Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
How Will The Classic and Collector Car Hobby Differ In 10 Years?
hpmctorque
Member Posts: 4,600
It's always difficult to predict the future, yet our curiosity about how things will be prompts us to guess what the collector scene will be like. What's likely to change, and remain the same, and why?
To get the ball rolling, I think the following three factors will impact the interest in collector cars between now and 2018:
First, telematics and the ever increasing complexity of cars, resulting from increasingly strict environmental and safety standards, inter-related electrical systems, as well as motorists' desire for more features, will drastically change the economics of repairing versus disposing of an older vehicle. Even family and economy cars will clearly become money pits at a more easily defined point in time, in a similar way that we view 10+ year old 12 cylinder German cars now, although perhaps to a lesser degree. However, the point where the cost of repairing and keeping versus getting rid of a vehicle, either at a greatly reduced price or by scrapping it, will become more obvious than it was in the past.
Second, the proliferation of niche products, and shorter production runs, results in the reduction of a critical mass of interest in any one model. The days of certain blockbuster models, that excite a wide spectrum of the population for many years, is probably over forever. Think '55-'57 Chevies, '55 Chrysler 300, '55-'57 T' Birds, '53-'63 Corvettes, and numerous European cars of the '50s-'mid '60s.
Third, there are more hobbies and diversions competing for peoples' attention, time and resources. Everything from I-Pods, to video games, to extreme sports comes to mind, to compete with car hobbies, not to mention things that well be invented and become popular in the future. Sure, you could argue that some things, such as the internet, helps car collectors, but in my opinion, the net impact of competing items and activities is more negative than positive for car hobbiests.
There are other factors, of course, but these three may serve to get a discussion started.
To get the ball rolling, I think the following three factors will impact the interest in collector cars between now and 2018:
First, telematics and the ever increasing complexity of cars, resulting from increasingly strict environmental and safety standards, inter-related electrical systems, as well as motorists' desire for more features, will drastically change the economics of repairing versus disposing of an older vehicle. Even family and economy cars will clearly become money pits at a more easily defined point in time, in a similar way that we view 10+ year old 12 cylinder German cars now, although perhaps to a lesser degree. However, the point where the cost of repairing and keeping versus getting rid of a vehicle, either at a greatly reduced price or by scrapping it, will become more obvious than it was in the past.
Second, the proliferation of niche products, and shorter production runs, results in the reduction of a critical mass of interest in any one model. The days of certain blockbuster models, that excite a wide spectrum of the population for many years, is probably over forever. Think '55-'57 Chevies, '55 Chrysler 300, '55-'57 T' Birds, '53-'63 Corvettes, and numerous European cars of the '50s-'mid '60s.
Third, there are more hobbies and diversions competing for peoples' attention, time and resources. Everything from I-Pods, to video games, to extreme sports comes to mind, to compete with car hobbies, not to mention things that well be invented and become popular in the future. Sure, you could argue that some things, such as the internet, helps car collectors, but in my opinion, the net impact of competing items and activities is more negative than positive for car hobbiests.
There are other factors, of course, but these three may serve to get a discussion started.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think with the advent of attempting to reverse-engineer obsolete black boxes, it will become even MORE cost-ineffective to restore most cars, and in the case of say Ferrari, it will become impossible, because their black boxes, at least in their subsystems, are completely in-house (built just for them). So are their scanning computers and interfaces devices.
A modern car can carry something like 75 microprocessors. Think about that.
I'm sure people are hoarding black boxes as we speak, but it's scary to think what they will charge for them in ten years.
Remember a modern car is electro-mechanical. It's not just a matter of the hurdle of hacking into a computer. Many functions are multi-plexed and interface with mechanical devices (solenoids, servos, valves, compressors, injectors, pumps, etc) are often shared by more than one computer device.
So being a computer whiz isn't going to help you very much. You would have to master entire complex, engineered systems.
And then there are the issues of forming plastics, one piece interior parts, etc. it's not a matter of re-upholstery anymore.
In the end, the cost of labor and materials to restore the modern car will continue to accelerate until we reach a point where it is unaffordable except perhaps to the ultra-wealthy.
While the cars got pretty awful in the 70's, at least for the most part they'd still try to change them up from year to year. GM was the best at this though, as Ford and Chrysler, running out of money, would often forego the annual tweaks. But still, there was enough variety that people can pick and choose their favorites. For example, with me, I'll almost get irrationally excited whenever I see a '76-77 LeMans, but if I see a '73-75, well it's a cool old car, but just doesn't stir me.
Similarly, a '77 Catalina will do it for me, but the '78-81,which was different only in minor trim changes and then a modest sleekening for 1980, just doesn't stir me the same way.
But then, fast forward to the current day. What really, is the difference between an Intrepid over the years from 1998-04? They all look the same. Okay, so they tweaked the interior fabrics in the ES model around 2000, and then in 2002 they started cost-cutting in some areas, but replaced the 3.2 with a de-tuned 3.5, but that's nothing substantial. The only difference between my 2000 and a 1999 is that mine has 16" wheels, while the 1999 had 15". And for 2001 they started calling the cheap model "SE", so it got an SE badge on the blackout trim in the rear door.
Another problem, IMO, is that there just isn't a huge difference in performance anymore. My base 2000 Intrepid, with its 200 hp 2.7 V-6, will do 0-60 in about 9.5 seconds. The ES models with the variable intake 2.7 and 202 hp would do it in about 8.8. The 3.2 with 225 hp would do it in about 8.4. And the 3.5 models, which put out 234-250 hp, would do it in around 7.8-8.0. So while there's a definite improvement with the bigger engines, it's not a huge jump like back in the day.
For instance, back in say, 1970, you could get an intermediate Mopar Coronet/Satellite/Charger with anything from a 225 slant six on up to the 426 Hemi. The slant six got you from 0-60 in about 15 seconds. The 318 would knock you down to around 10. Consumer Reports got 0-60 in 7.0 seconds out of a 1969 Charger with the 440, automatic, 3.23:1 axle and, IIRC, the 375 hp setup. So suffice to say that Car & Driver or Motortrend would've gotten a bit quicker. And the Hemi put you down in the 5-6 second range.
Even by, say, 1976-77 in a LeMans, if you got the base Chevy 250 6-cyl or an Olds 260 V-8, you were looking at 0-60 in about 20 seconds. You'd have to get on up to a 350 to put yourself down into the 12 second range, and the only way you were going to break 10 seconds was with the ~200 hp 455-4bbl (1976) or the Can Am (1977) which had a high-output 200 hp 400. I've seen tests of a Can Am that put it at around 8.7 seconds from 0-60. Nothing to gloat about by today's standards, but still worlds apart from scads of 15-20+ second slugs that propagated the earth at the time. Maybe, just maybe, a milder 180 hp 400 (1976-77), or the 185 hp Olds 403 (1977) with the right gearing could break 10 seconds, as well.
So I think the one thing that made the high-performance versions of those cars so special was the simple fact that they were comparatively rare. And the difference between the low end and the high end was enormous. It's not so much that the high performance engines were so great, it's just that their status was elevated by all those sucky engines!
Plus, in recent times we've had these so-called performance cars like the Intrepid R/T and Mercury Marauder that would easily get embarrassed by a V-6 Accord...
While the year-to-year supply reduction may be modest, I imagine that the cumulative effect over, say, 10 years, can have a significant effect on prices.
Since it is very difficult to prove "rarity" except on cars that were rare from the day they were built, these claims of "only 28000 of these are left" doesn't carry that much weight, when there were 250,000 of them built. How could anyone know that?
IMO, for "rarity" to become a value factor, we are talking in the hundreds only, or the teens. To a serious collector, 5000 surviving examples of a car is a LOT.
Look at it this way, a 1974 Cadillac Coupe Deville had so much plastic, it was like driving around a Bic lighter, albeit an extremely heavy one. I outta know, we bought one new (a '74 Coupe Deville, not the Bic lighter!) a couple of years before I got my driver's license. And, my Grandmother purchased a new '76 Fleetwood soon after and I put the first 5,000 miles on that car. You'd think I'd be all "gah-gah" over a car from that time in my life, right? Nope. They were appliances. Period. BUT, if we're talking about a 1964 Coupe Deville, NOW THAT'S a different story! Those cars were elegantly styled. They were (and still are) graceful to look at. And, others will speak equally fondly of Cadillcs from the 50's, 40's and older. OK, mechanically speaking, perhaps they won't win many lifetime achievement awards, but that's a part of their charm.
So, in short, with the exception of some modern ultra performance or exotics (ex. Ford GT), I think the cars currently crossing the auction block at Barrett-Jackson or Kruse will pretty much be the same 10 years from now.
I'd actually foresee a decline or a pretty firm stagnation in collector car values all across the board as time goes on, adjusted for inflation.
You'll find people "collecting" post '73 cars, but most are just "collecting" in their back yard.
And you will see some people even fixing up 70s and 80s survivors, because they can buy them cheap and they can get them in very good condition in the first place. So they'll plug a big crate engine into grandpa's old 1975 anemic whatever coupe or convertible and have a nice ride for cheap.
So I'd say that any post '73 cars we see that will be "restored", will have been modified in order to make them more fun and more valuable.
Nothing wrong with that. We could be evolving into a Modified Collectible kind of hobby here.
In other words, correcting all of Detroit's mistakes (or their regulatory necessities, to be a bit fairer about it).
So we'll shift out of the anally-retentive obsession with matching #s and correct carpet weave into a looser approach for the car hobby. Not unlike the way it used to be in the 50s and 60s.
Guilty as charged! :P
I certainly don't keep my old beast around because I expect to get rich off it.
Reverse engineering obsolete electronics is going to be very very difficult, so once the new old stock dries up, that's dooms-day for many cars.
But early 90s cars aren't too complex. It's when you get into multiple ECMs with multiplexing devices et al---that's going to get very very hairy.
Dealers can't even fix the new ones most of the time and they have access to everything.
Vipers are rarer (about 1/3 production of Vettes) and are being destroyed at a rapid clip, so they may turn out to be more collectible.
As you can see, C4 Vettes and the first C5s are pretty cheap right now. Ditto Boxster prices, which are still falling. Only the Viper has sort of "bottomed out" at 35K or so and won't go lower it seems. C5s and Boxster have yet to hit the basement.
Really? I didn't realize that Vipers were that common! I figured they sold about 40-50,000 Corvettes per year, but only a few thousand Vipers.
As for why they're getting wrecked so often, I'm guessing it's because the Viper is more of a raw, brutal car that can get out of hand pretty easily? Where in contrast, a Corvette is pretty civilized? I wonder if the demographic that buys Vipers also likes to show off and just be more reckless in general? Seems like most of the Corvettes I see are driven fairly conservatively. Almost like it's some middle-aged Boomer who can finally afford one, bought it, and wants to go gentle on it...more concerned about how it makes him look than how fast it gets him about.
Sure, the Viper is a brute of a car with more HP that the average bear can handle. You stomp on the Viper gas pedal while the car is unbalanced and that's it for you. Back end into a tree, mostly likely.
Corvette produces about 34,000 cars a year, so do the math 1990-1999. Many are ordered with automatic transmissions as well, which doesn't help future collectibility, although personally that's the way I think a Corvette works best. Even Ferrari paddle-shifts now. Big two seaters with huge HP are not that much fun to drive with a stickshift day after day on normal public roads.
I wonder if another thing that the Corvette has going against it these days is that, by and large, they're all equipped about the same? You get a 6.2 V-8 with 430 hp/424 ft-lb of torque or a 7.0 with 505 hp/470 ft-lb of torque. And honestly, when you're dealing with that kind of power, are most drivers even going to notice an extra 75 hp? Or the 46 more ft-lb of torque?
At least back in the day, you had the smaller, 283's, 327's, and 350's as an alternative to the big-blocks. You'd give up the raw power and stump-pulling torque, but in turn have a more balanced, better handling car. It was just all in what you wanted, and that variety no doubt made some versions stand out as more desireable than others.
But now they're basically all the same. Plus, back in the day, cars like the Corvette really stood out, because they were low, sporty, and sleek, in an era when most cars were considerably taller, upright, and boxy. However, the push towards aerodynamics closed that gap considerably. Now that cars are getting upright, taller, and boxier again, perhaps cars like the Corvette will start to stand out again?
Last night I was driving home in my 2000 Intrepid, and pulled up next to a Nissan 350Z. I always thought those were low, sporty cars. Yet, in my 4-door Intrepid, I was actually looking UP at it!
Now all cars are built the same. A Corvette is a Corvette is a Corvette.
I harbor no delusions as to what my cars are worth. Heck, I love my 1980s cars but don't expect to get rich off them. Heck I probably put way more into my 1988 Buick Park Avenue than it is worth.
What's so bad about it? Start off in 1st, shift to 5th or 6th, and leave it there the rest of the day. You only need those middle gears on the track.
But I think it's probaby not good for the clutch to start off in 3rd, although the car didn't seem to mind. But at $2,200 per clutch job, I wasn't that comfortable.
I always wondered how Corvette engineers could allow that to stand year after year. You'd think that such a clunky solution would really bug them and encourage them to defeat the problem.
Yeah, that's probably one reason that I like 'em so much, too. I was born in 1970, right about the time they started de-tuning cars so the whole musclecar era, etc, was pretty much before my time.
Honestly, I never really paid much attention to 50's cars, until the movie "Christine" came out. That got me really turned on to the '58 Plymouth. My Mom bought me a Chrysler history book for Christmas 1985 and that was when I finally saw a picture of a '57 DeSoto, and I fell in love.
I imagine that if I was old enough to remember driving those 70's cars when they were new, I probably wouldn't be so fascinated with them today. But they were what roamed the streets when I was a kid. Plus, while the 70's were pretty much the dark ages with most respects to cars, if you like big, hedonistic cars, the '70's were actually a sort of golden age that the downsizing era in the late 70's brought to an end.
In my mind, the 80's is actually more of a dark era. Even though a lot of things improved like performance, handling, fuel economy, and such, a lot of things didn't. A lot of the cool stuff, like hardtops, big-blocks, convertibles that could hold more than two full-grown adults, a wide variety of color choices, etc, were a thing of the past. The cars just became more and more alike...more cookie-cutter. In a lot of respects, reliablity went down, too. Sure, the emissions controls may have improved, but as things got more complex, they also became more prone to breaking, and more expensive to fix. We graduated from those lightweight THM200 trannies that would often shred before 100K miles, or the Buick 231s that you were lucky if you got 70K miles out of them, or the dreaded Chrysler Lean Burn, but we replaced them with Taurus trannies that would self-destruct prematurely, or, gasp, the Chrysler "Ultradrive" 4-speed tranny that to this very day is still not what it should be, plastic intake manifolds and head gaskets that fail, ECUs that short out, etc. And sludge has evolved from something that kept you from leaking oil to something that destroys your engine!
Cars did improve in the 90's for the most part. Although I'd say something like a 1993 Intrepid, when it comes to durability, is nowhere in the league of, say, a 1980's Diplomat. Still, they continued to improve, through the 90's and into the '00's.
I wonder though, if today's kids will look back fondly on current cars the way you and I do on the 70's cars, or the way the Baby Boomers do with the 60's and 50's cars?
Yeah, well I think that's more or less Shifty's point. I've come to agree that, with mega power, especially mega torque, an automatic is a better choice than a manual.
The Corvette's annoying, frustrating, and cumbersome 1-4 shift skip was devised as a means to avoid the gas guzzler tax.
Yes, all that huge torque does beg for an automatic transmission, to make the Vette a really tasty GT car rather than a sports car. It's a big large for that. I think of the Corvette these days as the American version of what the British called "A Gentleman's Express".
It's interesting that the really Big Buck collectible Vettes are very crude and brutal cars, and the more brutal, the more they are worth.
New ones are way too civilized for the old-timers, although I think the new Vette is a helluva car for the money. It is built to a price, you can see that, but still, tremendous performance.
I'd consider an automatic as an everyday driver, as long as I didn't have to look at the back end of it. :P
I would too, although in that price range I'd have a difficult time deciding between the Corvette and the Boxter/Cayman.
What would really appeal to me would be a smaller, Miata-size Vette, with a 4.0 or 4.5L version of the small block V8. I know it'll never happen, because GM already has the Solstice/Sky, which compete with the Miata. Styling aside (the Solstice/Sky are aesthetically appealing), I'd choose a Miata over its GM counterparts, because it's more nimble and has at least some space for luggage. The lack of luggage space is an unforgivable deficiency of the dimensionally larger-than-Miata GMers. But back to my ideal Corvette, and I know I'm in the minority here, a little smaller and lighter version, for more nimble handling and better fuel economy, would be more to my liking.
I don't think Miatas will be collectible either in the near future. Aside from the vast numbers made they are so durable. They made lots of MGBs, too (about 1/2 million I think) but they perished rapidly so scarcity is now (finally) driving MGB prices up after a mere 40 years of waiting. God knows how long it will take for 95% of all Miatas to die. Maybe when the sun burns out?
A V8 Miata would be more like a modern day Cobra I guess. It would be expensive and probably pretty ornery to drive. You'd have to steer it with the gas pedal.
A Tiger with a few tweeks can really roll, although something really needs to be done to the handling.
One problem with collecting Tigers...well, TWO ;problems: a) they are easy to fake (but clever people can spot this) and b) most of them have been modified with a Mustang mentality, and that isn't always pretty.
Not only are the mechanicals durable, but the rust issues that plagued many of the MGs in the Rust Belt and coastal areas are a much much longer term issue for Miatas.
"A V8 Miata would be more like a modern day Cobra I guess. It would be expensive and probably pretty ornery to drive. You'd have to steer it with the gas pedal."
Well okay, then, the V8 could be dialed back to ~3.5L, while still retaining great performance and that throaty sound that only a vee-eight produces. A turbo 4 or 3.5 V6 might produce similar performance, but the driving experience wouldn't be the same. Don't get me wrong, I love fours, naturally aspirated and turbocharged, but we're talking here about how a Corvette for someone who doesn't want a brutish monster, one more in the spirit of the '56 or '57 283s than the current ones, and a little greener in the process. I know it's impractical, and won't happen. Among other things, the cost associated with introducing a new engine block would ruin the business case. But wait, GM plans to introduce the RWD Alpha platform in '11, to compete with the BMW 3-Series, so a 3.5 V8 would be suitable for these cars too. Spreading this V8 over more production would help the business case, but It still won't happen. The General will probably stuff its direct injection Ecotec turbo 4 and DI 3.6 V6 into its Cadillac and Pontiac Alphas.
Incidentally, I understand the next generation Solstice/Sky will also be based on the Alpha platform. GM finally has some good stuff in the pipeline.
Althought the very early models were "limited production," it was more because of the learning curve than any desire to keep production limited. Today's production of 30,000/year is hardly "mass production" in the world of 100,000+ break-even limits. And I'd argue that the Corvette is hardly any more expensive today than it was at any other time in its history relative to average American income.
Aside from Lancia, the V6 seems to spoil the collectiblity of any car.
I don't see automatic transmissions or types of engines spoiling the "collectibility of any car" on its own. Sure a 3.1L Lumina probably won't ever be collectible but there are obviously V6 vehicles (Dino, Buick Grand National, Lancia) that are good and potentially collectible cars with V6 engines. And automatic Corvettes will find their homes among collectors in the future just as automatic GTOs, 442s, GSXs, Road Runners, 300-Letter, and many other cars have...and will.
Yes, there are a handful of V-6 cars that have slowly climbed to collectible status, such as the GNX and the Dino (although the early Dino engine was a lousy one).
I can't see any modern Corvette ever becoming very valuable, even though people will always want them. There are just too many of them. 34,000 cars a a year is HUGE by collector car standards.
To give you an example, all of these 30,000 + 2007 Corvettes are essentially the same car. But in 1967, a 427cid L88 engine was put into only 20 Corvettes. Some of the Hemi cars were made in perhaps 10 examples.
Many of the cars you see being bid up on TV are extremely rare.
I can see some modern Corvettes being collectible. The 1978 IPC, 1982 "Collectors Edition", 1986 convertible (IPC), 1990-1995 ZR1, 1996 Grand Sport, 1997 IPC, the two-door coupe, and Z06 among them. I'd like to see the Doug Nash 4+3 Corvettes fall into this category, but rarity alone won't do it.
Let's remember that muscle car were just "used cars" 20-30 years ago.
If extreme rarity is your only criteria, you won't find it in a modern car due to homologation costs.
I don't think the real "muscle" cars were EVER just used cars. They were revered when new, and revered now They were raced, bragged about, admired and sure....used up in a blaze of glory.
But the original "muscle cars" (not the diluted term we use now for any tin can with a V8 engine in it) demonstrate I think, the basic Golden Rule of Collectibility----"loved then, loved now."
If a car is not greatly admired, and recognized at the time of introduction, as something special, it won't ever truly get there.
But yes, we can agree that certain special models of Corvette *might* become collectible, if that "specialness" is not just a badge and a decal and different floor mats or paintwork. It has to be a DIFFERENT CAR to make it something other than an ordinary mass produced Corvette I think
Not to poke holes in your theory but....okay, I'm going to try.
The Tucker was "not greatly admired and recognized at the time of introduction." It's rarity and story weren't enough to boost it's value until about the time of the movie. That's when values shot through the roof, but before then it was just another rare orphan. Today it's truly a collectible and valuable car.
The same story probably holds true for the Delorean (not a very valuable car in the 1980s) and I'd like to think that the Bricklin will eventually gain similar status.
"Muscle cars" of the 1960s (and very early 1970s) without Hemi engines or COPO setups were just used cars until very recently. It happens with almost every generation that the cars "kids" grew up wanting become collectible when they become old (like us) and have more money than sense (not necessarily like us). I'm just waiting for the day when the Chevrolet Citation X11, Dodge (Omni) Charger, and Ford Escort SS are worth hundreds of thousands as they cross the block at Barrett-Jackson.
Again, maybe that's just my imagination running wild.