Remember when people bought new Muscle cars and left them outside?

[Ghoste]

I would agree with that as well but offer that where young kids now are quite baffled by the simple task of setting gap and dwell on apoints type distributor, they can easily plug their Toyota into a laptop and alter fuel maps, timing curves and download the latest hip hop hit all at the same time while pulling their pants up over their underwear.  (okay so maybe they won't pull their pants up but the rest is pretty simple for them)

[Mike DC]

 
Mark my words -

The mid-1990s Toyota Supra Turbo is the next classic on the level of the early Corvettes or Z-28 Camaros or Charger R/Ts.

It's not just the stopwatch numbers.  It's the combination of being squarely rooted in a common car, it's very fast and yet still realistically modifiable in stock shape, it looks better than most of its type, etc. 


-----------------------------------------------------


Now, I know someone is reading this and thinking, "What, the factory hot-rod version of those little ricer coupes?  Yeah, I suppose some of the ricer guys might grow up and eventually look back on them fondly, and maybe they're the ideal for that particular genre of car . . . but . . . how could that teenager-toy stack up to a REAL classic sports car on the auction block?"   

And that's exactly what the previous generations of classic car collectors were thinking about Hemi Charger R/Ts in about 1979 too.  Now the "real classics" those guys coveted are being knocked off the top of the auction block by the lowly Hemi Mopars that they looked down upon when they could have bought them cheap. 

 

[Ghoste]

You are absolutely right Mike.  I can very distinctly remember the owner of a certain large classic car auction house being asked why he didn't deal in more musclecars.  His reply was that there wasn't any money in musclecars because they were just too pedestrian for the real collectors, he was going to remain focused on pre-war classics because that was where the money would always be.  That conversation took place just before the last big musclecar price jump.  I wonder if Dana Mecum or Craig Jackson would agree with the statement?

[69_500]

I'll give you that in a the future the Supra will be one of the cars that people are going crazy for and start looking for. I think another one will be the Mitsu 3000 GT, as long as its the VR-4 model. Between those two cars you have some real horsepower and handling. I can see either one of them being highly sought after in another 15-20 years. Some of them are already selling back at what original sticker price was.

[Ghoste]

Suburu WRX or Skyline?

[Aero426]

 
Mark my words -

The mid-1990s Toyota Supra Turbo is the next classic on the level of the early Corvettes or Z-28 Camaros or Charger R/Ts.

It's not just the stopwatch numbers.  It's the combination of being squarely rooted in a common car, it's very fast and yet still realistically modifiable in stock shape, it looks better than most of its type, etc. 

The Supras have already been in demand for some time.    The real challenge is actually finding an unmodified Supra if you want one.     Most seem to have been boogered up one way or another.   I'm not sure how you can tie it to being rooted in a common car.    The car is its own platform and was the corporate performance flagship.    It wasn't cheap when new either.    I'm sure it will increase in value as time goes on.    Probably the 3000 GT VR4 as well.   There are not that many of them out there.

Now, I know someone is reading this and thinking, "What, the factory hot-rod version of those little ricer coupes?  Yeah, I suppose some of the ricer guys might grow up and eventually look back on them fondly, and maybe they're the ideal for that particular genre of car . . . but . . . how could that teenager-toy stack up to a REAL classic sports car on the auction block?"   

And that's exactly what the previous generations of classic car collectors were thinking about Hemi Charger R/Ts in about 1979 too.  Now the "real classics" those guys coveted are being knocked off the top of the auction block by the lowly Hemi Mopars that they looked down upon when they could have bought them cheap. 

What specifically are the "real classics" that you feel muscle has knocked off the top of the heap?

[69_500]

I suppose that you could possibly lump the Mitsu EVO Lancers in there as well, with the Subaru WRX but they don't seem to me to be in the same class as the 3000 GT VR-4 or the Supra's. Now you could also throw the Acura NSX in there as well. but with the Supra, 3000 GT VR4 and the NSX you had cars that were very pricey when they were new. Which would be like how a HEMI car used to be, it wasn't cheap even when new.

[Aero426]

Nothing is a lock, but I think all those have collector potential.    Again my personal rationale is that if it has any combination of these factors, it has a good chance of being collectible:   attractive styling, performance, limited production, unusual features.

[Brock Samson]

 Speaking with the sales folks about the WRX and Evos they say the passion and intrest is there from the younger generation but the insurance costs are the deal breaker,.. for what it's worth... they arn't looking at the Chally at all.

[Ghoste]

Speaking with the sales folks about the WRX and Evos they say the passion and intrest is there from the younger generation but the insurance costs are the deal breaker,.. for what it's worth... they arn't looking at the Chally at all.

Kind of like 1970 all over again.

[Brock Samson]

 Precisely.

[Old Moparz]

Muscle will live on because the legend gets bigger as time goes on.  What is not to like about outrageous styling,  wild colors and tire frying performance? 

Reading the "legend gets bigger" part also reminds me of another thing that happens. Just how a lot of people tend to forget just how poorly the fit & finish was on cars. I didn't own or drive any of the classic 60's muscle cars when they were new, but I remember my parents, uncles, & grandfather having them & being able to see the differences in something that they complained about. My mom & dad had 2 cars over the years that I clearly remember being built like military tanks compared to anything new at the time.

In the mid to late 60's they had a '53 Chevy, then a '63 Chevy, & an uncle of mine had a '67 Bonneville. Of the 3 cars, the Bonneville seemed the cheapest, or I should say the most cheaply built, of the bunch. Later on I could see the same comparisons made with cars of the 70's & the late 60's. That same uncle bought a '73 Riviera & gave the Bonneville to my grandfather. The same Bonneville that was the cheaply made car, was now the military tank compared to the Riviera. When my mother got a '73 Valiant, it lasted long enough to where I could compare it to when she bought a '79 Olds 88 that was built like a plastic toy compared to the Valiant.

Since I was just a kid passenger, I can only remember things like the doors closing or lining up better on the older ones, & the plastic interiors of the newer ones that squeaked & rattled like crazy. My whole point is that these cars are looked at now as though they were the best of the best when they were built. Younger crowds who have only seen restored muscle cars will never know just how shitty certain things were. I didn't know anyone that owned an E-Body back then, but have since spoken to people who had them when they were new. Doors sagged & other issues plagued them back then.

I still love these old things compared to new cars, & don't see myself ever dragging anything newer than an early 70's car home to restore. 

[Mike DC]

 
That's very true.  Our standard of what's built right is not fixed.  It's a rolling benchmark that comes down through the generations. 

--------------------------------------------------


I have a friend who actually thinks cars peaked in the 1980s.    Maybe not in styling or performance, but just in terms of the general balances that have to be struck in production.   Cost & weight of the materials vs the quality, workable simplicty vs technology improvements, etc.  He thinks anything earlier than the mid-1980s is unnecessarily heavy and needs decent port fuel injection.  He thinks the cost-cutting and unnecessary complexity outweighs the improvements on anything after the early 1990s.



I don't think I can possibly reconcile the idea that a 1986 Detriot car is better than a 1969 one.  But I have to admit he has some valid points.  When you look at the resto-mod musclecars we build these days, we're pretty much taking them into that same era of the late 1980s or early 1990s:


--  4spd autos or 5spd manual trannys are commonplace for us.  But hottest modern sports cars often have 5-7 speeds even on the automatics, the manuals are getting into paddle shifting and hydraulic/automatic clutching, etc. 

--  We'll do better shock and sway bar technology and maybe a little geometry improvements.  But not much aluminum suspension arms and electronically-variable shocks/ride heights like modern sports cars. 

--  Aluminum heads & intakes & radiators are everywhere, but we still like mostly iron engine blocks. 

--  We tend to like electronic ignition and port fuel injection, but not all the way to coil-on-plug and drive-by-wire stuff. 

--  We're usually in favor of front disc brakes or even 4-wheel discs, but we don't go all the way to ABS and 6-piston calipers. 

--  We like a few more adjustments and lumbar support in our seats, but we don't get into electic butt-warmers & recorded motorized position settings like some modern rides. 

--  We like 3-way retractable seatbelts and headrests, but we don't start messing with airbags or rebuilding "cumple zones" into the chassis.


The list goes on and on. 

[WingCharger]

You can look at it this way.
Old cars=Tanks
New Cars=Plastic

If I could, I would drive a '70's car everyday. Not because they look cool, but because I like to see a piece of classic American steel still rolling down the highway.

You will never beat a Muscle Car.

[Ghoste]

For me it's partly styling; I like what I like and what I like happens to have been a popular theme in the late 60's.  It's also the more primitive driving experience.  I wouldn't want to do it all the time, the supercars were never that super in the snow, but I sure do love a windows down too loud high speed cruise in the summertime.

[General_01]

What you like car wise is probably shaped between the ages of 8-20. Whatever is around you at that time is what you have to chose from. I turned 8 in 1975. I had cousins who drove late 60's and early 70's muscle. I also had some cousins who would come up to the racetrack in the summer for the funny car races when I was 11-12. Lots of teens partying there with 60's to 70's muscle. I also wanted those cars because I thought those teenagers were cool and so you needed a car like this to be cool.

Some may say that with the internet it is much easier to access info and look at all cars. I think your taste has to be shaped by things that are tangible to you. Heck, I loved Lambourgini's when I was a kid, but I could touch my cousins '66 Impala or my neighbors '64 Nova. Accessible to me. Our cars may look cool, but they are not accessible to the teen crowd anymore.

[Ghoste]

There is likely a lot of truth to that; at least the age where my automotive tastes were being formed.  I can add though that I've had the opportunity to drive an awful lot of cars over the years from just about every maker including the exotic supercars like Ferarri's and Lambo's and my opinion of what I like hasn't really been shaken.  I'mnot claiming they are the best, but they are the best for me.

[General_01]

Yes, but your tastes had already been formed by the time you probably got to drive the exotics. I am not saying that your tastes are written in stone at that age, but a lot of what you like in a car is set then. When the Vipers came out, I thought those were the coolest things since sliced bread. I still wouldn't mind having one. And it could kick my Chargers a@# in the 1/4. I think those things look great, but not as great as my '71.

[Ghoste]

Whatever I guess.  Regardless of when I formed my tastes; I like what I like. 

[moparsons]

I agree that the imports may become sought after down the road......but I don't think the classics will fade away as quickly as some of you think. I keep seeing 30 and 35 years thrown out. But I'm in my twenties now, a 69 charger is my dream car, and it could be that long before I get one(or at least finish it).  Also, we have some real young guns like Bronzy and Wing to keep the mopars rolling for a while.




also.....my little brother is 11, and he is already wanting to learn to drive in my 69 Dart.     he love the old mopars!

[1969chargerrtse]

The problem is in 30 years you may have a few people into these 60 muscle cars, but the volume of cars will most likely exceed the people that want/have interest in them. I think to many of the muscle cars were produced and then saved compared to the 1928 model Ts of the world. Look at the prices of the cars from the 30s ,40s and 50s. You have the occasional superstar cars like the stutz or the 57 chevy, but most of the cars are selling for under $20K.

The real key to sustaining the collector car hobby is the availability to use them.  If we can get fuel, just about any car that is good looking, or a performance model, or has unique features will have somebody who wants it.    The era of the car is not the most important thing.    Every decade has a pretty good number of significant cars that remain in demand. 

Muscle will live on because the legend gets bigger as time goes on.  What is not to like about outrageous styling,  wild colors and tire frying performance? 

Gee, I left my thread back at page 1 and wow it took off.  I agree with these points above.  The reason I came back was because of what Brock said about (the model T?) and what we would feel about these cars 75 years from now.  It bugged me because as written above, these cars are part of an amazing American era.  The Muscle car years.  Dropping in huge engines and only concerned how fast they can go STRAIGHT.  The Charger and most all the muscle cars of the 60 and 70's era are rolling works of art.  Fun to drive, great to listen too etc...  A model T or A or whatever is a bore to drive, and dangerous on our highways.  The early cars were transportation period.  The 69 Charger is style and design at it's best, and a blast to drive.  Like the true classics in American Life, Elvis, Marilyn, Kennedy, Coke a cola, Mickey mouse, I think the Muscle cars of the that era will always ring a bell in peoples heart, all over the world not just here.   

[Ghoste]

Ah, but the fifties represent a very unique era as well, the Atomic Age and the dichotomy of post war optimism and cold war pessimism driving everyones daily lives.  The cars were much more than transportation, many of them were clearly reflections of the American culture and social values of the era.  And yet, the cars do not command the attention that 60's supercars currently enjoy.  Why?  Could it be because they are one generation away and that is one generation too far into the "graying of the hobby" as it's often called?

[1969chargerrtse]

Ah, but the fifties represent a very unique era as well, the Atomic Age and the dichotomy of post war optimism and cold war pessimism driving everyones daily lives.  The cars were much more than transportation, many of them were clearly reflections of the American culture and social values of the era.  And yet, the cars do not command the attention that 60's supercars currently enjoy.  Why?  Could it be because they are one generation away and that is one generation to far into the "graying of the hobby" as it's often called?

Great point. Only time will tell. But what matters to me most is what I enjoy, and since about 1967 it's always been the cars of the 60's and 70's. I'm 52 now and I'll enjoy cars until I die. Amen.

[Brock Samson]

 I'd add the Last version of the Mazda RX-7 to the future collectables list, I think it had some of the best styling to ever come out of Japan, but allot of these exotics and semi exotics (incl. the Viper which I'd love to have BTW) have issues out beloved B-Bodies don't,  namely lack of a trunk and back seat, not to mention the skill level required to swap an alt or do a basic tune up...
So to my way of thinking the charger in 318 or even the rare /6 could be driven by a little old lady who had good taste at the time (because, I believe few are still in service now in that capacity except by a dwindling number of original owners, and I have seen a couple over the years incl. a gal in her 70s driving a bronze '69 500... but yes,. again I digress...) 
In anycase the subject of a the proverbial "Musclecar Parked in the Snow" is far more likely then a Viper or Supra muscle cars can and often do double duty as grocery getter or even church cars... they really have it all - great styling, dependable performance, and  decent passenger and luggage capacity being possibly admittedly debateable and in my book the high-water mark of American Automobile design... of course I'm biased but for all-around capability what modern vehicles can match the versatility designed into the American Muscle Car.
So, why not a muscle-car under the snow?.. Driven Hard 'n Put Away Wet,.. should be out motto shouldn't it?..

[Mike DC]

So, why not a muscle-car under the snow?.. Driven Hard 'n Put Away Wet,.. should be out motto shouldn't it?..

It's like most ways people work their musclecars hard.  People talk it up when they see a trailer queen, but then they turn around and flame anyone who actually tries to do it.   For some reason kicking the living sh*t out of a car on a dragstrip is right but driving it in the rain is a sin.