Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

What Will Be a Future Classic?

17891012

Comments

  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    Here's what she said (from an alternate car universe):
    'Well, I guess I'm one of the "most socially inept enthusiasts," because I still love my Mustang II...and yes, it is the "despicable 1975 Mustang II Ghia notchback coupe with the half-vinyl roof!" Sure, it never had any power...but, it's still the most stylish car in the parking lot whenever I go to the supermarket!"
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Depends where you shop I guess.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 235,200
    Wow.... this really takes me back..

    My first new car was a '77 Mustang Cobra II with a 302-V8.. For '77, it was very quick.. But.. .probably the worst piece of crap ever produced.. By the time I sold it in 1982, with still under 50K, it was totally worn out..

    On another note, my girlfriend had one of the Mustang II Ghias with the landau roof.. White over red.. She sure was cute..

    The girl.. not the car.. :surprise:

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    I can't believe I am sticking up fot the '97 Malibu, but it was not a bad car.

    Back in '97 I had a choice for a company car . It was between a Taurus, Intrepid and a Contour. I went with the Malibu because it was totally new and seemed closest to being a Accord beater than anything Detroit ever made.

    Well, it was boring. It did not do anything great, but it did not do anything badly either. The v-6 was adequate, for 5 hp more than the 4 though it made a huge difference .

    It did like to eat lower control arms. I think I had them replaced 4 times in 60k miles.

    But as far as worst cars ever, no it does not belong on that list.
  • corvettecorvette Member Posts: 10,237
    The V6 had a good bit more torque than the four, which didn't hurt either. And, it was quieter. The four-cylinder was GM's Quad Four, which was regularly pilloried for its lack of refinement. Doubt it will be a future classic, though.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    I agree, Malibu wasn't a bad car. The article was about how it shouldn't have gotten a 'car of the year' type of award.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    I had a 2001 Malibu for a rental once. I didn't really like it, but it seemed okay for a rental car. The 3.1 V-6, which was up to around 170 hp by that time, was good for, say, a 0-60 launch, but didn't like higher-speed passing on the interstate. It was too plasticky inside for my tastes, and I think there was a squeak and rattle here and there. I also remember that when I closed the trunk lid, I could see the rear seatback jiggle.

    When I bought my 2000 Intrepid in November 1999, I looked at a few Malibus they had on the lot (it was a Chevy/Dodge/Isuzu dealer). They also had a 2000 Dodge Stratus that I looked at, and a couple 2000 Impalas. I liked the Stratus. It was about the same price as the Intrepid, but better equipped (sunroof, alloy wheels, a few extra things inside, etc). But I preferred the Intrepid's size, plus it had an engine that was both more powerful (200 hp versus around 165) and more economical (20/29 versus something like 19/27). I also didn't like the fact that the Stratus used a Mitsubishi 2.5 V-6, although in retrospect, I hear that turned out to be a pretty decent engine. I remember the Malibu just seemed cheap in comparison to either of those two, although the ones on the lot were a couple thousand $ less. The only Impalas were loaded LS models stickering around $25-26K, and they just didn't seem worth it to me. Plus I didn't like the Impala's cramped back seat (I don't care what the published specs say, it's CRAMPED!), high beltline, or interior design. I know a guy who drives a Dodge shouldn't rag on GM's interiors, but I swear the Intrepid, and Stratus, had much nicer interiors than the Malibu or Impala! Funny how these days it's just the opposite. GM has really gotten their act together with interior quality, while Mopar started slipping.

    I think for 1997 standards the car was a giant leap forward, especially compared to cars like the Chevy Lumina and the Corsica. And by 1997 standards, it probably stacked up well to the foreign competition. The Camry, which was new for 1997, seemed cheapened compared to the 1992-96 model. I think the 1994-97 Accord was a bit nicer than the Malibu...but it's not like it blew it out of the water or anything.

    But suddenly, it was 1998 and a new, improved Accord came out. Then we got a new Camry and Altima for 2002 and yet another Accord for 2003.

    GM has a habit of doing that...coming out with a car that seems as good as what the competition is offering, maybe even better in some respects, but then suddenly the competition redesigns and improves, and GM is left with a has-been. It happened with the first Saturn S-series. Happened with the 1997 Malibu. The 2008 Malibu seems like a nice change, but I hope it's not just a repeat of this cycle.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    I always thought the Malibu was benchmarked on the 1994 Accord and to a lesser extent the Camry of the same period. The bad part about that is that the Camry was renewed in 1997, and a very new Accord was introduced for 1998. Simply benchmarking the current models of the competition is never a good idea - by the time the Malibu hit the street, it was indeed a has-been. And then GM made the thing for way too long, in a fit of arrogance and shortsightedness.

    I remember a Malibu rental from that time too...the "hot" light was on the whole time, the radio didn't work, and the materials seemed pretty cheesy.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    You hit it right on the head. Detroit is always designing against the competitors LAST model, and no sooner do they do so successfully, then the competition rolls out the next generation, vastly improved. A good older example of this was the Cadillac Allante, which was designed against the already totally obsolete Mercedes 560SL.
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    at the time I think Motor Trend broke their Car into Import Car of the Year and Domestic Car of the Year. I agree the Malibu did not deserve an award, but in the context of 1997 it was one of the best new domestic offerings.

    What else was substantially new that could of beat the Malibu? The Chrysler triplets Cirrus,Stratus,Breeze were not better,and Fords Contour/Mystique would probably be tied with the Malibu.

    Would the C-5 Corvette have been out by then ? If so, then mistakes were made.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 235,200
    1997 was first year for C5

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    The Chrysler "cloud cars" came out for 1995, as did the Contour/Mystique, so neither of them would have been eligible for "Car of the Year".

    The Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick Century/Regal were new for 1997. I have more respect for those cars than I do the 1997 Malibu. But other than that and the C5 Corvette, I don't think there was really anything new on the domestic front.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    I had a 1995 Accord. I test drove a 1998 in Feb,1998 and traded in 95 immediately. The 1998 V6 EX or LX was great improvement over a very excellent 95 model. Every mfr was and still is chasing the Honda "standard".
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I read that Chevy will discontinue the Cobalt SS. This is another example GM killing a model after they finally get it right. The SS, which is available as a sedan for '09, in addition to the coupe which was introduced in '08, is generally regarded as the best Cobalt model, by a wide margin.

    This begs the question, then, of whether the Cobalt SS will one day be a collectible. It's fast, handles well, and relatively few of them will have been made before it goes out of production.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well it's an "interesting" car, and it goes like stink, so my feeling is that ANY car that goes fast will be somewhat collectible to someone, just for the fun value.

    But the Cobalt SS does not possess a number of important traits that any "strong collectible" should have---a) loved when new by many people b) prestigious or iconic image; c) interesting or attractive styling. The only attribute it DOES have is "performance or interesting engineering".
  • corvettecorvette Member Posts: 10,237
    I can't imagine that developing a Cruze SS with a higher-boost turbo, revised suspension, larger brakes/wheels/tires, and body kit would cost that much. But, when you're on the dole, every expenditure will be scrutinized by the public.

    If GM and Chrysler become American Leyland (government owned), they'll probably kill off anything remotely exciting, including the Corvette.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    The Corvette is an American icon. I can't imagine that it would get the ax when there are so many other easy targets.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It would never "get the ax". What would happen in the worst scenario is that the Corvette name would be sold off to a private concern that would continue building them.

    This is probably what is going to happen to Viper---which sells only about 1/3 as many cars as Corvette.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    The other thing that could happen to the Corvette if it remains a Chevy model is that GM may not allocate resources to introduce the next generation of this iconic model. I sure hope this won't happen, but it wouldn't be surprising if that's what happens.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    I don't think that it would be the end of the world to let the 'vette "coast" for a few years with only detail improvements. The current generation is pretty highly regarded. Does it really need to be any faster? :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    No it's already stupid-fast and well beyond the capabilities of 99% of the people who would buy one.

    If you even run over a fist-sized rock at 185 mph, you are dead meat.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I agree with what both of you said. The '09 Corvette is a really nice car, and a performance bargain.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yep, you cannot go any faster any cheaper, AND get over 20 mpg!!

    My only gripe about Corvettes is they do not seem to hold up cosmetically. After 4-5 years, you can see the wear and tear unless you are a very careful type.
  • boomchekboomchek Member Posts: 5,516
    I don't think that it would be the end of the world to let the 'vette "coast" for a few years with only detail improvements.

    You're right. After all the C3 vette stayed unchanged for 15 years, and the C4 for 14 years. So if this one debuted in 2005, and money is tight, we might not see any change until 2020. By then there will be either no Corvette, or some oddball hybrid version. :sick:

    By the way Oregonboy, my wife and I drove down the Oregon coast a few weeks ago and you guys have some of th most beautiful scenic highways. :shades:

    2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Corvette not totally highly regarded. Saw a review in WSJ recently where the tester/writer dumped on the poor interior of the ZR1.

    Another thing about the Vette is that it probably would do very poorly in a head-on.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yes but if a car has charisma and great performance, collectors forgive all kinds of faults. Look at vintage Ferraris for instance. If your new car had the reliability and build quality of a '65 Ferrari, you'd burn it.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    "Saw a review in WSJ recently where the tester/writer dumped on the poor interior of the ZR1."

    I was disappointed with that article, latest C&D loved it, and (surprisingly) Top Gear drove it, a CTS-V, and a Challenger SRT-8, and loved them all. They usually dump on our crude Yank iron.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The Corvette isn't "crude" (like the Viper). It's comfy, rides great, handles well enough if you don't push your limitations....what they are hammering on is the same old story for domestics----build quality and quality of materials.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    Oh, I agree on the Corvette, but Top Gear loves to dump on Corvettes in particular. That's why I was so surprised at their glowing review. They drove the 3 from San Francisco to Bonneville, then did standing start mile tests.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 235,200
    Saw the ZR-1 at the car show, today...

    It's pretty impressive... even without thinking of the 600+ hp ... :surprise:

    But... And, I think I have this right... there was a CTS-V.. $63K... 556 HP!!

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    $63K... 556 HP!!

    And world wide economic crisis...
    I think that we have reached some kind of pinnacle. Generations from now they will look back in wonder...

    Grampa! Grampa!... tell us a story about the the time of the auto-cars !!!! :surprise: :P :sick:
  • corvettecorvette Member Posts: 10,237
    The CTS-V (or STS-V) would work as a daily driver, the ZR-1, well, the first time you scrape that huge carbon fiber lip, I bet it costs well over $1,000 to replace.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I wonder if they fixed the CTS-V's shifter? Hope so! Last year the reviews were whining about it incessantly. And well... DUH...on a performance sedan, one would like a good shifter.

    How does GM let these things out the door? They MUST have fixed it. Any reviews on the new one?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    No, of course it'll never be a classic. Not even close. However, I could see the Genesis coupe becoming a collectible with a modest to moderate following, similar to, say, the 280 Nissan Zs and first generation ('84-'89) 300 ZXs, and Fox-platform Mustangs and similar era GM pony cars. What I'm suggesting is a level of collectability that supports a price that's significantly greater than the sedans (think '84-'89 Camry, Accord, Stanza or even Maxima) of these brands.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Mazda has announced that it has stopped production of this car. While the RX-8 may never qualify as a classic, I think it has all the makings of a special interest car; a unique powerplant, relatively low production, 4-doors, excellent performance and great handling qualities, pleasant and unique styling, reliability and practicality. I'll probably be in the market for one in a year or two. As a bonus, they'll be inexpensive when gas prices spike again.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    When I heard about this, I too thought it would be a great car to have.

    Slightly quirky (4 door sports car? More so than a Maxima, I should think), with the unique engine.

    My sister owned a Gen I RX-7 many years ago, and I was lucky enough to drive it on occasion. There really is nothing like a Wankel engine - if only they offered a bit more torque.

    It will be interesting to see what happens with the prices of used RX-8's after a year or two.

    Mazda has stated that they are committed to continue development of the rotary engine, but as of now there are no plans to bring anything to market.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    Interesting cars, but I look at what a pristine 25 year old RX-7 is worth today, and I am not wanting to rush out and buy the new version as any kind of collectible.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited September 2011
    Exactly---what happened to RX-7 pricing will happen to RX-8 pricing in my opinion anyway.....down and down until you can't believe it could go any lower.

    Why is this? Damned if I know. Buyers decide what is loved and unloved, and what to pay for various old cars. How do they decide these things? A mix of their opinion and media opinion I guess. We often only want something after everyone else expresses an interest.

    And they, the buyers, seem to have voted on old Japanese cars---occasionally they are merciful to them, but usually they have no interest in them as collectibles---with those few exceptions we can all name on the fingers of one hand.

    And even those exceptions are not big buck cars, but one (Toyota 2000GT).

    I don't see the Genesis or RX8 as anything more than an old beat up RX-7 in 20 years....scrap iron or a toy for a teenager with no money but in love with cars.
  • jessicamonroejessicamonroe Member Posts: 1
    I agree 100%. Modern cars to me will just become old, not become classics.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    I don't see the Genesis or RX8 as anything more than an old beat up RX-7 in 20 years....scrap iron or a toy for a teenager with no money but in love with cars.

    Generally, I'll agree with you, shifty, but given the low production numbers of the RX-8 over the past few years, I gotta believe that their value will eventually go up.

    Is the last gen RX-7 (twin turbo) worth more than a run of the mill 20 year old car?

    If nothing else, all the hooning and modding that takes place may make them more rare, if only through attrition (crashes and blown engines).

    On a recent episode of Top Gear (UK), they talked about a website that allows you to see how many of a particular make and model (and trim line) of any car are officially registered in the UK. One example they cited was the Vauxhall Chevette (our Chevy Chevette from the 70's & 80's). Apparently, there is only 1 with an automatic in the whole of England.

    Too bad there isn't a nationwide database here in the US that gives us the same information.

    "Hey, I've got the only '76 AMC Pacer with the Levi package in white! Woot woot!"

    :D :P
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah but the Mazda Twin Turbo is extremely rare, has more HP than an RX-8, is faster, handles better and is better looking. In short, it buries an RX-8 in every category that matters to collectors. For its day in 1993, there were few cars that could touch it, and nothing in its price class.

    It seems to meet the basic criteria for collectiblity--it had performance, it had good looks, it was rare, and it was *dominant* in its class. These are all things that make up (although don't guarantee) collectible status. Another criterion would be prestige, which the RX-7 didn't have.

    If your car had the 3Ps----prestige, performance and pretty---that's a long way toward collectibility. Add rarity and dominance and you'd pretty much have a lock on being a "classic" someday.

    So the RX-7 TT, in my opinion, has 4 out of 5---hence a "collectible" and yet very affordable.

    Try out that formula and have fun, with other cars you can think of:

    performance
    prestige
    rarity
    great looks
    dominance in its class

    The Genesis fails on most counts, even a 90s Corvette struggles. A Delorean flops on most. But a first generation Viper? Well, it meets at least 3 criteria.

    So I think the more criteria the car meets, the more valuable it gets.

    If you come up with a car that meets all 5 but is cheap to buy, then that represents, to me, an opportunity for appreciation in the future.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    Got it.

    Just for grins, I searched for every 1992 and newer RX-7 for sale in the US. 78 active on AutoTrader, with an average asking price of $16,500.

    For the RX-8, there are over 1500 for sale, with an average asking price of (gasp!) $16,700.

    So, I'll concede the point about the RX-7 being more collectible than the RX-8.

    Now, let's talk about the Nissan GT-R .... collectible or no?

    :P
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    The fun part is to see how little a 25-30 year old RX-7 is worth. The turbo is an anomaly, IMO.

    Re: GT-R, maybe a minor collectible or special interest car like older M and AMG cars - but I have to wonder how those electronics will age.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    The fun part is to see how little a 25-30 year old RX-7 is worth.

    My sister owned a Gen I RX-7. An '84 GS, IIRC, that she bought in 1986. She begged and pleaded with my parents to co-sign on the loan with her. I remember her payments being $262/mo and she worked her tail off each month to earn that money.

    She kept it until she got pregnant with her first son (1997) and sold it for $2200. She cried as the new owner drove off.

    I truly believe she would have kept that car if she could.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    That's a shame...probably should have kept it, arranged for someone to store it.

    You can get a nice earlier RX-7 for not much more than a few grand today.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    That's a shame...probably should have kept it, arranged for someone to store it.

    They needed something with a backseat. IIRC, they bought a '95 or '96 Infiniti G20. My BIL had an Acura Integra.

    Now, with 3 kids (14, 10 and 7), he has a 330i and she drives a Navigator.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah, Japanese cars have an awfully hard time becoming collectible, and rarely achieve a top tier collector status. The GT-R is not particularly rare, although its performance potential cannot be denied. If not 'dominant" in its class, it's darn close.

    So performance yes, prestige no, rarity no, dominance --not clearly defined, styling not particularly.

    So I'd say "doubtful" but with that much HP someone is always going to want one. I'd vote "minor collectible", never a classic. Like an NSX for instance...it may sit forever in the $20K class.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    From fun drivers cars to behemoth tanks. Good reason to not have kids :shades:
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    I think for the NSX, RX-7, and so on...if they don't start appreciating within a decade or so...it's never going to happen. NSX is 20 years old now, the Mazda over 30, and not much is going on yet. Not always a bad thing though, makes nice ones affordable.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    From fun drivers cars to behemoth tanks. Good reason to not have kids

    Yeah, my sister has bounced between a Tahoe, an Odyssey and the Navigator.

    But, all the boys are involved in team sports (baseball, football) and so they will need to cart around teammates and equipment to away games.

    I know my sister recently tried to sell the Navigator. Not sure what she was planning what to replace it with, however.
Sign In or Register to comment.