neither the XJ range did nor the XJS: the MkI and MK II saloons did and of course do, as did the XK 120, and 150: not the XK 140 as bits of it were ugly! The MK VII and IX did: so did the MK 5. And of course the SS100!

The Aston DB I, II and III had instant Classic appeal: so did the DB4 and the 5.

Not sure about the brutish uglyness of the current Aston-Ford!

In a similar fashion, the Bentley Continental SIII Drophead was probably the peak of classic design: thereafter, Rolls and Bentleys became ugly: The Corniche probably being the ugliest!

As are the Silver Shadows Series I and II. The last decent Rolls saloon was I think the Series one single headlight. The two staggered headlights looked awful! And by then the car was loosing its unique "Rollness" and by the time the Shadow was introduced the company was on its knees, anyway, which is why they manufactured it like an upmarket Ford!

Nothing wrong with Ford is there?

I mean icons such as the Mustang (including the Boss 302), the Cortina Mk1 or indeed the Capri 1969 to 1984. Icons of their age and classics based upon looks, capability and accessibility. ;)

Nothing wrong with Ford is there?

I mean icons such as the Mustang (including the Boss 302), the Cortina Mk1 or indeed the Capri 1969 to 1984. Icons of their age and classics based upon looks, capability and accessibility. ;)

I suppose........................................

To me a good example were Jensons.

The early 541 was an awful brute! It enjoyed a chassis made from old railway lines and an Austin 6 cyl truck engine, but with three SU carbs.

The CV8 was even more ugly!

I drove both quite a bot, did lots of work on a 541 and considerably more on a CV8. They were uncomfortable, noisy, didn't handle and didnt go particularly quickly.

The Jenson in the pic in the link below, however (the pre-war car) is a good example of what the VSCC call PVTs.

The Capri? :rofl:

I remember driving one a few weeks before its release: I had recently left Ford Europe. We had a good laugh at this car!

I also remember trying to persuade an early 3 litre to go round corners, instead of straight on............:whiteflag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_Motors

http://www.chippingnorton.net/Features/vintage.htm

So in your opinion a car won't qualify as a classic unless it comes from the "doctor's car" class and above. That would exclude many able vehicles.

So in your opinion a car won't qualify as a classic unless it comes from the "doctor's car" class and above. That would exclude many able vehicles.

Not at all, Peter.

Whilst I accept that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I personally think that "Beauty is more than skin deep".

For example, the BMC Nash Metropolitan was a nice little sporty car, in looks, for the girlies. It rusted more rapidly than a Lancia Beta: and they (The Beta), used to well, sort of drop the whole front end in the road, engine, transmission, suspension, steering, brakes!

Exciting.

The Austin Atlantic was also, on the surface a nice looking car.......................

Thus for me, a true classic needs wonderful styling, great engineering, longevity and some character!

Mk IV Zephyrs fail to meet the taste test!

I spent too long trying to placate owners!

Ah,

Point taken.

Likewise whilst a lot of Lotuses (Loti?) meet the "Classic" criteria I wouldn't give one garage room.

I agree about Lotus Cars: typical "Chunky" Chapman!

The original Elite, for example, was wetter than a 1930s coupe, through the door seals! The body rattled: the scuttle shook; the gel coat fell off the body and the paint then crazed like the mud when the tide's out!

But for their size and capacity they went very quickly in a straight line: and faster than a Ferrari round corners!

Until something (else!) broke! or fell off!

The only Lotus which ever turned me on was the original MKI two door Cortina; once the rear axle "A" brackets and frames had been hacksawed off and radius arms fitted instead. Which stopped the banjo housing twisting and dumping all the diff oil over the tarmac! And once conical nosed Thrust Bearings had been fitted in the front struts, which stopped them locking and doing "A Jimmie Clark", through quick corners!

And................and....................and..............................

Fun though!
;)

Michael in my post 53 I dared to mention Lotus Elans as crap built cars. I was surprised that I didn't get an ear bashing from the diehards. What always amazed me was the terrific roadholding they had for the day considering a Triumph Herald wasn't exactly the best handling suspension wise. Whatever they are a genuine "Classic" car. I wonder if the old Triumph would have been a gem if they had done away with the thirties transverse leaf spring ?

I think Loti are like TVR's by the time you've rectified all the problems and niggles you may as well put your own badge on the front

as for Cortinas, get a GT, all the good bits of a Lotus without the crap bits, expense and trouble! having said that most of the problems have been sorted after 44 years R&D!

.... considering a Triumph Herald wasn't exactly the best handling suspension wise. Whatever they are a genuine "Classic" car. I wonder if the old Triumph would have been a gem if they had done away with the thirties transverse leaf spring ?

tell this to a current C6 Corvette owner and you will get grilled.

Any car can become a classic sooner or later, especially when you start realising how few of a once abundant model are left....so we can have classic examples of instant classics, and classic examples of "delayed" classics...like a BMW Isetta...

henk4
I fail to see what a Corvette C6 has to do with my post about the roadholding of an Elan. Perhaps I missed something ?

A Corvette still has a transverse rear leaf spring. I'm sure most people hear the Corvette has leaf springs and think of a traditional (Hotchkiss) leaf spring rear end

A Corvette still has a transverse rear leaf spring. I'm sure most people hear the Corvette has leaf springs and think of a traditional (Hotchkiss) leaf spring rear end

it even has a transverse leaf spring at the front....:)

OK guys but I dont think that the Corvette with its composite spring set up is anything like a Herald or E93A Ford round corners, but point taken.

Michael in my post 53 I dared to mention Lotus Elans as crap built cars. I was surprised that I didn't get an ear bashing from the diehards. What always amazed me was the terrific roadholding they had for the day considering a Triumph Herald wasn't exactly the best handling suspension wise. Whatever they are a genuine "Classic" car. I wonder if the old Triumph would have been a gem if they had done away with the thirties transverse leaf spring ?

Gordon:

Not ignoring this thread: I've been away at our second home in France.

Herald: Hmmm.........

Have a 1966 Convertible, gradually being restored. (It's my wife's and she loves it! been in the family since 1977.).

They corner OK, if you have the bottle to chuck it sideways well before the corner, before the swinging arm jacks.......................................otherwise, it can be exciting! :woot:

Corvettes: Hmmm again. Wonderful in a straight line if you have the Pro Traj Limslip fitted. Don't bother with trying to stop too much; or go round
corners! :rofl:

Transverse leaf springs are OK, if you have good independant suspension.

Les Ballamy of course, designed and made split front axle IFS for E93A Fords, after which, the old Puddle Jumper handled reasonably well. For a haystack on wheels.

The Elan: awful car, but sort of value for money in terms of performance and handling, if you liked leaking, rattling doors, driveshaft doughnuts splitting, carbs frothing (until the flexible rubber mount plates) and so on. A typical "Chunky" Chapman car. Not designed for sale.

An old chum from the early Hethel days, (he was marketing manager and one of the few to actually tame a Lotus 40, after Ginther gave up!), reckoned that Chunky hated owners and designed the cars only to achieve his Cost-Weight-Performance targets!


Any car can become a classic sooner or later, especially when you start realising how few of a once abundant model are left....so we can have classic examples of instant classics, and classic examples of "delayed" classics...like a BMW Isetta...

Henk4:

I think the minor confusion here, is the difference between "Classic" and "Collectible".

As with all objects of old, rarity suddenly makes the most ugly and obscure objects collectible, since they tend to have an increasing value, only due to their rarity.

However, rarity and increasing value, for me, can never make an ugly old clunker into a "Classic" car!

Sow's Ears and Silk Purses, perhaps?

Henk4:

I think the minor confusion here, is the difference between "Classic" and "Collectible".

As with all objects of old, rarity suddenly makes the most ugly and obscure objects collectible, since they tend to have an increasing value, only due to their rarity.

However, rarity and increasing value, for me, can never make an ugly old clunker into a "Classic" car!

Sow's Ears and Silk Purses, perhaps?

Philosophically I have to agree with you. However, if one were to stubbornly stick with this definition, all magazines dealing with Classic Cars/Thoroughbred Cars or whatever they call them, would pretty soon run out of subjects. They can't simply write a new story about the E-Type every year.... although some of them do it every five years...:)

Last night I was glancing through Cecil Clutton's book on the VSCC (Vintage Sports Car Club).

When it was formed (1954), it was going to be called the "Veterans" SCC, however the true Veteran's Club objected. Thus true veterans date to 1904: "Edwardians" are defined as from 1905 to 1916: and Vintage from 1919 to 1930.

As I think I mentioned previously, the VSCC used to have a class they termed PVTs (Post Vintage Thoroughbreds).

And to me, the term "Thoroughbred", sort of sums it all up!

I do agree with what you say about mags, these days; no doubt we'll soon see a publication called "Trabant Owner", or similar! :rofl:

On the topic of old car clubs. I was present (albeit 7 years old) at the first meeting of the Pionier Automobiel Club (PAC) in Utrecht in 1956. At that time membership was open for cars built up to 1930. Amazingly 50 years later, eligibility has only been extended to 1940.
For me thoroughbred reminds me of horses, which by definition have only one HP, so hardly exciting...

anyway

http://www.trabantmueller.de/

you could be served soon....

Of course, horses enjoyed basic linkage to motor cars in the early days since most early garages were livery stables and horse dealers and stealers!

Also, of course, the early carriage makers made the original car bodies: which is why they resembled horse drawn carriages: and tended to use the same suspension!

And most early car owners tended to be reasonably well off and were into horses and seemed to simply apply their equine terminology, thus "Thoroughbred" might have been pretty natural.

Interesting thoughts..........................

I had a call this morning from a mate asking if I would do him a favour and take his 246 Dino for a spin as he hasnt had time to recently and thought it better get an airing -2 hours mostly in a traffic jam on the M3/M27 down to pick my son up from Southampton airport and back to Stockbridge after having lunch with a friend who has a 2.7 RS and 356 Speedster led to a most enjoyable afternoon!
A classic car (IMHO) should be great to the eye and a joy to drive. The Dino does both of those. Last year I was fortunate enough to drive the same car down to Le Mans and back and it ran faultlessly. A great little car full of charm and whilst not super quick its roadholding is superb and invites you to push it and when it does step out its so progressive its a doddle to catch it.
Certainly a car that would be in my virtual collection.
The E Type however is a different story. I had a 3.8 Coupe and whilst I still think that they are gorgeous and sound fantastic they are not that noce to drive - sadly. However I have a nasty feeling that I will get tempted by one again!
I am interested in the comments on Elans as I have always thought that they would make a great "tour auto" type car

Simon:

I drove a 246 quite a bit in the early 70s.

They have always been one of my favourite cars. To drive!

Wonderful handling, as you say. And the wonderful evocative sound from those downdraft IDAs..................................

A timeless classic.

Agree about the E Type: had two, both Series 1 1/2 4.2s.

Brutish but fun.

Couldn't stop and didn't handle; and worst of all, the nose acted as a sort of reverse air dam, lifting the car onto a cushion of air which meant lots of fun at speed on motorways when cross-draft hit you under an overpass! :s

The thing is that both the E and the 246 were really cheap, comparatively, in, respectively, the 60s and the 70s.

Lots of car for the money!

I am interested in the comments on Elans as I have always thought that they would make a great "tour auto" type car

ask John Hugenholtz or John Sheldon, they used the Elan to win Tour Auto for the last number of years:)
Hugenholtz thinks either a Cobra or an Elan is a car to win. It was the Cobras who broke down during the recent editions

Carol Spagg's HMRN always has great shots each year an someone's Elan catching air on the Mallorca rally! Nick Faure (a man more well known for Porsches than elan's had one and we shared teh same mechanic at the time and he was forever telling me it was a bottomless pit!). with current FIA rules allowing S1's to be built to basically 26R spec it does make you wonder if they are an interesting bet.
Michael my father had a 246 GTS and sadly sold it in 76 for 5k - he was virtually crying in the early nineties!! He used to travel to Norfolk a lot at the time from his house near Silverstone and would leave at 6.30 am in the summer to enjoy the journey cross country without interruption from the local plod!

Different world then, Mate!

In the early 70s, I used to tow the Atlantic, at times, behind my Firenza 2.3 Sport thingy, using a four wheel, close coupled Don Parker trailer which was wonderfully stable.

Used to footle along the M1 to Silverstone, e.g., with the needle firmly sitting on "Made In England"!

Ho Hum..................................

For myself i had this at work with some mates and we all seem to agree that any thing thatt is no longer made is a classic that includeds anything

When it was formed (1954), it was going to be called the "Veterans" SCC, however the true Veteran's Club objected. Thus true veterans date to 1904: "Edwardians" are defined as from 1905 to 1916: and Vintage from 1919 to 1930.
Seeing as this topic has come up again, I thought I would just add a small note that in Australia the term Veteran is applied to any car pre-WW1 (well the end of it anyway). Vintage is pre-1930, after that I'm not sure there is a general agreement on terminology.

FYI, on University Challenge this week, the programme suggested that The Trabant, The original lumpy Skoda, the Lada were wait for this.......................Classic Cars!

I can't remember the other East European car included as I was too busy rolling on the floor and kicking my little legs in uproarous laughter: and throwing up, simultaneously!

Classic Car: one of the most abused misnomers of the 21st Cent.

FYI, on University Challenge this week, the programme suggested that The Trabant, The original lumpy Skoda, the Lada were wait for this.......................Classic Cars!



Talking about the above a mate of mine brought another piece of Iron Curtain crap in the 60s. A brand new Moskvitch ! I think it was 4 or 5 hundred quid and he found out that the braking system was made so badly made that it would never pass an MOT (when it was due for it) without spending loads of money. As it was it never got that far as it was written off when he ran into the back of a van. :)

In 1978/9, I was involved in a project to bring Chinese vehicles to the West.

Bill Riley (lovely guy: the grandson of the founder of Riley Cars and a very well recognised automotive and consulting engineer) was also a main part of the programme as he'd been headhunted by the Chinese government to assist them with a re-design of their vehicles.

We imported a Pekin Jeep: this was a "made Under License" Gaz large and lumpy 4 X 4.

To say it was agricultural would be to understate the case....................

Prior to Bill's involvement, the steering was so bad that new, the vehicle would wander from hard shoulder to central reservation on the widest bits of the M1 with the steering wheel dead centre!

Exciting!

It must have been like a James Cagney gangster movie, where they would show the driver going from lock to lock whereas the back projection showed the road was straight ! :rofl: :rofl:

Talking about the above a mate of mine brought another piece of Iron Curtain crap in the 60s. A brand new Moskvitch ! I think it was 4 or 5 hundred quid and he found out that the braking system was made so badly made that it would never pass an MOT (when it was due for it) without spending loads of money. As it was it never got that far as it was written off when he ran into the back of a van. :)


A guy I knew back then would only ever buy them Gordon,they did well to survive the treatment he gave them,driving over rough fields etc[he was a farmer]One day he brought the "Car" into the w/shop complaining about the play in the steering colomb,we pulled it apart only to find the colomb bushes to be just like the cardboard tube from a loo roll,guess what replaced it.:rofl: