Future Collectibles--Make Your Prediction

b4z

I don't think there will be too many front wheel drive cars as future collectibles, they just don't engender passion in any one. Rear wheel drive is more reliable and durable,it is also better in performance applications. The dodge 5.9 R/T is really not that fast, does anyone remember the Dodge Lil Red Truck of the late '70s. That vehicle is more special and has character which the R/T doesn't have.
Most of the newer Japanese and European vehicle are hideously expensive to repair, which will rule out a lot of potential buyers.
The PT cruiser, while front wheel drive has potential.

Mr_Shiftright

Rarity is a funny thing with respect to collectibility....there is really a second hidden factor in the concept of "rarity" and that is:

someone has to CARE that it's rare.

From your list, jabilda, so far at least, the only car on the list that anyone seems to care about is the Impala SS, and even that is limited to a certain small segment of the collector car population. The others show no sign whatsoever of peaking collectors' interest.

Another good rule of thumb is that if a car generates LOTS of excitement when it is first introduced...I mean, MASSIVE excitement, this helps it along later in life when it comes time to assess its collectibility.

From your list, the only cars that caught most peoples eye when introduced were the SHO and Impala SS...the rest came and went in a media flash as I recall. The SHO has suffered because it has to use the Taurus name, which most people see as a very pedestrian car.

varmit

Shifty, I don't think that any modern car will be able to create the massive excitement that you're looking for. Boy, this whole topic is starting to look bleak. Why? Because people will never agree.

There's too much competition for the buyers attention and too many types of cars. The Impala SS will thrill many old-school gearheads, but will look like a bloated beast to the tuners in SoCal. While the S2K generated a big enough media splash, the high revving performance is too controversial.

To borrow an example from another industry, there will never be another group like the Beatles. Try to get a rap fan, a grunge guitarist, a country boy, and a pop diva to agree on good music. The Beatles had an advantage in that the medium (rock and/or roll) had not been segmented to the degree that it is today. The same applies to automobiles.

b4z

The impala ss will definitely be a collectible, because it has the LT1 engine and rear wheel drive. The '83-88 Monte Carlo SS will also because it is easy to modify and is rear wheel drive. These cars appeal to a relatively unsophisticated audience who know what they want.
The fwd Lumina Z34 and the present generation Monte Carlo SS will never become extra valuable.
THe Ferrari Modena has good future collectible status, as well as several other cars, such as the current Cobra and the Z06 Corvette.

Mr_Shiftright

I think that unlike other types of arguments, with collector cars people vote big time with their checkbooks. So if someone readily coughs up $30K+ for a GTO convertible, and only $2,500 tops for an Omni turbo, then to my mind the vote is in.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in fact there is a kind of "proof" of collectibility out there in the prices people are paying or not paying.

To put it more bluntly, if I think a Mercury Monarch is a collectible, and 99.9% of the people buying collectible cars don't think so, I'm probably wrong--not about liking it, or even about the car's possible merits, but about it's collectible status at the present time.

Let's see...what cars have created lots of media buzz lately....the Viper, the PT Cruiser (oddly enough the VW Passat AWD got a big writeup in the New York Times but I don't think that will make it collectible), the "new" T-Bird...cars like that.

speedshift

Yes, value is confirmed with checkbooks. It's the same in any market that moves with supply and demand and not government regulation. Willing buyer and willing seller, neither under undue duress. Anything else is just someone's opinion, informed or otherwise. Of course, market value can be, shall we say, enhanced. Create a situation where there's two or more bidders and the price goes up. And value varies from buyer to buyer. The guy who beats out fifteen other offers has a different perception of value than the guy who came in fifteenth or didn't even make an offer. I'm one of those people who thinks a market--in my case, real estate--has a logic of its own, at least 99% of the time. Self-preservation keeps most people from doing something really stupid with their money, especially when it's hundreds of thousands of dollars. The problem with predicting value is that there are usually only a limited number of players in the market at any given point, and one extremely motivated player can skew the results.

Mr_Shiftright

There are always spikes and lows in sales results, but this is why one has to study a wide range of cars being sold, not just what happened to one Ferrari at one auction. An astronomical price paid for, say, a 1957 Chevy convertible recently (around $75,000!) does not mean that '57 Chevy convertibles are now worth $75K. We would have to find hundreds of points of sale, sort them by condition, throw out the extreme highs and lows, and come up with numbers. This is, I think, the way it should be done if collectors are going to make informed purchases. The experienced collector knows all this, of course. "Asking" prices and freak high prices are pretty worthless in determining actual value.

speedshift

Right, although you can bet sellers will want to use that $75k sale as the latest benchmark. And their '57 will be better.

There's often little logic in asking or list prices. Or if there is logic, it has more to do with marketing than actual value.

In a rapidly rising market the problem is determining whether the latest freak price is just that, or in fact the latest benchmark. In my market it's usually the latter.

Mr_Shiftright

It really depends on whether the results are repeatable time and time again...unlike some commodities, each car is different. What the price of the '57 Chevy "proved" was that a spectacularly overrestored '57 Chevy being bid on by very affluent bidders sipping champagne in Monterey, California can bring $75,000. Probably, most correctly restored ones will bring about half that.

But yes, every '57 Chevy owners heart leaps when he/she reads those kind of weird sales.

b4z

Its interesting that rarity is one of the predictors of collectiblity, but some of the most collectible cars are produced in huge quantities.
Mustang, Camaro '67-69, GTO, Chevelle, etc.
'55-57 Chevys for $75,000 when there were hundreds of thousands produced? Wow!
Back in 1980 a friend of mine whose family owns a chrysler dealership had 2 Superbirds for sale, $5000 for each. What are they worth now $100,000?
Who knew?

b4z

I guess you could have bought $5000 worth of microsoft stock and it would probably be worth more than $100,000. But it probably wouldn't have given us the same enjoyment.

isellhondas

You could have bought MSFT stock a year ago and lost your a**!

It's no different in Real Estate. R.E. agents use "comps" when determining what a house is worth.

Naturally if a house in a neighborhood sells for way over market, for whatever reason, the sellers will be quick to point that number out to their agent.

On the other hand, if a house gets "cheap sold" for way under market, the seller will, of course figure there was something wrong with the house or something.

Most agents and appraisers will throw out the extreme high and low prices when determining values.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, but not ALL 57 Chevys are valuable, only the rare models....a 4-door plain jane 6 cylinder 57 Chevy is just a used car today. The $75K '57 Chevy was a convertible, had all the options, and was, I believe, fuel-injected, making it a very very rare version of the mass-produced car.

This is why modern cars won't be very valuable--not only are there too many of them made, but they are all the same...the fact that one has pink sun visors isn't enough to make them "rare".

carnut4

when you said "all the same." It's true-all modern cars ARE pretty much all the same. Usually only one or two engine drivetrain options, only one or two body styles, etc. Back in the fifties, and sixties, A Chevy could be had with many different body styles, engine drivetrains, and trim and color options. But only the ones with the rarer and more desirable options survived the crusher-and that's why they're so desirable today.
I might also say that the styling of cars was much more distinguished between makes, and some definitely looked better than others, due to proportions, clean lines, or whatever. I remember thinking the 55-57 Chevs were classics when they were new, and I was a 10 year old kid, because there was just something about that combination of clean lines, proportions, color, and trim. And of course the small block V8 helped. Todays cars all pretty much look the same-from a distance of fifty feet, say, could you pick out which was which in a ten car line up of Camry clone or BMW clone 4door sedans?

dgraves1

I think some of that has to do with perspective and when you grew up. I'm sure to a kid today (heck, even to me), all '50s cars look the same. When I see a '50s car from a distance, I can't tell you whether it's Ford, Chevy or Chrysler product, I just know it's a big old car. Anything from the late '60s or early '70 though and I'll tell you make, model and year(sometimes)from 100 yards away

b4z

Or i can take the comp of a similiar home from another neighborhood where homes are selling for more over to my subject property. Show a potential buyer the value and sell it to them. I will then get an appraiser to use one comp from the subject neighborhood and three from the higher priced neighborhood. Viola! We have our price.
Unfortunately this usually doesn't work with cars.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, it's different for cars than "real" estate. For one thing, you have many more private sales than in home sales so the price is not inflated as much by agents' commissions (although dealer used cars are generally higher because he has the best merchandise as a rule).

dgraves--I'm not really buying the idea that cars look all the same to me these days because I'm not 16 anymore. I pay just as much attention now as I did then and modern cars still have a certain sameness (with notable exceptions). I bet you if I pulled the badges off 10 different Japanese cars and rolled them past you on the road, you'd have a real hard time identifying them. A Benz you could spot or a BMW, but Nishondayotaturnaurusillac?

carnut4

All fifties cars look the same?? C'mon now! Are you telling me you if you line up a 55 Ford, Chevy and Plymouth they all look the same? Or how 'bout a 57 Chev, Ford, and Plymouth? They all look the same?? Jeez-when was the last time you went to a collector car swap meet? Just look in a book, like Consumer Guide's "Cars of the Fifties" I think there were more changes from year to year, and model for model, than any other decade ever. Like Shifty says, take the badges off of ten Japanese cars today, and they all look the same. I just don't see how you can say all fifties cars look the same. Every single year, there were styling changes, sometimes drastic and radical, for almost every single car. Compare a 1950 Cad, for example, to a '59...what? Oh well, of course you're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the input.

dgraves1

I don't know, I guess I've just never been interested enough in cars from that era to pay much attention.
If you lined up a 55 Chevy, Ford and Plymouth, would they all look the same? Not the same but there is a similar look and scale and, if you took the badges off, I couldn't tell you which was which. If you did the same thing with a Civic, Corolla and Sentra, I'm sure a 16 year old would have no problem telling you which was which.
Anyhow, didn't mean to tick anyone off. It was just a thought.

speedshift

No, I can understand how '50s cars might all look alike to someone under, say, 30. They don't look alike to me, but then I grew up at a time when knowing the difference between a '55 and '56 Ford was a big deal. But most '30s cars look alike to me, except for the ones that show up in car books like Cord and the Airflows. And I can't tell you much about cars between 1974 and 1990, after the Golden Age and before I started buying/leasing new cars. I think most of us know and care about only a fairly narrow range of cars.

carnut4

Yeah, you pretty much said it. But I think even today, there are alot of young carnuts who know the old ones as well-maybe not like we do, but because they're really interested in cars, they check it out. I grew up in the fifties, and saw all those flashy styling changes, so today's cars seem rather bland and boring-basically the same shapes-kind of like the thirties cars were-rounded, bulbous shapes. I mean, today's Camrys, Accords, and Subarus look EXACTLY the same, form year to year, and they seem to copy each other's bland styling. Monotone plastic. Not that they aren't better cars, for handling, brakes and performance, but it's like my neighbor said about his Honda Accord-after riding in my 55 Pontiac "oh, it's a good enough car-there's just something missing..."

dgraves1

Funny, I thought Speedshift was supporting my point, that for many of us, we know a great deal about cars from short periods of time, typically around the time of our first car. For you guys that is the '50s. For me it is the late '60s, early '70s. When I first became interested in cars, cars from the fifties were just older used cars, not new enough or old enough to really notice. The more you know, the more discriminating you are. What may be glaringly different to you, could be a fairly subtle difference to me. I'm sure a wine connoisseur who could tell which vineyard a particular Bordeaux came from, would be incredulous that I couldn't really tell the difference betwen a $10 bottle and a $100 bottle of wine.

speedshift

Hey, I'm a supportive kind of guy--I'll support anyone's position. ;-)

But seriously, you've both got valid points. If you're a car nut you should know the cars you grew up with. I'll never confuse a '57 Ford with a '57 Plymouth, but that's because I was around when they were new. I'm tempted to say that car spotting might have been easier and more fun in the '50s, when each manufacturer had a strong styling identity, but that's probably subjective. I have a feeling that Hondas and Toyotas speak to kids today just as clearly as portholes and fins did to us boomers. If they don't, they're in trouble. Even though I know better, I was seriously considering leasing a Le Sabre because of all the old Buick styling cues it has, and I'm about twenty years younger than the average Le Sabre buyer.

carnut4

Not many guys are as mad about cars as I am. Actually, when I first started really getting into it, the 60's were the hot item. I remember when the 70 Camaro and Firebird came out, and how much I wanted one. [couldn't afford it] and I've really paid close attention to ALL cars all along. I didn't start really losing interest in buying any new car until the nineties, when it appeared they all seemed to be trying to look like either the Lexus or BMW. I always liked the 89-94 Nissan Maximas-still do-in fact I've thought about buying a good used one, and maybe tweaking it up a bit. There are certain other newer ones I admire, like the MR-2s, the Mazda Miata, some RX-7s, and some others-most of which are priced way over my head. I never knew or cared much for lots of cars except those from the late 50's or 60's when I was a young driver just starting, but I've done enough reading and watching since I could probably spot most any car from 1930 on up to about 1990-when they really started not changing much if any at all from year to year-and to me, anyway, they all pretty much look the same. Hey it's OK if it's different for you. I can't tell a $10 wine from a hundred either-except what it does for my wallet.

dgraves1

I knew we could find common ground. My two cars are a 90 Maxima SE and a 92 MR2 turbo.

rea98d

When I first got interested in cars was in elementary school in the mid 80's, and the only thing I can think of from that time anybody thought was cool was cars from the 50's, especially everyone's favorite 57 Chevy. Not surprisingly, its 50's cars that I most like as far as styling goes. Now if only I could have a 55 T-Bird with a modern 4.6 DOHC fuel injected engine and a Jag IRS rear suspension ;-) Ah well, I can at least dream.

carnut4

Cars like that are out there in the form of street rods. Old body style, anywhere from the past, with modern drivetrains and running gear.
Even years ago, I remember a stunning 34 Ford 2dr sedan, with an all Corvette suspension, engine and running gear. Those old 2seat TBirds are still worth so much stock they usually leave them that way, but I've seen at least one with modern engines, disc brakes, and rack and pinion steering. It's like having all the advantages of driving a modern, efficient car today, with the style of an old "classic" body style. I'm looking for one right now!

isellhondas

I guess...

Personally, I like to see cars as original as possible. I still admire the modified cars, but to me, anyway, they just aren't the real thing.

More sensible? Perhaps, but to me, that would be butchering that beautiful old T-Bird.

carnut4

I prefer old cars in their original form too-I'd never change my 55, or any other original car in good shape. But I must say, I didn't much care for the "street rods" until a few years ago, when I drove a friend's 67 Nova. It put that gleam back in my eye-the one I had in the 60's, bombing around in the muscle cars of the day. Now, I like 'em both ways. It's the driving experience that gets you.

Mr_Shiftright

I think it's perfectly fine to chop up, modify or improve older cars that are not rare models and don't have a chance of appreciation, like 4-door sedans or "orphan" cars that nobody much cars about in their original state. Of course, some 4-doors would be good as parts supplies for the convertibles and two door hardtops, so that's something to consider.

rea98d

My opinion on "modifying" classics is that, fo one, I want I car that I like. I can't see spending the money people sink into concours restorations to put the car to someone elses specs. FWIW, I feel if the factory had had access to our modern technology back in the 50's cars would have had computers under the hoods. Aside from that, if say, someone took my theoretical Thunderbird, and dropped a 4.6 engine under the hood, they'd have an engine with almost the same displacement as the original (281 vs. 289 cubic inches), all the power of the original, if not more, use half the gasoline, have an engine which iss till in production, making parts all the easier to get (not that its hard to find stuff for a 289,;-), and have a good candidate for a daily driver without spoiling the car's driving characteristics. Of course, feel free to disagree (as I'm sure most of you will), but I'd rather fix an old car up the way I like it, not the way Henry Ford liked it in the 1950's.

isellhondas

Who used to cut out the rear wheel wells on 55-57 Chevys and Corvettes so they could mount slicks?

Talk about permantely BUTCHERING a car!

carnut4

Corvettes with crude wheel wells for slicks. I still cringe when I think of it. They ruined those things. I remember a guy with a 65 El Camino, [back in 67] who'd put some slicks on the rear that were OK for most conditions on the street, but if there was any serious wheel movement, he'd rub the wheel wells. Know what he did? One day out at a bike hill climb, the rough parking lot made his his tires rub,so he actually took a hacksaw and cut out his wheel wells. Jeez! It made my teeth hurt just to watch! I think a good example of an upgraded classic are the 55-57 Chevs with a modern 350, Turbo 350 trans, modern steering kit and disc brakes. You can have a thoroughly upgraded 55 Chev that looks almost dead stock original, but what a difference in the steering and brakes! Not to mention the power of a 327 or 350 over a 265 or 283. I don't care for the street rods with chopped and channeled bodies, wild customs. I like a car that looks all stock in and out, and either all stock running gear, or tastefully, correctly done upgrade mechanicals that blend well with the car.

speedshift

Just a minor correction, before someone jumps on you with all four feet: the early Thunderbirds came with "Y-blocks" that had 292 and 312 CID. These engines are heavier than the 289 but make up for it by not breathing as well.

rea98d

Oh well, shows to go you why I'm not a math major ;-)

jabilda

the Buick Grand National. I'm really not a GM man, but wasn't this a V-6 turbo with chips that could be replaced? I remember liking the body style (before GM went more rounded in the late 80's) and that it was a cool black color with the Grand National insignia on the side. Has anyone mentioned this and / or know the resale?

Mr_Shiftright

The GN seems to be pulling stronger values than most 80s car, for sure. It's a kind of niche car, but the right buyer will pay decent money for one...it seems most fall in the mid-teens, $15,000 or so, but prices are all over the place, and I don't know as people actually pay some of the asking prices of $20,000 you see occasionally. The GNX is quite a bit more valuable. Certainly it's one of the strongest, if not THE strongest, American car collectible to emerge out of the otherwise rather dismal 80s. Probably it's so popular because everything else was so bad.

As for looks, this is, of course, a subjective thing, but to me it looks pretty ugly and dated compared to the "classics" that came before and the beautiful cars we have now. But again, this is often in the eyes of the beholder.

rea98d

To think a BUICK would be the decade's most collectable car. The 80's really were bad!

isellhondas

Have you ever ridden in a Grand National or seen one blast off?

They are actually pretty incredible!

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, I've ridden in a GN and it's a just a Buick T-Type with some different paint and maybe 235HP. I think my Alfa 164 4-door could hold up very well against it in acceleration and certainly outhandle it. It's not very impressive by modern standards. You might be thinking of a GNX, which is much faster and, more important, quite a bit rarer than the GN...they made thousands and thousands of the GN, I think 20,000 in 1987 alone. The GNX was only produced in a quantity of some 500 or so (approximately).

The GNX is an awesome performer, and the fastest American production car of the 80s I think, but both the GNX and the GN are typical 1980s cars with the accompanying quality and aesthetics of that period.


But GNXs do bring pretty good money and are definitely a collectible car these days.

isellhondas

The GNX that is. Never been in one but did see one blast off at the drag strip once.

Not bad for a street car.

Are you sure they only built 500 of these? I know I've seen at least two of them.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, 547 of them were built by GM and modified by ASC/McLaren...aside from the engine mods, they have a different suspension from a normal GN, as well as flared wheel arches, vents in the fenders, special badging, special wheels, etc. Unlike a lot of GM's "special editions", this car really was a heavily modified GN, hence its much higher value and its rarity.

b4z

I road in one once, we were going about 30 mph and he floored it. It kicked down so hard that it practically ripped the transmission out of the car!! It then proceeded to leave two 15 foot black marks on the street.
These cars actuallly sold for about $25,000 new
and were faster than the corvette.
The engine was rated at 276 hp. it actually put out about 300 hp. If they had rated it higher then the Turbo Hydramatic division would not have let them use the weak THM 200R4 transmission.
I almost bought a GN in 1987 for about $15,000, but the interior was so awful looking that i couldn't do it.

Mr_Shiftright

They are selling for about their MSRP in 1987, so they aren't really all that "hot" compared to some collectibles, but still, if you can "get your money back" after 23 years (not counting inflation, of course) that's better than what happens to the value of 95% of all cars.

Yeah, it's not a very pretty car, and that's probably one thing holding it back. If it didn't have all that horsepower, it probably wouldn't be of any interest to anyone.

b4z

There are some posts missing. The sixties were the best for styling.
Everytime i see a early 60's bubbletop impala i am amazed, this car is amazing inside and out. What GM is building now is truly horrible.

Mr_Shiftright

Due to the software changeover, some posts between last Wednesday and this Friday noon will be lost, probably forever. So please feel free to repeat yourself!

Shifty the Host

isellhondas

But, I REALLY do NOT like this new format at all!

speedshift

some of my best material was lost.

ndance

I REALLY REALLY don't like the new format. Sorry.

Mr_Shiftright

You'll get used to it I think, but yes, there are some features of the old software that were handy.
There really isn't a lot of great conferencing software out there to choose from.