The Transformative Cars Of The '90s
hpmctorque
Member Posts: 4,600
While these cars are too new to qualify as classics, some are beginning to qualify as collector cars. Are they still too new for inclusion on this board? That's for Shifty to decide, but one rationalization for including them is that these are cars from the previous century. The first ones were produced in '89. To my eyes, they're beginning to look ripe
The '90s was a transformative decade, in the sense that quality and performance generally made great advances. On the negative side, cars became increasingly complex, and the number of standard and optional features increased significantly. The practical effects of the greater complexity, especially of the electronics, is that it threatens the future collectability of these cars. This is a new phenomenom.
Your thoughts? Which '90s cars are your candidates as future collectibles and classics?
The '90s was a transformative decade, in the sense that quality and performance generally made great advances. On the negative side, cars became increasingly complex, and the number of standard and optional features increased significantly. The practical effects of the greater complexity, especially of the electronics, is that it threatens the future collectability of these cars. This is a new phenomenom.
Your thoughts? Which '90s cars are your candidates as future collectibles and classics?
Tagged:
0
Comments
On the foreign front, what about stuff like the Supra, 300ZX, and Mazda RX-7?
and some of GM's supercharged cars from the late 90's might have some kind of minor collector interest.
It's hard to believe that the 1990 cars are now 21 model years old. I bought my '69 Dart in September of 1989, just as the '90's were coming out. That Dart seemed downright ancient. And even my '80 Malibu, just 10 model years old at the time, seemed as if it were from another era.
Yet today, a 21-year old car, if it's been fairly well-maintained at least, just doesn't seem THAT old. But, for the most part, not that much has changed since then. Cars have been improved upon, to be sure. But 21 years ago, we had plenty of FWD, fuel injection, computer controls, an airbag here and there, OHC, automatics with more than 3 forward gears (going from a 4-speed to a 5 speed isn't that big of a deal IMO, compared to going from a 3 to 4-speed was). Composite headlights, flush window glass, aerodynamic styling, etc.
And styling really hasn't advanced so much in the past 21 years, but rather recycled, regurgitated, and repackaged, and then marketed as something new.
Design evolution and survival rates (lack of rust compared to the old days) are responsible. Looking at cars which still look fairly modern - 92 Taurus, 92 Civic, Lexus SC, Supra, RX7, Z, MB 140, BMW 850, and many others - all in effect 20 years old now. But they seem new compared to how a 20 year old car looked 20 years ago. And many ~15 year old cars look a generation newer - Neon, Ram, Mustang, Contour, MB 210...compared to a 1975 car in 1991, it's crazy.
I don't see much from Europe being a big collectible, I think electronics will do some of them in, and cosmetic quality can be iffy too. Mostly tuned models will survive - AMG and M cars. I doubt there will be many pre-1998 Audis around in 20 years.
Weren't the supercharged Regals good for 0-60 in about 6.0 seconds?
1997-2005 Park Ave crash test.
And for comparison: 2006+ Lucerne crash test.
Now, for the time, the Park Ave actually did pretty good. It scored high ratings for driver and passenger protection. But still, look at the improvement with the Lucerne. there doesn't even appear to be any buckling of the door frame or A-pillar, as there was with the Park Ave.
I'm among the few that likes the '96-99 Taurus better than the refreshed '00.
The '92 Civic was a significant improvement over the boxy previous platform, and while the '96 looked like a refresh, I think it was an all-new platform. I remember a comment in one report on the '92 Civic, to the effect that "if Mercedes made a small car, this would be it." Good as it was in its day, one area that Honda never got right with the Civic, or, to a lesser extent with the Accord, is sound insulation. The high level of road noise that permeates the cabin detracts from the perception of quality. Of the mass market brands, VW does this much better than Honda.
Some features do seem of debatable value, but I think the structural integrity of cars has improved a lot, like in Andre's crash tests. This is true for "safe" makes" as well - in the 90s some of them performed in crash tests in a way that would make people scream today - the initial run of MB W210 was pretty iffy. There aren't many really unsafe cars sold in the first world anymore.
I always thought the Olds Intrigue was a sharp looking car too. But, IIRC, those only came with the regular 3800, or the "shortstar" 3.5 DOHC V-6, which could be pretty troublesome.
I was thinking the 96 Civic was a refresh and the 01 was all new...but I was never really into those. The period Accords were really good cars too, although the nicely proportioned 90-93s seem to rust out even here.
The 1992 was just a refresh. It was more handsome looking IMO, but at the same time, less bold and daring. My grandparents on my Dad's side of the family had an '89 LX, and a '94 GL. The '89 seemed like an awesome car at the time, but the '94 just seemed like a very nice rental car. Granddad gave up driving in 2004, when he turned 90. Offered to give me the car. It only had about 35-40,000 miles on it. But I really didn't need it, and every time I drove or rode in that car, I swear I smelled antifreeze, so I figured there was something wrong with it. One of my cousins ended up getting it, and, sadly, beat the hell out of it. I saw it on Easter Sunday, 2009, when we went to their house. Had about 85,000 miles on it, but you could tell it was getting ragged out. I remember Granddad walked over to it and looked at it, sad look in his face, shaking his head back and forth. It looked almost like a brand-new car when he had given it to them.
When the refreshed 2000 Taurus came out, I took Granddad to look at them. He was in the mood for a new car, and wanted me to go with him. He usually traded every 3-4 years, so in his mind, he was way overdue. However, he took one look at that 2000 Taurus, which I actually liked, and refused to take a test drive. The salesman had to almost beg him to even sit in the thing!
I liked the 1992 Civic a lot. In fact, I think the 2nd-gen Dodge Intrepid bears a very slight resemblance to it. I knew two people who had them, and their experiences were like polar opposites. First, some friends of mine from college and church, a married couple, wanted a small car, and I recommended the Civic. While I may be pro-domestic, I do think the Japanese still do small cars better, and even more so back in those days. Alas, the 1994 EX automatic (or whatever they called the top level model) Civic my friend bought blew two head gaskets and needed a/c work, in the course of about 80,000 miles. They replaced it with a 1998 or so Saturn S-series. Probably one of the few examples of someone deserting the Japanese for a domestic. Last time I saw them though, they had a 2003-2007 era Corolla, so I guess the Civic didn't totally scare them away from the Japanese.
On the flip side, one of my supervisors at work bought a 1992 or 93 Civic, stripper model with a stick shift. I think it finally gave out around 200,000 miles, and he abused the hell out of it.
I think the main reason I preferred the Intrigue was that the interior just seemed nicer than the Regal. But, unfortunately, still not nice enough to woo the import buyers Olds was trying to go after.
An interesting side note is that the '96 Taurus also used oval cues in the dash board.
By the late '80s the president of Ford, Jacques Nasser, focused on the notion that the mass market was too much of a commodity play, and that Ford's profits and future could be greatly enhanced by focusing on his newly created Premium Auto Group (PAG). Management's attention and the company's resources were thus diverted from the bread and butter Ford and Mercury models, and directed at competing in the luxury market, with newly purchased brands. Although Lincoln was included in the PAG, it was allowed to languish. The exception to that was the Lincoln Navigator, which was very successful and profitable.
It should be noted that Ford Motor Co. was hugely profitable from the late '80s-mid '90s. However, Nasser's bungled strategy and botched execution reversed the company's hard-fought sales and profit gains, and practically sank the company.
The point of summarizing this history is that the '96 oval design probably wasn't a mistake. While the company worked on addressing its quality deficits, the idea of compensating with new design was probably sound.
What are your thoughts on the oval look?
I actually preferred the underdog partner to the Taurus, the Mercury Sable! I thought it looked better from 1996-99, and the 2000+ had a nice, upscale look to it.
When the '96 Taurus came out, didn't Ford start dumping them into fleets and such to keep the production numbers high, so they could still claim #1 car in America, over the Camry and Accord? I remember the original Taurus managed to do that without padding production, although perhaps in later years, maybe they did it with the '92-95 to a degree, as well?
If anything, that massive fleet-dumping might have served as a turning point, tarnishing Ford's image.
Don't know for sure, but it's probably true.
"...maybe they did it with the '92-95 to a degree, as well?"
I vaguely remember that to be true, but it's been too long to say for sure without statistics to support it. If it was indeed true, too much reliance on fleet sales would have been an additional factor which may have prompted Ford to swing for the fences with the '96 redesign.
I think those '93 LH cars really pushed the concept of aerodynamic style, taking it a step beyond the Taurus/Sable. One problem I had with the Taurus/Sable is that, while they certainly looked sleek and modern, I just never thought they were all that attractive. In contrast, I thought the Concorde/Vision/Intrepid, and then the New Yorker/LHS which followed for 1994, were gorgeous!
But yeah, the quality on them was horrible. The one good component in them was the 3.3 V-6, which, IIRC, was designed by the same guy who designed the Slant Six, so it was durable and fairly easy to work on.
There was a lady at work who had a 1994 Vision with the 3.3, and she got it to around 160,000 miles on the original engine and transmission, before giving it to her son. She always carried on about what a piece of crap it was, but I think it was because it had computer problems that made it stall out, and the dealer couldn't find the issue.
I've heard that the 1996-97 models aren't too bad with regards to reliability, but the redesigned 1998-04 models were still much better. Although with them you have to watch out for the 2.7, which can be sludge-prone. Supposedly the internal water pump is a problem too...when it fails, you get coolant mixing in with the oil, spreading through the engine, and that's often enough to kill it.
I still remember, one day back around 1993 or 1994, seeing an Intrepid ES on a Dodge showroom floor in Silver Spring (Sport Auto Sales Park I think it's called, off Route 29), and just about fainting when I saw the $25K price tag. Who ever would've thought that one day a Dodge would be $25K!? Of course, nowadays it's not hard to get a Hemi Charger or Challenger up over $40K!
Back in the day my mother actually test drove a pretty loaded Eagle Vision, and she liked it - but her old mechanic friend warned against it (the brand was about to be orphaned at this time). Probably wasn't the worst decision.
I remember around 1995 a good friend of mine's father got a Concorde as a company car, and in 1999 was promoted to a new 300, seemed pretty fancy.