These things seem to be starting to go off. Resently purchased an XJ40, and noticed the prices of the series 3 xj6's seem to have started to separate quite dramatically.
(Prices a in AUD, so will differ from NA prices)
Dross goes for about 5K Average good cars about 10K Then the really good stuff is bringing 20K +
Also the XJC is getting a bit of a following to.
not sure that they will be big dollar cars in the future, but the prices here and in the UK are definately firming up
I think that is more likely in the UK and the colonies of the empire. Here in the states, a seller can, of course, still get a modest price for a very well cared for example, but any XJ6 here in the USA with any kind of needs is worthless and probably shall remain so. Reason? The cost of restoration far, far exceeds any hope of appreciation or return. The car is regarded here as troublesome and expensive and we seem to prefer the looks of the earlier models. You'd be lucky to see $5,000 USD for the most magnificent examples of any XJ6 or 12, at the present time.
What about Callaway Corvettes? Do they hold their value better or worse than an "ordinary" Corvette? Will they be collectible someday?
I've always been kind of interested in these cars. I've fancied that they'd hold their value better than a Saleen Mustang, although why I'd think that I can't say.
They don't seem to interest collectors of Corvettes, no. Tuner cars traditionally don't fare well in value or collectibility unless perhaps they have won some notable races and have a racing history.
I have the rear emblem from the only 6.3 I owned. I purchased it at an auction and it was towed home. It was so rusty that I had to end up selling it for the engine and parts. I just about broke even. In great shape it had a very precarious suspension system. Worse than the 6.9 of later years. The Citroen DS 19s and 21s were also pretty scary if you had that green hyrdraulic fluid leaking and the car decided to stay on it's belly. The Convertible although extremely hard to find is quite valueable. However, try to find one that hasn't had it's floors and panels replaced due to excessive rust. That round brake pedal is also a trip!
Yes the Citroen convertibles are pretty valuable, upwards now of $40,000 bucks I think. I'm not surprised they rust like the devil, since they were basically beaten out by hand....I think they used a 4-door car to make the 2-door convertible, and quite a few of the panels, and well as the chrome trim are essentially one-off pieces. So you break or lose something, you hire a metal sculptor.
The BMW 8 series (I call it the Elusive 8. I see maybe 2 of these in a year.) They're still pretty expensive & very rare IMO.
And the beautiful Convertible Mercedes. When I see this car I envision an older gentleman driving it with a pipe in his mouth, scarf blowing in the wind as he drives a twisty mountain road...lol
I've had people compliment me on my old Bimmer (1988 735i), but after reading this thread I'm sure it won't get there. Antique, yes. Classic, no!
While these are all nice cars, I'm very skeptical of them ever being worth very much. The 450SL has already had 30 years to be valuable but you can still buy them under $10,000, and the 8 Series BMWs continues to plummet in value. BMW coupes have never done very well as collectibles...even MGBs have passed them in value by now. So based on past history, I'm going to vote "no" on these cars as future "classics".
But yes, they will become "antiques" some day and will be loved by their owners no doubt.
And the beautiful Convertible Mercedes. When I see this car I envision an older gentleman driving it with a pipe in his mouth, scarf blowing in the wind as he drives a twisty mountain road...lol
That describes "Nigel Shiftwright" to a tee. Sound familiar Shifty?
You'd think after almost 20 years there would be some action, interest or rise in price on these but it's dead out there, so I'd say no given the total lack of interest.
Most 20 year old cars destined for some collectible status would have started a price rise by now.
May have something to do with the general lack of interest in that generation T-Bird, both when new and now. At the time, the SC smelled of a desparation move to ignite some excitement.
Oh sure. Any car that debuts with a big SO WHAT> from the public is hardly going to catch fire 20 years later. Also, the earlier T-Birds have grabbed all the glory, unlike say the Corvette, where the earlier cars are valuable only because the later cars of the late 50s through 1970 or so grabbed all the glory. Kind of a reverse situation. (Ditto say the GTO or Camaro, where a few years of development produced a much more exciting car, not a worse one).
One might have thought that the earlier T-Birds would pull the value up of newer T-Birds but it doesn't work that way apparently. Spectacular later versions of a once-mediocre car can pull up the mediocre, but not vice-versa it seems. Who wants a 1981 Cadillac when they can have a '55?
A good example of how a future "classic" should behave would be say the 1978-1983 Porsche SC. They depreciated and depreciated just like used cars until they hit about 15 years old. Then they "bottomed out" and stabilized and then started to slowly creep UP in value around 1998 or so. Now, a 1983 Porsche is still a "bargain" but every year the price goes up a bit.
We aren't seeing this pattern with cars like the T-Bird supercoupe. I suspect at best it will keep up with inflation at least, which makes it more like 'special interest for the few' rather than anything resembling a classic.
While the '79?-'82 T-birds were even less than "so whats", the '83's aerodynamic styling was quite popular, and sales of that model year rose rather dramatically. The sales momentum continued in '84-'86, even though somewhat diminished from the '83's pace, and the slightly larger and improved '88 and '89 models were well received also. Yet, it seems to me that the prices of all these model years are following used car trends, instead of classic car price stabilization, followed by appreciation. Is it possible that, say, a well maintained or restored Turbo Coupe from this generation could be worth something in the not-too-distant future, or is it highly unlikely that they'll ever be valuable? By "worth something" I mean more than the price of a new basic transportation subcompact, in today's dollars.
Here's another way to look at why '73-'84 is a lost period for collectors. Someone went to the trouble of collecting performance info from magazines (1800+ reviews), and I ended up with this for average 0-60 times:
I think any car that has some level of "performance" will be worth more than your utilitarian dull compact car...that's a safe bet...but again, these common, so-so performance type cars like 80s T-Birds (and unlike the ferocious Buick GNX) will probably embrace the status of a "curiosity" or "third-tier" collectible....that is, a few interested people who aren't used to spending lots of money on old cars.
So it's not just people's "interest" (heretofore called the "demand") for a certain old car, but the NATURE of the collector as well. The "demand" can drop off dramatically at a certain pricing point.
Lots of people *might* want a $1,200 old Gremlin just for goofs, but hardly anybody wants a $15,000 old Fremlin.
So I think these T-Bird coupes will fall into that kind of category....limited demand by a few tight-fisted curiosity seekers and still more than enough cars around to keep the price way down.
One could say "well, when the SUPPLY dries up, then the price will go up"!
Maybe, maybe not. What sometimes happens with old cars is that when the supply dries up, everyone forgets about the car!
You can see this for yourself. There's a LOT of ink being spread say on the Buick GNX and hardly a drop on the 80s T-Birds. That will affect future attitudes about these cars.
The emotional side of me says you're being too negative, but the rational side of me knows you're right. Put another way, there's a difference between commenting "hey, that's neat; I'd like to own one!" and emptying some serious cash from your wallet to actually buy it.
I see this all the time, which is why I never base my opinions on value on what people *say* they will do, but rather on actual points of sale.
Unless you (the owner I mean) puts the car on the open fair market, any talk of "I've been offered $50K for it" or "people are paying big bucks for these" is just blowing smoke.
The most common thing I hear is "There was one on eBay for $50,000!"
Yeah, with no bids.
Asking prices and bragging rights are nothing more than the exercise of First Amendment Rights... :P
I'm neither "negative" or "positive". I'm just looking at the sales figures for 80s T-Birds, and there's no suggestion of a collectibility trend at this time.
I kinda like 'em, but from this era I think I just prefer GM's personal luxury coupes like the Grand Prix, Regal, Monte Carlo, and Cutlass Supreme. They're a bit bigger inside, and I just find them to be more comfortable for my frame. However, I do think Ford did a better job with details like fit and finish, paint quality, interior materials, etc.
I guess if you got a V-8 model, it wouldn't be a bad car. I had a friend who had an '86 Elan with the 232 "Essex" V-6 though, and that thing was a dog. It was just about fully loaded, except for that engine. He thought it was fast, and compared to the beater 1980 Accord he'd had before it WAS fast. But then he got mad when my $1100 '69 Dart, which was older than we were, blew him away at a traffic light.
But, to be fair, I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with a V-6, and its acceleration sucked too.
I think the '83-88 T-bird/Cougar is a body style that's aged very well. They're old enough now to qualify for historic plates in some areas (as of 1/1/08, the '83 models will qualify in Maryland) yet they actually look more modern than some brand-new cars!
It's hard to remember, but in '83 the new T-Bird's styling was revolutionary, at least for Ford. This was still three years before the Taurus. Some said the T-Bird was partly aimed at getting the aero look accepted, paving the way for the Taurus.
that most of the buyers who wanted a T-bird would have been put off by a 4-cyl engine, no matter how powerful. Plus, having to row their own gears. IIRC, the turbo 4-cyl only came with a 5-speed manual. Not that you'd WANT an automatic in an application like that, I'd guess.
Ford probably would've been better off just putting a mildly hopped up V-8 in the T-bird, like they did with the 1985 LTD LX. It had 165 hp, which was a bit less than the 180 or so the Mark VII LSC put out at that time, but still a bit more than the 140 hp version of the 302 that went in Crown Vics and T-birds and pickup trucks.
I've seen old road tests of the LTD LX, and it would do 0-60 in about 9 seconds, with the 4-speed automatic. Not bad at all for the time.
My aunt had an '85 Lincoln Mark VII LSC.. I think it was also rated at 165 HP..
It felt like it had a lot more power than that... Maybe the torque rating was a lot higher. But, terrible gas mileage... I think they were still working out the bugs with the computer controlled fuel injection.
Actually, a pretty nice car compared to the typical boats that Lincoln put out...Poor visibility, though..
"I've seen old road tests of the LTD LX, and it would do 0-60 in about 9 seconds, with the 4-speed automatic."
Andre, do you know whether the V8 in this sedan - kind if a sport sedan, I guess - was fuel injected?
While a V8 may have been more in keeping with the T-Bird's heritage, I don't think the problem with the Turbo 4 was so much the number of cylinders, but rather that it wasn't refined. To use a totally unrealistic example, just for the purpose of making a point, if the T-Bird Turbo 4 had had today's Acura RDX's turbo 4 engine, it would have gotten rave reviews and ecstatic accolades from owners. The problem was THAT 4.
Also, the later models ('87 and '88, I think) could be coupled to a four speed automatic.
Yeah, the 1985 LTD LX had a fuel-injected 302. It was essentially a civilian version of the LTD copcar, which at the time was being touted as an alternative to the bigger Crown Vic/Caprice type copcars. In a way it was sort of a response, I guess, to the Monte SS, Cutlass Supreme 4-4-2, and Regal Grand National. Curious though, that they chose to offer it as a sedan. They only built about 3,000 I believe.
Since they were starting to use the small LTD as a copcar, maybe Ford thought it could get more profit out of it by offering a civilian version, but then since the Taurus would soon be coming out, they decided to squash it before it got too popular?
I think that putting a 4 cylinder turbo in a big full-size coupe is not the greatest solution. Very few companies have done that. Lotus comes to mind, and that was a ferocious performing engine that liked to catch fire.
Smaller sports coupes did get away with it, though.
I think that putting a 4 cylinder turbo in a big full-size coupe is not the greatest solution. Very few companies have done that. Lotus comes to mind, and that was a ferocious performing engine that liked to catch fire.
Yeah, but at this time, under-sized engines just kind of went with the territory. The domestics were still trying to skirt the fine line between building large-ish cars that customers still demanded, while trying to find ways to make them more fuel efficient.
Ford actually did get away, to an extent, with putting 2.3 4-cylinder engines in Fairmonts, which the T-bird was based on. However, the Fairmont was a much lighter, and more downscale car. I guess it was no worse though, than when GM was putting those little 3.3 Chevy and 3.2 Buick V-6es in their downsized midsized cars, which started at around 3,000 pounds, or when Chrysler strangled their slant six off to 85-90 hp and was slipping it under the hood of 3200 pound Volares or worse, 3400 pound Cordobas and Miradas!
Still, these types of cars really needed, at the bare minimum, something of about 3.8 liters. Or in the case of those bulky Mopars, a 5.2.
"I think that putting a 4 cylinder turbo in a big full-size coupe is not the greatest solution."
Although I can't quote dimensions at this moment (help, Andre, you're good with dimensions and weights), I'm thinking that the '07 Accord coupe is similar in size, and perhaps weight, to the '83-'86 T-Bird Turbo Coupe. I mention the Accord coupe because the base engine is a 2.4L 4. Incidentally, those T-Birds were trimmer and lighter than their GM counterparts. Also, isn't the current BMW 3-series offered with a 4 cylinder in Europe?
Yeah and a base 4 cylinder Accord coupe will be worthless as well in 15 years and have you priced a used BMW 318 lately? You see, you're helping me win my argument :P
Of course, if it's a super 4 cylinder in an AWD platform with a rally car chassis and suspension, like the EVO, then collectibility is possible. But the EVO was very well received from the get-go, and always talked about.
Fact is, nobody cares about 4 cylinder T-Birds or Accords, and I doubt they ever will.
Although I can't quote dimensions at this moment (help, Andre, you're good with dimensions and weights), I'm thinking that the '07 Accord coupe is similar in size, and perhaps weight, to the '83-'86 T-Bird Turbo Coupe.
This is off the top of my head, so don't place any wagers using this info! Anyway, I think the '83-86 T-bird was about 200" long, 104.4" wheelbase, and maybe 70-71" wide. As for weight, well I think the V-6 coupe was around 3,000 pounds, so I'd imagine a turbo coupe was about 2900?
A modern Accord coupe is actually LARGER inside than a T-bird. Although I sat in the back seat of one at the Philly auto show, and the Accord is still cramped in back. From what I remember of my buddy's '86 T-bird, I could fit okay up front, although shoulder room is tighter than a Monte Carlo (or modern Accord) and the driveshaft hump was HUGE! The back seat was tight, really more compact-sized than mid-sized. Trunk was about 14 cubic feet, which, IIRC, is about what the current Accord's is.
Interestingly, the 1989 T-bird, while a heavier, bulkier, wider car, was actually a bit shorter than the '83-88! It wasn't much shorter, maybe 2". And wheelbase was way up, to something like 113" IIRC.
Cars of that size today do just fine with 4-cyl engines, but in general, the 4-cyl just wasn't ready to move around 3,000 pound cars back in the 80's. I'd imagine that you had to rev the snot out of the 2.3 Turbo to get that 9.7 second 0-60 time out of it, whereas with the 302/automatic, just point and shoot and you could probably get around 10 seconds without really trying. Heck, my '86 Monte Carlo, which had the 150 hp 305-4bbl and 4-speed automatic, would do 0-60 in about 10 seconds, and it would've been heavier than a T-bird. Plus, GM tended to stick overly tall axle ratios in their cars back then, where Ford was a bit more aggressive.
The emotional side of me says you're being too negative, but the rational side of me knows you're right. Put another way, there's a difference between commenting "hey, that's neat; I'd like to own one!" and emptying some serious cash from your wallet to actually buy it.
I agree, but it's the truth. Ijust don't see any cars of the modern era that will be collector "classic" status.
Well if it has a LOT of HP, is good-looking, and wasn't made in huge numbers, it'll be collectible someday. Does this include a Corvette? Probably not the run of the mill models, no, because they crank out 34,000 a year. Ditto, there are a LOT of Vipers, Porsche Boxsters, etc, and they are all pretty much the same except for a few rare models. If a new Corvette came with 7 different engines, and one of which had 800HP, and they made only 42 of them in a year, now THAT'S the modern equivalent of a '71 Hemi Cuda convertible (not actual numbers but you know what I mean).
You take a '67 Camaro. Sounds "collectible" right? but if it's a stripped down coupe, 6 cylinder automatic 1967 Camaro, you don't have anything of value, even 40 years later, even from the fabulous 60s and even with the magic Camaro name, and even WITH being 1st year production.
It's not only about the car, it's about the options, the production numbers, the initial public reception and the styling.
In a word, "collectablity" is a lot more complex than it first appears.
"...If a new Corvette came with 7 different engines, and one of which had 800HP, and they made only 42 of them in a year..."
Just because horsepower is and has been the big positive differentiater doesn't mean that this will drive tomorrow's collectible prices. It may, but I wouldn't be surprised if horsepower will lose some relative status. Why? Well, in the '40s, '50s, and '60s there were a lot of slow, unexciting cars. That's less so today, when a '07 bottom feeder commuter car can equal the acceleration of yesteryear's hot cars, and outhandle it in the process. I'm not saying that a Kia Rio is almost as exciting to drive as, say, an Aston Martin, but I think that Chrysler 300s, XK Jags, and maybe even Buick Centurys turned more heads and generated more WOWS! in the '50s than the best of the nonexotics do today. Today, it takes an outlandishly priced exotic to generate the same level of excitement that cars that fairly ordinary folks could buy in the '50s and '60s generated. And, maybe it's styling or exclusivity, more than horsepower, which will make such a car a classic in 25 years.
That's why I picked a large number like 800HP. The bar has been raised, that's true.
HP may be only ONE factor, but it will ALWAYS be a factor IMO. Why? Because no toy is fun if you don't get to play with it in some fashion, either through scaring yourself (like in vintage racing), or in special events (like the Brighton run).
Styling could be a strong factor, as long as the car was not mass-produced or, if mass-produced, a total knock-out when brand new.
So if you're already yawning when you see a 2-3 year old car of a certain type, you can pretty much count on it being ignored in the future. The Mustangs, Hemis, '57 Chevys, etc, never went out of fashion. They were always "cool" to own, drive and look at. They weren't always worth a lot, but then collector cars wasn't a speculative market as it is now. Back then, people collected cars solely because they admired them for what they were.
I think another thing that might hurt the collectibility of modern cars is that the styles just don't change that often, and that just makes it harder, for any particular style to become unique. A '57 Chevy was substantially different, style-wise, from a '55 and '56 Chevy, whereas a '58 was an entirely different beast.
But, fast forward to today, and we've now had 8 years of Impalas (or 9, if the 2008s are out by now), and there's only been one styling change during that time. Back in the day, if you looked at a 9 year history of any given model, chances are it would've gotten styling changes every year, and probably one or two total redesigns. Now I guess the 2006+ Impala SS, with its 5.3 V-8, might have some minor collector value, but the cars in general will never see the sort of status that a big-block Impala SS would have back in the day.
Another thing is that, by and large, the very styles that tend to be collectible, hardtop coupes, convertibles, and to a lesser degree, 2-door sedans, just aren't being made anymore. Nowadays, just about everything is a 4-door sedan
Perhaps it's already been mentioned and discussed, but maybe the Prius (first and current generations), or the Honda Insight, could be collectibles in 2032, or even classics.
Here's another angle on that - Ford sells a 2007 Mustang that looks in some ways like a 1967 Mustang - 40 years later! Nobody in '67 was building '27 lookalikes, that's for sure. So yes, styling changes (both by car, and overall) has slowed dramatically since the '50s-'60s.
Bingo! You KNOW automakers are desperate when they have to copy 20 year old designs to generate any excitement.
I think the Prius will attain some kind of "curiosity" status, yes, worshipped by a cult of aging small-spenders who will collect 15 or more of them in the backyard and advertise them in a future Craigslist as "project---all 15 for $X!!!" It will be the new iteration of the 4-door Studebaker Lark crowd or Church of the Volvo Station Wagon.
Course, 30 years from now there might be some notebook-sized 5-pound replacement battery pack that the Prius collectors rig up to keep their babies running forever.
in terms of automotive evolution, is that we're just running out of new things to try. Basically, the more that you've done, the less there is to do. And aerodynamics, space considerations, etc are going to limit the possiblities.
I think once we got past designs like the Audi 5000, first-gen Taurus, 1983 T-bird, etc, car style has pretty much stopped evolving, and began recycling and regurgitating. There's only so much you can do with an egg shape, and there's only so much you can do with a wedge shape, and only so much you can do with a box. And there's only so many combinations thereof to try.
Comments
(Prices a in AUD, so will differ from NA prices)
Dross goes for about 5K
Average good cars about 10K
Then the really good stuff is bringing 20K +
Also the XJC is getting a bit of a following to.
not sure that they will be big dollar cars in the future, but the prices here and in the UK are definately firming up
I've always been kind of interested in these cars. I've fancied that they'd hold their value better than a Saleen Mustang, although why I'd think that I can't say.
If (ok, when) I start collecting cars from my generation (90s RX7, Supra Turbo, Integra Type-R), I wouldn't want to touch modified examples.
That is unless it's a car that was featured in many magazines or built by someone well known on the circuit.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Only 2 come to mind for me:
The BMW 8 series (I call it the Elusive 8. I see maybe 2 of these in a year.) They're still pretty expensive & very rare IMO.
And the beautiful Convertible Mercedes. When I see this car I envision an older gentleman driving it with a pipe in his mouth, scarf blowing in the wind as he drives a twisty mountain road...lol
I've had people compliment me on my old Bimmer (1988 735i), but after reading this thread I'm sure it won't get there. Antique, yes. Classic, no!
But yes, they will become "antiques" some day and will be loved by their owners no doubt.
That describes "Nigel Shiftwright" to a tee. Sound familiar Shifty?
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Most 20 year old cars destined for some collectible status would have started a price rise by now.
One might have thought that the earlier T-Birds would pull the value up of newer T-Birds but it doesn't work that way apparently. Spectacular later versions of a once-mediocre car can pull up the mediocre, but not vice-versa it seems. Who wants a 1981 Cadillac when they can have a '55?
A good example of how a future "classic" should behave would be say the 1978-1983 Porsche SC. They depreciated and depreciated just like used cars until they hit about 15 years old. Then they "bottomed out" and stabilized and then started to slowly creep UP in value around 1998 or so. Now, a 1983 Porsche is still a "bargain" but every year the price goes up a bit.
We aren't seeing this pattern with cars like the T-Bird supercoupe. I suspect at best it will keep up with inflation at least, which makes it more like 'special interest for the few' rather than anything resembling a classic.
/my two cents
1962-1967 9.3
1968-1972 11.0
1973-1979 12.0
1980-1984 11.5
1985-1989 8.8
1990s 7.8
2000s 6.3
'68-'72 is a little surprising, but for every Hemi Cuda it seemed like there were 2 or 3 sloooow cars (even the '70 914 had a 13.9 sec reported time).
So it's not just people's "interest" (heretofore called the "demand") for a certain old car, but the NATURE of the collector as well. The "demand" can drop off dramatically at a certain pricing point.
Lots of people *might* want a $1,200 old Gremlin just for goofs, but hardly anybody wants a $15,000 old Fremlin.
So I think these T-Bird coupes will fall into that kind of category....limited demand by a few tight-fisted curiosity seekers and still more than enough cars around to keep the price way down.
One could say "well, when the SUPPLY dries up, then the price will go up"!
Maybe, maybe not. What sometimes happens with old cars is that when the supply dries up, everyone forgets about the car!
You can see this for yourself. There's a LOT of ink being spread say on the Buick GNX and hardly a drop on the 80s T-Birds. That will affect future attitudes about these cars.
I see this all the time, which is why I never base my opinions on value on what people *say* they will do, but rather on actual points of sale.
Unless you (the owner I mean) puts the car on the open fair market, any talk of "I've been offered $50K for it" or "people are paying big bucks for these" is just blowing smoke.
The most common thing I hear is "There was one on eBay for $50,000!"
Yeah, with no bids.
Asking prices and bragging rights are nothing more than the exercise of First Amendment Rights... :P
I'm neither "negative" or "positive". I'm just looking at the sales figures for 80s T-Birds, and there's no suggestion of a collectibility trend at this time.
I guess if you got a V-8 model, it wouldn't be a bad car. I had a friend who had an '86 Elan with the 232 "Essex" V-6 though, and that thing was a dog. It was just about fully loaded, except for that engine. He thought it was fast, and compared to the beater 1980 Accord he'd had before it WAS fast. But then he got mad when my $1100 '69 Dart, which was older than we were, blew him away at a traffic light.
But, to be fair, I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with a V-6, and its acceleration sucked too.
I think the '83-88 T-bird/Cougar is a body style that's aged very well. They're old enough now to qualify for historic plates in some areas (as of 1/1/08, the '83 models will qualify in Maryland) yet they actually look more modern than some brand-new cars!
You could get the Lincoln Mark VII that was the same basic car underneath with the 5.0 litre V-8.
Lots of noise about that T-Bird, but little love..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But few really liked the engine. Same with the Merkur XR4Ti.
Ford probably would've been better off just putting a mildly hopped up V-8 in the T-bird, like they did with the 1985 LTD LX. It had 165 hp, which was a bit less than the 180 or so the Mark VII LSC put out at that time, but still a bit more than the 140 hp version of the 302 that went in Crown Vics and T-birds and pickup trucks.
I've seen old road tests of the LTD LX, and it would do 0-60 in about 9 seconds, with the 4-speed automatic. Not bad at all for the time.
It felt like it had a lot more power than that... Maybe the torque rating was a lot higher. But, terrible gas mileage... I think they were still working out the bugs with the computer controlled fuel injection.
Actually, a pretty nice car compared to the typical boats that Lincoln put out...Poor visibility, though..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Andre, do you know whether the V8 in this sedan - kind if a sport sedan, I guess - was fuel injected?
While a V8 may have been more in keeping with the T-Bird's heritage, I don't think the problem with the Turbo 4 was so much the number of cylinders, but rather that it wasn't refined. To use a totally unrealistic example, just for the purpose of making a point, if the T-Bird Turbo 4 had had today's Acura RDX's turbo 4 engine, it would have gotten rave reviews and ecstatic accolades from owners. The problem was THAT 4.
Also, the later models ('87 and '88, I think) could be coupled to a four speed automatic.
Since they were starting to use the small LTD as a copcar, maybe Ford thought it could get more profit out of it by offering a civilian version, but then since the Taurus would soon be coming out, they decided to squash it before it got too popular?
Smaller sports coupes did get away with it, though.
Yeah, but at this time, under-sized engines just kind of went with the territory. The domestics were still trying to skirt the fine line between building large-ish cars that customers still demanded, while trying to find ways to make them more fuel efficient.
Ford actually did get away, to an extent, with putting 2.3 4-cylinder engines in Fairmonts, which the T-bird was based on. However, the Fairmont was a much lighter, and more downscale car. I guess it was no worse though, than when GM was putting those little 3.3 Chevy and 3.2 Buick V-6es in their downsized midsized cars, which started at around 3,000 pounds, or when Chrysler strangled their slant six off to 85-90 hp and was slipping it under the hood of 3200 pound Volares or worse, 3400 pound Cordobas and Miradas!
Still, these types of cars really needed, at the bare minimum, something of about 3.8 liters. Or in the case of those bulky Mopars, a 5.2.
Although I can't quote dimensions at this moment (help, Andre, you're good with dimensions and weights), I'm thinking that the '07 Accord coupe is similar in size, and perhaps weight, to the '83-'86 T-Bird Turbo Coupe. I mention the Accord coupe because the base engine is a 2.4L 4. Incidentally, those T-Birds were trimmer and lighter than their GM counterparts. Also, isn't the current BMW 3-series offered with a 4 cylinder in Europe?
Of course, if it's a super 4 cylinder in an AWD platform with a rally car chassis and suspension, like the EVO, then collectibility is possible. But the EVO was very well received from the get-go, and always talked about.
Fact is, nobody cares about 4 cylinder T-Birds or Accords, and I doubt they ever will.
This is off the top of my head, so don't place any wagers using this info! Anyway, I think the '83-86 T-bird was about 200" long, 104.4" wheelbase, and maybe 70-71" wide. As for weight, well I think the V-6 coupe was around 3,000 pounds, so I'd imagine a turbo coupe was about 2900?
A modern Accord coupe is actually LARGER inside than a T-bird. Although I sat in the back seat of one at the Philly auto show, and the Accord is still cramped in back. From what I remember of my buddy's '86 T-bird, I could fit okay up front, although shoulder room is tighter than a Monte Carlo (or modern Accord) and the driveshaft hump was HUGE! The back seat was tight, really more compact-sized than mid-sized. Trunk was about 14 cubic feet, which, IIRC, is about what the current Accord's is.
Interestingly, the 1989 T-bird, while a heavier, bulkier, wider car, was actually a bit shorter than the '83-88! It wasn't much shorter, maybe 2". And wheelbase was way up, to something like 113" IIRC.
Cars of that size today do just fine with 4-cyl engines, but in general, the 4-cyl just wasn't ready to move around 3,000 pound cars back in the 80's. I'd imagine that you had to rev the snot out of the 2.3 Turbo to get that 9.7 second 0-60 time out of it, whereas with the 302/automatic, just point and shoot and you could probably get around 10 seconds without really trying. Heck, my '86 Monte Carlo, which had the 150 hp 305-4bbl and 4-speed automatic, would do 0-60 in about 10 seconds, and it would've been heavier than a T-bird. Plus, GM tended to stick overly tall axle ratios in their cars back then, where Ford was a bit more aggressive.
I agree, but it's the truth. Ijust don't see any cars of the modern era that will be collector "classic" status.
You take a '67 Camaro. Sounds "collectible" right? but if it's a stripped down coupe, 6 cylinder automatic 1967 Camaro, you don't have anything of value, even 40 years later, even from the fabulous 60s and even with the magic Camaro name, and even WITH being 1st year production.
It's not only about the car, it's about the options, the production numbers, the initial public reception and the styling.
In a word, "collectablity" is a lot more complex than it first appears.
Just because horsepower is and has been the big positive differentiater doesn't mean that this will drive tomorrow's collectible prices. It may, but I wouldn't be surprised if horsepower will lose some relative status. Why? Well, in the '40s, '50s, and '60s there were a lot of slow, unexciting cars. That's less so today, when a '07 bottom feeder commuter car can equal the acceleration of yesteryear's hot cars, and outhandle it in the process. I'm not saying that a Kia Rio is almost as exciting to drive as, say, an Aston Martin, but I think that Chrysler 300s, XK Jags, and maybe even Buick Centurys turned more heads and generated more WOWS! in the '50s than the best of the nonexotics do today. Today, it takes an outlandishly priced exotic to generate the same level of excitement that cars that fairly ordinary folks could buy in the '50s and '60s generated. And, maybe it's styling or exclusivity, more than horsepower, which will make such a car a classic in 25 years.
HP may be only ONE factor, but it will ALWAYS be a factor IMO. Why? Because no toy is fun if you don't get to play with it in some fashion, either through scaring yourself (like in vintage racing), or in special events (like the Brighton run).
Styling could be a strong factor, as long as the car was not mass-produced or, if mass-produced, a total knock-out when brand new.
So if you're already yawning when you see a 2-3 year old car of a certain type, you can pretty much count on it being ignored in the future. The Mustangs, Hemis, '57 Chevys, etc, never went out of fashion. They were always "cool" to own, drive and look at. They weren't always worth a lot, but then collector cars wasn't a speculative market as it is now. Back then, people collected cars solely because they admired them for what they were.
But, fast forward to today, and we've now had 8 years of Impalas (or 9, if the 2008s are out by now), and there's only been one styling change during that time. Back in the day, if you looked at a 9 year history of any given model, chances are it would've gotten styling changes every year, and probably one or two total redesigns. Now I guess the 2006+ Impala SS, with its 5.3 V-8, might have some minor collector value, but the cars in general will never see the sort of status that a big-block Impala SS would have back in the day.
Another thing is that, by and large, the very styles that tend to be collectible, hardtop coupes, convertibles, and to a lesser degree, 2-door sedans, just aren't being made anymore. Nowadays, just about everything is a 4-door sedan
I think the Prius will attain some kind of "curiosity" status, yes, worshipped by a cult of aging small-spenders who will collect 15 or more of them in the backyard and advertise them in a future Craigslist as "project---all 15 for $X!!!" It will be the new iteration of the 4-door Studebaker Lark crowd or Church of the Volvo Station Wagon.
I think once we got past designs like the Audi 5000, first-gen Taurus, 1983 T-bird, etc, car style has pretty much stopped evolving, and began recycling and regurgitating. There's only so much you can do with an egg shape, and there's only so much you can do with a wedge shape, and only so much you can do with a box. And there's only so many combinations thereof to try.