Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HMM nothing like proving his point about older cars.
I didn't see anywhere he said ALL pre-80's cars but he did say pre-70's lacking seat-belts, and BOTH of the articles you posted were seat-belt use ads.
I did not post an ad. It was an article from Motor Trend magazine.
He was wrong about pre-'70s cars lacking seatbelts; all of the '60s cars I had seat belts.
To answer the OP original question, I do not see muscle car prices falling much in the next 10 to 15 years unless the economy tanks again like it did '08 or worse. I do think it is possible that cars prior to the muscle car era could see some depreciation going forward as the core of those owners pass on.
As far,as millennials being disinterested it the car hobby, personally I don't see it. I attend 15 to 20 car shows and at least 10 cars and coffee events a season. The participants for both activities is quite different. The classic shows draw a markedly older crowd with older vehicles, 90% american made vehicles. The people who attend the local cars and coffee tend to be much younger and the cars they are passionate about are their daily drivers and not show cars. They modify their cars just like past generations both in appearance and performance but their preferences seem to be Asian and European brands. I would not be surprised to see the majority of vehicles at shows 15 to 20 years down the road to be Asian and European. These same people will spend money on that special vehicle they had or lusted after just like the enthusiast that came before them when they become more financially successful.
The bold part... I certainly hope not!
But I disagree... I still see cars from the '40s, '30s and even '20s at cars shows, so (thankfully), cars from the '50s-'70s should be around for a long time.
Wasn't even the price tag. Over time, the hassle became irritating.
I guess that's my own fault. I want all my vehicles to be ready to be daily drivers and that's not always reasonable.
No diaper cars for me. Not interesting, not fun, and a lot of hassle.
Classic cars are most definitely interesting, in the sense that yes, it could break at any given time. There are lots of people (young included) who drive classic cars every day, but they understand that there could be an issue at any given moment. That's why you have your AAA card if you can't fix it yourself on the spot. The fun and feel of an old vehicle is worth any potential failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Classic cars? I can't even stand the smell of unburnt gasoline...
Preposterous. The smell of exhaust fumes and unburnt fuel rivals the smell of most foods. Plus there's a chance of flames coming out of your exhaust pipe with unburnt fuel, which is awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonepa
Of course those are ads promoting seatbelt use. How about real life?
Everyone's free to do what they want but driving these classic cars is not for me.
I believe that crash test was rigged (some sources say it's real, some say it's rigged), but we have one of those Malibus. 2012 1LT 2.4 Ecotec, 6 speed automatic. I'd drive a 1959 Chevy over it any day of the week, and I actually have one too, but it's an Apache truck. No seatbelts, metal dash, gas tank behind the seat. Such danger
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMack
Where to start ... how about very LOW gas mileage, despite their size and weight VERY dangerous in accidents, etc.. I am a 50-something and have NO interest in the cars of which you speak.
Very low gas mileage despite their size and weight? With the size and weight of most classic cars, you should expect low MPG numbers. Whether you're okay with it or not is another story, but bad gas mileage is to be expected. The dude's right though...today's cars look nowhere near as good as older vehicles, and for me, the looks and feel are what matter. Any safety or convenience benefits are not important. NOT dangerous in accidents by any means, either.
The city-data automotive forum needs some Roadkill, pronto.
You should read it again. Some who were not even wearing seat belts still survived.
As for video which has been posted about 1,000 times. It has no effect on me at. I would not mind owning a 1959 Chevrolet. It's a lot safer than a motorcycle!
Exactly!
Some of these "safety" obsessed folks talk as though you buy cars to crash them. The chance that any skillful, careful driver will face that high-speed head-on scenario in a lifetime is so remote as to be unworthy of mention. You choose a car for the features you use and enjoy every day, not for infinitesimally small probability hypothetical risk. And, on top of that, I don't at all buy into the notion that these tiny tin can new cars are safer than the average late-60s or later classic.
Beyond the improvements in engine emission controls and performance that modern electronics have made possible, this talk of new cars being superior to the classics is akin to the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.
03-27-2016, 03:17 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
I really fail to see the appeal of most classic cars. Some of the styling is nice but the total absence of modern technology and safety features, combined with awful gas mileage, would steer me away from ever actually owning one.
As for those old 60s and 70s boats on wheels, I fail to see any redeeming qualities aside from maybe a trunk so large you can stuff an entire family of murder victims into it with room leftover for groceries. I occasionally see people driving them around here, desperately trying to navigate narrow streets and sharp turns, often to the amusement and frustration of those around them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
And, on top of that, I don't at all buy into the notion that these tiny tin can new cars are safer than the average late-60s or later classic.
In other words, you reject actual reality and substitute your own made up one in its place.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
I really fail to see the appeal of most classic cars. Some of the styling is nice but the total absence of modern technology and safety features, combined with awful gas mileage, would steer me away from ever actually owning one.
As for those old 60s and 70s boats on wheels, I fail to see any redeeming qualities aside from maybe a trunk so large you can stuff an entire family of murder victims into it with room leftover for groceries. I occasionally see people driving them around here, desperately trying to navigate narrow streets and sharp turns, often to the amusement and frustration of those around them.
In other words, you reject actual reality and substitute your own made up one in its place.
Have you parked a truck built in the last 10 years next to one from the 60s or 70s and compared the sizes? Today's trucks are much larger.
I don't see a lot of 20 somethings appreciating the beauty of a 1964 Cadillac or 1958 Impala, will the cars built in the 1940s-1960s begin to fall in price as those who owned and drove in them as children begin to age and pass away?
with the huge strides in safety many people are simply not interested in driving a 40 year old death machine when they can be in a vastly safer modern car that may even avoid the crash in the first place.
anti lock brakes, pre-tensioned belts. retracting steering, airbags , preemptive braking, early failure warnings, and cheaper insurance.
In 20-30 years we will not even be allowed to drive cars on most public roads, and "old" cars may well be banned from all public property.
Owning, operating, and enjoying classic cars seems like a much more tame hobby than, say, skydiving, bungee jumping, rock climbing, skiing, or even playing football. So, the safety concerns of driving a classic car, as a reason the hobby will die out, seem unjustified to me.
I guess I don't understand you having to slam Millennials politically. There are many reasons they are not interested in classic cars.
Hell, I'm 54 and owned a couple of classic cars back when I was young and I'm not really that interested.
Today's cars are just so much better that I'm losing interest in the old ones more and more.
I agree. I would not mind having had my G-ma's 1976 Cadillac Sedan Deville or 1983 Cadillac Sedan Deville, but GEtting parts or someone who can work on it correctly may be a pain. I guess there IS a Cadillac specialty catalog company though covering certain years...
EVen the late 70s-early 80s Impalas, Caprice classics {even a early-mid 70s Caprice Classic} I enjoyed so much might give me the same trouble. With the 80s models starting to have the electronic fuel injections, or getting someone who can diagnose a problem WITHOUT a computer telling him what to do would be a headache. And I am no longer able to work on the cars.
I don't know maybe not as hard to own one as I think....I still cruise CL for them though,,,
I REALLY WOULD like to have my 1986 full sized Chevy K10 Fully loaded pick-em-up truck again.....
*sigh*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The mk6/current Jetta is massive compared to my mk2 Jettas.
