By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I still think that's a bit optimistic though, at least in 0-60. The '51-52 Windsor was the same sized body as the Firedome, and the 331 Hemi only had 20 more hp (180) than the DeSoto 276.1 Hemi (160). So it seems odd to me that the Saratoga could hit 60 in 10 seconds, while the Firedome took 17.
Of course, who did the original test can make a huge difference. If Motortrend or C&D or their forefathers tested the Saratoga and Consumer Reports tested the Firedome, heck that could be most of the difference right there! :P
~110 mph sounds reasonable for the Saratoga, which, if accurate, makes >100 but <110 plausible for the Firedome DeSoto.
Still, 180 HP pushing 4,000 lbs past 100 mph would require tall gearing seems to me....which would mean not so great acceleration. That's a lot of weight to move from inertia.
To be fair, for 1952 that "little" Hemi was a great engine compared to the primitive wood stoves installed in most domestic cars of the time.
Other great engines IMO for the time were of course the short-stroke Olds V8, the Cadillac V8, the venerable Hudson flathead (which could put out some power, unlike most FHs)and the brilliant Jaguar dohc inline 6. The first Ferrari V-12s were appearing about at this time, too, as was the world's first V-6, from Lancia.
In 1954 Chrysler got the 331 Hemi up to 235 hp, so I'm sure that must've been pretty gutsy. And of course, in 1955 history was made (well, domestic history, at least) when the C300's 331 put out 300 hp, the first production car to do so.
I think those old 2-speed transmissions used in 1954-56 must've held back a lot of power compared to the 3-speeds that started showing up in '57. IIRC first gear was 1.72:1 in the 2-speed and 2.45:1 in the 3-speed. They'd give the 2-speed a quicker rear-end, but still not enough to make up the difference. In the 1956 300B though, they did offer a rear-end of something like 6.07:1. That must've made it pretty brutal from 0-60, at least. But then I'd imagine at 60 mph in top gear, you'd be pulling about 4500 rpms, and you'd redline long before seeing 100.
I'd imagine that the high-output versions of the Hemi, like the Letter Series, Adventurer, and D-500 options, could rev better, but I think most of the "regular" Hemis, hit their peak hp around 4400-4800 rpm and redlined around 5500.
I don't know about the tall gearing requirement for high top speed, because of the poor aerodynamics of those '50s cars. As you correctly pointed out in an earlier message, Shifty, these engines didn't rev too high, but I'm thinking that most of the new OHV V8s revved enough to push those beasts - albeit reluctantly - to 100 + a few if, IF their gearing was low enough to compensate for the wind resistance. I don't think they would have had enough power to hit 100 with tall gearing, but they generally had lower gearing than the cars of the '60s and later.
By the way, the relatively small displacement 160 hp DOHC early '50s Jag Mark (whatever) sedan could top 100, and could spank the early Mopar hemis and GM V8s at higher speeds.
I imagine that the twin carb Hudson Hornet, and maybe the straight 8 Parkards of the early '50s could also squeak past the century mark, but I'm only guessing. I think a larger percentage of Hudsons and Packards were equipped with manual transmissions than their Big 3 counterparts. What do you think, Shifty?
But on the downside, those short ratios meant that the engines hit their peak power at a fairly low speed. I think those early Hemis usually peaked around 4400 rpm. And if I'm doing the math right, that would come right at about 100 mph with a 3.73:1 rear end. And assuming I did the math right. I looked up the tire specs for a '52 Windsor at Cokertire.com. The stock tire was an 8.20-15, which they say has a diameter of about 29". So that would put it at about 700 revs per mile (and 700 revs per minute at 60 mph) So I figure if you do 100/60*700*3.73, that'll roughly give you the engine rpm at 100 mph. Of course, it doesn't take into account stuff like wind resistance, friction, slippage on the tires, etc.
Anyway, a slightly taller (numerically lower) rear end might achieve a higher top speed. For instance, a 3.54:1 rear in the same car would be doing about 4100 rpm@100, so it might hit its 4400 peak around 108-110 mph. Above that though, I guess once your revving past your peak, you're going to lose power...and speed.
But then if you put some really tall rear-end in, like a 2.45:1 (that's whay my '79 NYer has, and was probably unheard of back in the early 50's), it might only be pulling around 2800 rpm@100 mph in theory, but in actuality it might not put out enough power at 2800 rpm to get to 100 mph. And it might not be able to downshift, either, because the lower gear might over-rev it.
At least, that's my guess on it.
Your comments regarding weight and acceleration are correct.
But for the most part, I'd imagine the typical axle of an early 50's V-8 was in the mid-to-high 3.XX range.
Oh yeah, I forgot about overdrive. That probably allowed them to use quicker axle ratios for better low-end performance, while cutting down the highway revs for better economy. In the 1980's, when overdrive transmissions started coming back into style, Ford took advantage of that. IIRC, the big Fords with the 4-speed overdrive used an axle of around 3.00:1, which helped both low end performance and fuel economy. When GM started using them though, they tended to use the same tall axles, so you didn't get any low-end performance, but at highway speeds the engine was revving so low it felt like it was going to stall! I think that helped GM with the CAFE crap, though.
3.54 seems about right for the '53 Firedome, which would have permitted it to top 100 mph. I think that a 3.73 ratio would have too, if only modestly.
To clarify, my reference to overdrive related to manual transmissions, not the 4-speed OD automatics introduced in late the early '80s. Engagement of OD, back in the day, generally occurred at a minimum speed of ~28 mph, and was similar to shifting the Chrysler semi-automatic; you lifted your foot from the acclerator and waited for a clicking sound. The click signaled that the upshift had occurred. Downshifts out of OD occurred by flooring the accelerator, or by dropping below the minimum speed. OD could be engaged in any of the three forward gears, essentially providing six forward ratios, although some flathead sixes struggled to reach the minimum speed in first, or simply couldn't. All of them could reach it easily in second, thereby providing a minimum of five forward ratios; first, regular second and OD second (the equivalent of second and third), and regular third and OD third (equivalent to fourth and fifth). The vast majority of drivers only engaged OD third, which, of course, was the purpose of OD. OD first and second were only for fooling around, although they could be useful on mountain roads. The maximum speed for engaging OD corresponded with the maximum speed the car could go in the non-OD gears. Since the norm for American cars was only three forward gears, versus four for most European cars, OD was a useful feature, if somewhat cumbersome.
On the issue of acceleration, while its true that the V8s of the '50s ran out of breath quickly, they had decent torque.
Gee, driving those two-ton sponges on bias-ply tires at 100 mph....phew...no wonder they call all the race drivers of those days "The Men of Iron".
My fave 50s engine was the fuel-injected Chevy 283 putting out one horsepower per cubic inch. A milestone, certainly.
Help me out here, andre, but I think Dodge dropped the hemi for '55, at least in some models, if not most or all models, and adopted the new for '55 polysherical engine. The poly engine was cheaper to build than the hemi. I know you couldn't get the hemi in the '55 Plymouth, only the poly in the V8. Maybe the hemi wouldn't have made any difference, but in adopting the "Forward Look", the '55 Mopars were considerably larger and heavier than the '53s and '54s. They also had a little more horsepower, but maybe not enough to compensate for the added weight and wind resistance. What I'm saying is that the '55 Dodge V8 may have been a little slower at the top end than the earlier V8s, but that's just speculation on my part. That said, if your speedo couldn't hit 100, I'm thinking there may have been something wrong with your car, Shifty, because given the speed inflation that was common in the speedometer calibrations of that period, your car may have topped out at ~90. while I wouldn't stake my life on it, I think the '55 Royal Lancer could go a bit faster than that. Now, certainly high altitude would have detracted from your car's potential, as you indicated, so that may explain why you couldn't go faster.
but I have driven the legendary 426 Hemi in a couple of 60s Mopars and they are in a different universe from the old 50s Hemis in terms of power...it's like a 36 hp VW bug vs. a Porsche turbo. The 426 power is massive, overpowering, furious....
The Lancer was pretty neat...it had this little shift lever that came out of the dashboard, pointed right at you. I'm sure at 5,500 feet it was struggling a bit, but you know, it hauled up the mountains pretty well as I recall. I also remember the script on the fender was anodized gold color and that the valve covers on the V8 were huge.
The 5500 altitude explains the performance shortfall.
Of course, it's better if this were done on original cars than on recent restorations, because contemporary restorations often exceed the original factory standards by a wide margin.
HANDLING AT HIGH SPEED:-- well you can STIFFEN an old American car up so that it would handle pretty fair on smooth roads but there's only so much you can do with the 50s type of suspension, which is really 1930s suspension. And then there's the problem of weight and braking on a 50s car.
As I've said before (yawn), any mechanic from 1915 could be dug up and work on a 1965 Mustang, no problem.
And WEIGHT was a factor, too. No matter how exquisite the suspension and braking of a modern car is, if it weighs 5000 lbs you are going to have to work your butt off in the twisties.
I think the classic battles at Lime Rock between powerful Corvettes and dinky little MINIs illustrates the problem. The Corvettes left the MINIS in the dust on the straights, and by the time of the curves, the MINIs used to pass the Vettes...and then it starts all over again....
As for quality, for the most part American cars of the '30s, '40s and '50s (pre'57) enjoyed a reputation for high quality and reliability. Some of the European cars of that period were more technologically advanced in some areas, but their quality and reliability wasn't superior. Also, as noted in my previous message, American cars were more innovative in comfort and convenience features. These things mattered to American motorists.
But you know, for the price, you still got a lot of car in 1958...some might say TOO MUCH car---LOL!....so you have to give credit to American engineering in that sense....it's like ordering a new Peugeot and the factory saying "You want to supersize that? No extra charge!"
Also American cars could get 100,000 miles out of a $2 part---it wasn't pretty but it worked for as long as it was likely the rest of the car would last before rust and calamity overtook it.
Those cheapo stamped rocker arms on Chevies? Brilliant! Lasted the live of the engine unless you over-revved them pretty mercilessly! No they weren't the cast aluminum of some Alfa Romeo but they worked and costs 1/10th th price. But pretty and well made? No, not at all.
So you're right...you can't view the past with knowledge of the future...you have to judge the 1950s by 1950s standards.
Besides to judge quality you need contrasts, and Americans didn't get a taste of qualty automobiles from abroad until the late 1960s.
I think the 1955 270.1 was still a Hemi-head engine, but in 1956, Dodge offered a 270.1 and a 315. IIRC, the 270.1 became a poly-head engine for 1956, while the 315 enlargement was a Hemi-only, I believe. In 1957, the 315 was bored out to a 325. In poly-head version it offered 245 hp with a 2-bbl and 260 with the 4-bbl. There was a Hemi version that put out 285/310 (I think that was 4-bbl/dual quad)
The 1955 Plymouth V-8 was a poly-head unit, offered in 241/260 CID configurations, and the 1955 Chrysler Windsor fielded a 301 poly. The 331 remained a Hemi, but in 1956, it went poly while the 354 enlargement was a Hemi-head. The same thing happened in 1957, when the big 392 was offered, as a Hemi only. The 354 became a poly-head that year in Windsors and Saratogas, although Dodge offered a 340 hp Hemi version of it for the D-501.
As for the 1955 Dodge, its 270.1 was offered in 3 hp configurations that year. 175 hp in the cheaper models, and 183 was standard in the Custom Royal. A "Power Pack" option, which consisted of a 4-bbl carb, boosted it to 193 hp.
Quickest way to tell a Hemi-head from a poly head is to just look at the valve covers. The Hemi covers are big, wide rectangular things that have a separate cover that hides the spark plugs and wires, giving the top of the engine a very clean look. The Hemi cover has kind of a jagged saw-tooth pattern on the outer side, and the spark plugs are exposed.
Best way to think of the old Mopar Hemi is basically to look at it as a Chevy smallblock. Just like the Chevy smallblock, there were mundane family-car versions and there were blistering high-performance versions. It's a bit foolish to make the comparison to something like a 2-bbl Hemi out of a DeSoto Firedome or Dodge Custom Royal to something like the 426, which was a mildly toned-down racecar engine, and really not designed for street use. A better comparison would be something like the 300 Letter Series engines, the 1957 Adventurer engine, or the D-500 engines.
As for Chevy's claim of 1 hp per cubic inch in 1957, remember they only did that with fuel injection, and that was a $500+ option. Chrysler actually EXCEEDED 1 hp per cubic inch in 1956, with the optional 355 hp 354 Hemi. 340 hp was standard. And DeSoto was the first to offer 1 hp per cubic inch as standard equipment in 1957, with the Adventurer's 345 hp 345 CID Hemi, which had dual quads. For some strange reason though, DeSoto didn't use that 1 hp to any marketing advantage, like Chevy did. One reason could be that by that time, divisional competition was starting to rear its head at Chrysler, and maybe it didn't look good that the DeSoto offered 1 hp per cubic inch standard, while the much pricier, more prestigious 300C couldn't even do it with an optional engine?
The 392 Hemi did come close, with a 390 hp version. It was essentially a racecar engine though, and was actually sold with a warning that it was intended mainly for racing and not really suitable for everyday street use, similar to the later 426 Hemi conversion of the Wedge. For street use, they recommended the 375 hp version.
The Hemi cover has kind of a jagged saw-tooth pattern on the outer side, and the spark plugs are exposed..."
Did you mean Poly cover"?
An impressive engine, and perhaps unexpected from GM, but wasn't this engine problematic? I don't recall exactly what the problem was, but I think it related to the non electronic (mechanical?) fuel injection system, and not the engine itself. Maybe fuel management was deficient under certain conditions, due to the primitive nature of the system, but I'm not sure.
As for the 283 fuelie, I don't think it was too problematic as far as fuel injection goes. It was a mechanical setup, and more reliable than the electronic Bendix fuel injection that Chrysler used in 1958.
Were dual-quad carburetors hard to keep adjusted and in-tune? I've heard that the triple 2bbl carbs, most notably Pontiacs Tri-Power, were hard to keep adjusted, but I've never heard anything similar about dual quads.
IIRC, the Chevy 283 put out 283 hp with fuel injection, and 270 with dual quads. In contrast, the '58 Plymouth 350 Wedge had 305 hp (with dual quads I think), or 315 with fuel injection. I think the Plymouth was a fairly mild setup though, to keep it from embarrassing the bigger Mopar flagships. The Dodge D-500 that year had a 361 that put out 320 hp with dual quads or 333 with fuel injection. The DeSoto Adventurer also used a 361, in a hotter state of tune that put out 345 hp with the dual quads and 355 with fuel injection. And that year's 300D put out 380 hp with dual quads, or 390 with fuel injection (the same as the previous year's hotter dual quad option)
I used to think that the Mopar fuel injection was a bit of a ripoff, because it was something like a $400-500 option and for the most part only got you 10 more hp. But it looks like the Chevy FI was at least as pricey.
Supposedly the Mopar fuel injection was so troublesome that all but a handful were converted back to dual-quads. I've always wondered if the manufacturer gave these buyers a refund on the fuel injection price? I know I'd be pretty pissed if I forked over $400-500 (probably $2000-2500 or more in today's dollars) for a factory performance upgrade, only to have it converted back.
I remember an issue of Popular Mechanics where they put a Chrysler 340, some Ford engine (390 I think), and some Oldsmobile engine (a 425?) on a dyno to see what kind of numbers they really put out. The Chrysler was rated at 270-275 gross, and it actually put out something like 245, at the wheels! That's really impressive, considering that going from gross to net hp, you often lose 20-30%, but even net hp isn't measured at the wheels. Once you factor in the transmission, driveshaft, differential, etc, you can still easily lose another 20-30%. That shows just how under-rated the 340 was. When the 340 went to net hp for 1972, it was still rated at 245 hp, which was still considerably downplayed from what it was actually putting out.
IIRC, the Ford engine did take a hit on the dyno, but they figured that its gross hp rating was fairly accurate, once you took the reductions for everything that sapped power.
The Old engine showed the biggest disparity. I forget what the numbers were, but it was enough for Popular Mechanics to say that the engine was seriously over-rated.
I have heard a few stories lately about car engines not putting out the hp they advertised, but it's usually only within 5-10 hp. I think the Mustang, Civic, and Acura TL were all implicated fairly recently. And I've heard some whining about Mazdas, too.
I think nowadays when hp gets overinflated, it's an honest mistake or oversight, and not advertising spin. Often I think something happens like an engine gets certified, but then some minor last second change gets made that reduces the hp, such as to the exhaust, intake, computer, etc.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly do they set up a dyno to put out different readings? Seems to me that whatever the car puts out at the drive wheels at whatever rpm is it what it puts out. How would they fake that?
Some of these are related to outright fraud, others just to incompetence:
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0402tur_dyno_tricks_problems/
So I take it that means if I decide to blow the 99 bucks to put my LeMans or NYer on the dyno machine at Carlisle this coming car show season, I should take the readings with a considerable grain of salt?
I thought about doing it, just for kicks, when I thought it only cost 20 bucks or so. But I'm to cheap to fork over more.
So the collector car hobby could become the victim of overexposure and overindulgence and...competence + mass production.
So I'd say whatever cars are today really electrifying the populace, those are the future collectibles. You can probabaly count those on one hand.
The only ones that come close are the Ford F-150, Camry and Accord, but I don't see these becoming classics.
Would it make a difference if we substituted "collector" for "classic"? Corvettes and Mustangs might make the cut then, or the first hybrids, perhaps, although Corvettes go for a little over my arbitrary $50K cutoff.
Well "collector" and "classic" have all become very mushy terms but I doubt any modern Corvette will ever be a classic because they make over 34,000 of them every year.
Given how cheap a C4 is right now, even after 23 years, I kinda doubt C5s are going to be appreciating or be "coveted" for a long, long time. The supply is just too abundant for anyone to have to worry about owning one.
Exception: The 40th Anniversary ZR1 Coupe
Exception to Mustang: The '93 Cobra R
But the everyday modern Mustang and Corvette will just become nice old used cars IMO...maybe like an old RX7 or Nissan 280Z is today....interesting but nothin' special.
The RX-7 model, second to the current one, is sure a beauty. Has to be a collectors car.
The Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and such are obviously sought after. But what of those last years of the Corvair? Is it just me, or was those Monza Coupes kinda cool looking? How many AMX cars are left? And will all this Hemi madness end some day? Hey, 'Cudas and Challenger cars and such are wonderful, but how is it the rush for Mopar the last couple or years. It is not like these cars were suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Great marketing by DamlierChrysler, I suppose. Great to see Darts, Dusters, and Demons again!
One car I never could figure out why it was so special was the '57 Chevy Bel-Air. What is the appeal there? Now a '68 Malibu SS is work of art, as is the Camaro. A Corvette of the 50's is most certainly appealing to the eye.
Oh well, to each his or her own -- it's all good :shades:
-Loren
A 280Z might be rare these days, but nobody cares if they go to the crusher or not, is the point. But for a '68 Chevelle SS or a Hemi Cuda, they'd throw themselves in front of the machinery to save one. Go figure.
The only RX-7 I see as remotely collectible is the RX-7 twin turbo. That was a lovely, fast, competent car...well it blew up a lot but plenty of valuable collector cars do that anyway.
65-69 Corvairs are lovely cars for their time and are sorta kinda "third-tier" collectibles.
I think you have to look at collector cars in "tiers", which means levels of interest and levels of value.
A third-tier collectible means that it's worth more than a used Honda Accord but still cheap enough and plentiful enough that you can go find one in a few days and write a check for it without fainting. A Corvair fits that perfectly.
A second-tier collectible might be like a '65 Mustang coupe, where you have plenty around at reasonable prices but you have to sort through lots of junk and take your time. Second tier cars are rising slowly, slowly, in value.
first-tier cars are ones where you have to shop aggressively and fight it out with your checkbook. Here's 'supply and demand' working full steam to excite the market.
Will Mopars crash to earth? Sure, especially the clones, the 318 Chargers, the Dusters, all that stuff. But the very rare "only 15 made that year" Hemis, no they won't crash. They may DROP but they'll never come down to earth I don't think.
Rarity + Power + Prestige is a winning combo that few old cars have....VERY few.....
I can think of a couple of reasons that the '57 Chevy is so enduringly popular. I think the main reason is that the '57 Ford and '57 Plymouth, both of which were wildly popular at the time, were serious rusters. The Ford was popular enough that year to beat Chevy to the #1 spot, and Plymouth hit a new record that year that wouldn't be broken again until twice in the 70's, and then mainly based on the popularity of smaller cars like the Duster.
However, the Fords and Plymouths rusted out something horrible, while the '57 Chevy, which looked horribly out of date at the time, was a fairly solid car. Therefore, once these things hit the used car market, it was much easier to find a nice example of a used Chevy than a Ford or Plymouth.
In 1957, the all-new Ford and Plymouth got a much more massive look than their '56 counterparts, which was the trend of the day. Oddly though, I hear the '57 Plymouth is actually an inch or two shorter than the '55-56. Sure doesn't look it to me, though! The Chevy was just a 3rd year facelift, and a pretty successful one, but still had the upright, stubby looking body.
However, while longer/lower/wider was all the rage in 1957, there was a backlash against it in 1958, as a recession set in, the market was saturated with cars after three strong sales years, and people were just getting fed up with the horsepower wars. It wasn't long before something like a '57 Ford or Plymouth was considered out of style. Usually, things that are ultra-trendy and popular at the time don't wear well with age. I would equate a '57 Chevy to something like khaki pants and a crewcut, whereas a '57 Plymouth or Ford might be more like porkchop sideburns, a wide tab collar and a bright orange pair of pants. There are times when they're the trend of the hour, but when as time marches on, they often don't endure as well over the years.
Also, going back to that big, overbearing style of the Ford/Plymouth, I think by the 60's, that was associated with the type of car your parents drove, and that was uncool. And since the Ford/Plymouth were so popular, there's an awfully good chance they WERE the car your parents drove! So the Chevy, with its trimmer dimensions, was just a hipper car in the 60's, considered more of an intermediate than a full-size, like the Ford/Plymouth. In fact, the 1964 Chevelle was considered to be a reincarnation of the '57 Chevy. Similar trim dimensions, weight, etc.
Another thing was engines. In retrospect, a Chevy smallblock isn't a very durable engine. An old Plymouth wideblock will last forever, and I think the old Ford "Y" block was pretty durable as well. However, the Chevy smallblock was cheap to replace, liked to rev, and could be hot-rodded very easily, plus a vast aftermarket was developed for it. And that has only gotten stronger over the years, as the Chevy smallblock has been in production for decades. In contrast, there just wasn't a whole lot you could do to a Ford "Y" block or the old Mopar wideblock, and as a result there's just not that much aftermarket.
Personally, I'd rather have a '57 Plymouth than a '57 Chevy, because I like the styling better. I think the only thing that really mars the Plymouth are a few details, like the stone shield under the bumper that makes it look like it swallowed a Jeep (fixed for 1958), and the headlight setup that tried to emulate a quad setup but looked a bit odd with its big single headlight and its smaller turn signal that was styled a bit like a headlight (also fixed for 1958). But otherwise I just like the sleeker, cleaner body of the '57 Plymouth better than the Chevy. I think the only body style where the Chevy looks better is in 2-door sedan form. The Plymouth 2-door sedan has an odd profile with two rear side windows. One rolls down and one doesn't. Just looks a bit odd compared to the Chevy.
I'd take a '57 Chevy over a Ford, though. I just can't stand that bug-eyed look of the '57 Ford. If they sunk those headlights back a few inches, like they did on the Mercury, it would make a world of difference.
Icons take years to build, it doesn't happen overnight. Old Corvettes, Harleys, Rat Fink hotrods---same thing.
The Plymouth was worse than the Ford, by a considerable margin. In fact, all '57-'59 Mopars were really bad when it came to rust resistance. I think these were no better than the early Aspen/Volares, except a lot less salt was used to treat the roads in the '60s than later, so the problem wasn't as evident. Things may have improved with the introduction of unibodies in the '60 model year, although I don't know to what degree. Rust resistance was one of the advertising points of the Mopar unibodies, so I presume that they were better than the '57-'59s, but it's hard to know because of the increasing use of road salt into the '80s, and maybe beyond. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though they use a little more every year even now.
I'll take your word for it, andre, that the '57 Chevy was more rust resistant than the Ford of that year, although I've never read anything to that effect, nor did I observe it in the Upper Midwest.
The '57 Fairlane 500 and Belvedere looked every bit as good as the Bel Air. Same holds true for the '55s and '56s.
Ultimately, all ideas of being "collectible" are in people's heads.
If you based "collectibility" on RATIONAL terms, you'd have to include things like wooden ship models and jewel-encrusted necklaces, which even the biggest dope can tell took lots of work and skill, and exclude things like old Barbie dolls, which are really only plastic junk.
But it's not rational, so a '57 Chevy is more valuable and "better" (irrationally) than a '57 Ford.
So when I say "Power + Prestige + Style = collectibility", only the power part is measurable and rational. Prestige and Style are all mental constructs.