what cars of the late 80's or early 90's do you think will become future collector cars? (exhaust, engines)

[Coldjensens]

[quote=Linson;19689612]

Originally Posted by coldjensens

uh huh. Based on some of the information in this post (above and below) i'm not sure if you really know what you [or i] am talking about.

And objectively speaking, 4th gen f-bodies were more unique in their time than were the 4 gen f-bodies in that, in their time, their was really nothing else on the road that could could be confused with one. Both 3rd and 4th gens were made in very large numbers, although you see suprisingly few well kept survivors today - especially 3rd gens.




is THIS a joke? And you say that 3rd gen f-bodies are "hideous?"



see, i'm not sure if you really know your history all that well on this subject. fun fact: the Camaros and Firebirds retained the same styling through 1997. in '98 the Camaros (and Camaros only) got a Chrysler Concord-looking front end. the Firebirds recieved a more round and bulbous front end and the WS6 models saw the introduction of the, in retro-spect, over-the-top looking double decker ram air hood, which would go on to be emulated on many a ricer's Honda Civic.



okay. Some people collect toe nail clippings.



we are all aware that the 80's began as a dismal decade for automotive performance. but what you may not be aware of is that the mid to late eighties saw the revival of automotive performance in the form of the 3rd gen Camaros and Firebirds, and the Fox body 5.0 Mustangs. with the introduction of the 4th generation of Camaros/Firebirds in 1993, performance improved. with the introduction of the (i guess 4th?) generation of Mustangs in 1994, performance actually declined. fewer horsepower and a heavier car. stock performance did not improve until the 2000 model year by which time Ford was already in the second year of a subsequent body style generation.

Misremembering the year means I do not understand what you are talking about? You argument makes no sense. If you want to be defensive and try to belittle a poster to make you feel bigger or better, at least try to make some sense. If your post has no logic, it has no credibility.

Odd that you highlighted "Sunbirds" in reference to your response. Do you think that they will be collectable? Did you think that they were a good car? Their only possible collectible value is as one of the worst cars ever made.


(I just realized that maybe you do not kow what a Sunbird is, and/or you did not comprehend what I wrote and you think that I was confusing A Sunbird with a firebird - not the case. If that is your point try reading again, slowly. I was giving an example of a car that is not likely to ever be collectible.)


The stupid looking Camaro front ends appeared in 1998. (1994 and 1995 are before 1998 which actually is all that I said). However I did not remember the year that they changed them out and made them look awful. I did not bother to look it up (until now). It makes no difference. They are still stupid looking whether they appeared in 1996 or 1998.

Although I did not much like the Firebird in 1993-1996 (looked like a kids car, no class), they also got worse in the middle 1990s. They were still better looking than the Gen 3 wedges which can only be described as bland (both in appearance and in performance). I have always loved Camaros. I wanted one during the 1980s, but I was not going to buy one of those things, especially after driving one. They just were not fun, had very little going for them.

What do you think looked like a 94-96 Camaro?

What do you think did not look like the gen 3? They just look like an everyday coupe.

The third gens are still around. They just are not well preserved. You find hundreds of them being driven by people with no money in California. Since they are yawners, they are relegated to a role as just an old car that people can get at a low price. Most of them are on their last legs. We do not see Gen 3 Camaros much at all in Michigan, but in the summer, lots and lots of still perfect gen 4 Camaros and Firebirds come out to play.

People are keeping them and they are getting more and more popular. The new Camaros are mean looking, not pretty and classy looking like Gen 4, but Bad ***** looking instead. The 3rd gen looks like there were trying to make them look more standard, more like other cars. They did not scream "I am a performance car" at you like other models. Mustang went the same way. There is not much from the 1980s that is not a car to yawn at. The Japanese had some nice options, but the big three made nothing to jump around about. The Japanese also killed the US cars in performance, espcially for the dollars. The Gen 3 Camaro (and firebird) improved a bit, but they were still pretty lousy performers and still boring looking. The 1990s got better.

The Aztec will be collectible because it was supposed to look ugly. There has never been anything quite like it. It is ugly, but not boring. As I said, collectability is not about what was the best car of its time, sometimes it is the worst or the ugliest. Look at the Allard for example. Very collectible. That British boat car is ugly and a terrible bot and a terrible car, but still highly prized by collectors.

Mostly it is About uniqueness and whether the same or a similar model is still available. Other Examples: VW thing - ugly, crummy, popular for collectors. VW bus - horrid to drive, uncomfortable, not dependable. Massively popular. A restored 21 window will run about $50,000.

One of the best all around cars of the 1980s and 1990s is the Toyota Camry. However no one is going to collect those. Boring boring boring. The Gen 3s have the same problem.

I am well aware of the styles. I currently own a 1995 Camaro. It is actually increasing in value right now instead of decreasing. (at least around here). I owned a Fox body mustang for a short period, it was a 1984 or 1985 (hated it, it was ugly, performed poorly was uncomfortable broke down a lot), I drove a 1988 Camaro (I think that they called it IROC or something similar) for about 2 months while my car was broken, again a yawn of a car for a muscle car - I liked my RX7 much better (except that it was broken). I also owned a 1973 Camaro (that was pretty awful too, but it would at least go fast as it was configured). I am also well aware that the Mustang got worse in the early 1990s. I research any car that I am considering extensively. In 1995 I researched and drove 20 different cars before deciding that the Camaro was the best buy for the money by far. I never replaced it because they never came out with anything that I liked better that did not cost as much as a house. I like the new Camrao ok, but I like the gen 4 much better, it is classy and pretty rather than mean looking. I cannot have two, so I would have to like a new car enough better to get rid of my Gen 4 nothing out there yet (although the new Challenger has me tempted).

Anyway back to the topic. I would be willing to bet dinner that while the Gen 4 Camaros may become generally collectible, the Gen 3 will not, other than possibly in a small niche market (perhaps those who cannot afford a Gen 2 or gen 4.). Jay Leno will probably never have a Gen 3 in his collection.

[Linson]

[quote=Felix C;19713876]

I did address that but you missed it on your mission to promote the 3rd Gen over the 4th.

i dont think you did address it in any clear way. and for **** sake i am not on a mission to promote 3rd gens over 4th gens. and i'm not on a mission here. i'm just trying to get a point across. i have a 4th gen that i've put a lot of time and money into. i havnt even owned a 3rd gen (that has ran) in over ten years.

Looks are subjective. You prefer them...fine but have no data to say "many" and now "generally" are preferred.

oh, for **** sake, man! really!?? show you the data!?? i do have plenty of data. the data is from life experience. that cannot be documented on a computer. i dont live my life over this internet. i'm talking about conversations with people who are not car afficionados. i'm talking about conversations with people who ARE car afficionados. i own a lot of muscle cars. i have friendships and associations that stem from that car culture. i've never heard somebody say that 4th gens LOOK better than 3rd gens.

quick story:

when i bought my '96 Z28 (which i still have) back in Feb 1999, i was in love with it. at the same time i had my first car, a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, which i had hot-rodded out, (replaced the TBI 305 with a carbed 355, painted, 2" cowel hood, ect.) it was my first foray into hot rodding and the car was unreliable and not very fast. all my buddies would tell me that my '87 looked better than my new Camaro, and seeing them parked next to each other, i could kind of see where they were coming from. but i was in love with that 4th gen Camaro because it performed. after dumping all that money into that '87, i finally had a real deal performance car. i traded in my '87 for $2500 on a Chevy Cavalier for my wife and i was glad to be rid of it. i couldnt be bothered with a third gen for a long time because, generally, the performance was so much better with a 4th gen. but i'm ONLY talking about looks (two decades removed).

i am fully aware that stock for stock, and to a certain point, mod for mod, a 4th gen is the better performer. i'm actually begining to think that you have "Turd Gen" syndrome. see, with the 4th gens you have the V6's which are for girls, and the V8's, which are all good performers. with the 3rd gens you had the V6's, clearly not good, and the top of the line models (IROC-Z, Formula, Formula 350, Trans Am, Trans Am GTA) which, beleive it or not, were good performers. but the majority of cars you'd see on the road were intermediate V8 models like my 87 Firebird. these cars were equiped with low performing 305 ci TBI motors, rear drums, one-legger diff, ect. "many" people dont differentiate between this majority, and the truly capable 3rd gens. those 5.7 liter Irocs and Formulas were fast. very fast for their time. and their handling was outstanding. even good by todays standards.

As for this:
"And objectively speaking, 3rd gen f-bodies were more unique in their time than were the 4 gen f-bodies in that, in their time, their was really nothing else on the road that could could be confused with one. Both 3rd and 4th gens were made in very large numbers, although you see suprisingly few well kept survivors today - especially 3rd gens."

uh, yeah. i stand by that. i dont see how you can honestly disagree with my analysis. during the late 90's most cars had that "bar of soap design" base. 4th gens were no exception. 3rd gens were futuristic and stealthy looking in a time when most cars being produced were still pretty "boxy" looking.

No way to confuse a 4th Gen either. There is no point you are making above as there is no objectively speaking in anything you say as you are promoting the 3rd Gens.

people have made facetious comparisons of my 4th gen to a Geo Storm. a Chrysler Concord in your rear view can DEFINITELY be mistaken for a '98+ Camaro and visa versa. they even have similar tail lights too.

I think pristine 3rdGens are few and far between becuase just like the late '70s F-bodies they were driven into the ground and the poor engines and difficult electronics do not make the car desirable to restore. At least the smog laden late '70s cars had a 350CID or 400/403CID depending on the manufacturer.

again, "Turd Gen Syndrome". but what do you think would win in a stock to stock 1/4 mile race. a late 70s 350, 400, or 403 powered F-body, or a bone stock 89-ish Iroc Z or Formula 350? i'll give you a clue: those later 3rd gens will run circles around them, and even some earlier "so-called 350 horsepower cars."

305CID was a very poorly regarded engine and I did live through that era.

again, "Turd Gen Syndrome." so i take it that you've never heard of an L98?

[GTOlover]

the only downside to the L98 in the 3rd gen is it only came with the 700R4 Automatic tranny. I wish it would of came with a 5-speed manual.

looks wise, I agree the third gen looked alot better than the 4th gen. But the 4th gen was one of the best bang for the buck sports cars out there with the LT1 and later on the LS1 V-8.

A 3rd Gen Iroc-Z gen with a LS1 and T-56 and upgraded suspension and Brakes would be a blast to own anf a great reliable daily driver.

[Linson]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Anyway back to the topic. I would be willing to bet dinner that while the Gen 4 Camaros may become generally collectible, the Gen 3 will not, other than possibly in a small niche market (perhaps those who cannot afford a Gen 2 or gen 4.). Jay Leno will probably never have a Gen 3 in his collection.

1) **** JAY LENO!!! Leno's car collection is just assinine. anyone who looks to Jay Leno's collection as any sort of standard looks at cars the same way a 14 year old girl looks at music.

2) here's my 4th gen. Lemme see yours.

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/9216_1119673039594_1460089928_1153723_8348677_n.jp g (broken link)

[Felix C]

You wandered all over the place and were a bit incoherent in your response to my post.

Yes, you started with mostly or mainly and then went to generally. Those are your words. You did begin this issue by proclaiming that 3rd gens were more attractive than 4gens and I countered your poor selection of a 4th gen Camaro with a more representative one.

If the 3rd gens were considered more attractive we would see more of them with modern hi-performance engine conversions as we do Fox bodies. We do not.

I do not know what Turd Gen is but the 305CID was the F-body performance engine until the 5.7 was available and then the 305 was the only option for manual transmission F-bodies. These cars were slow and unattractive. I am no fan of the 4th gen but the 3rds appear primitive and without any redeeming cosmetic features. The end of term 2nd Gens still had a measure of appearance of the early 1970s versions. Although the engines were thoroughly tamed, the cars did have looks although sometimes too extravagant with decals.

L98 only available on F-bodies beginning in 1987 so most of the decade it was only 305s. So what was your point with that nonesense? No manual transmission either with the 5.7.

Looks like you are losing your cool. I never mentioned V6s. We are and have been referring only to the performance optioned cars of these years. Now you are mentioning some unknown "people" who say this and that. I disagree with all that you mentioned in these comparisons about what looks like what. Again, you have no standing to claim mostly/mainly or generally. Stock 1/4 mile is not the issue, it is the combination of appearance and performance. 3rd Gens have little redeeming value compared to a 2nd or 4th gen. Well, perhaps the 3.8V6 Buick Turbo intercooled one.

Well, I do not think well of you either. In retrospect, no-one cares what you think except you but you need to proclaim yourself correct about this. Insecure much? I just properly pointed out that you were presuming far too much without any real data.

The best and the appropriate action would be to state "My opinion and the people I have come in contact with is that 3rd Gens are more attractive than 4th Gens" Now does that really appear as mainly/mostly or even generally? The answer is no. No one I know believes so.

[The Continental]

As far as F-bodies there are still plenty of 2nd gens people are fixing up and there is a lot more nostalgia early 2nd gens and later T/As, Formulas, and Z28s than there are for Mustang IIs. Plus there aren't nearly as many IIs left or even to start out at.

People can complain all they want about anything from mid 70s-mid 90s, but unless someone is going for an all original stock car than one can easily upgrade the performance on any of those. I'd prefer a 76-78 T/A SE or 98-02 T/A WS6. Although I generally like all Firebirds(granted a 93-97 come just can't come close to comparing to the 98-02 T/A) and most Camaros(some do indeed look like a Concord or Seabring and a lot came in that ugly 90s turquoise).

As far as Sunbirds, people will fix up the 1st gens for sure and probably the later convertibles as well. The same goes for any of the H, J, and W bodies. Granted a RWD V8 car is preferable, some will like a FWD with a 3800 SC in it. People like Toronados, Eldorados, and 79+ Rivieras, they're all FWD and anything after 75 probably has less HP than a 3800 SC. HP isn't important to everyone either as many old cars still use their original 6cyl motors.

[Linson]

Originally Posted by GTOlover

the only downside to the L98 in the 3rd gen is it only came with the 700R4 Automatic tranny. I wish it would of came with a 5-speed manual.

looks wise, I agree the third gen looked alot better than the 4th gen. But the 4th gen was one of the best bang for the buck sports cars out there with the LT1 and later on the LS1 V-8.

A 3rd Gen Iroc-Z gen with a LS1 and T-56 and upgraded suspension and Brakes would be a blast to own anf a great reliable daily driver.

if you dont mind, comiserate with me, brother.

i dont disagree with what youre saying. only you say 3rd gens look "alot" better, i'm saying that most people (myself included) would say they look "somewhat" better. even though they are essentially a kick-ass motor and tranny wrapped in a plastic car, i actually do like the looks of some 4th gens, but i believe that they have begun to lose thier appeal with the general public, and some 20 years removed from the end of their run, the 3rd gens have begun to gain some appeal. that's all.

i dont know what is with some of these people. why a statement such as

it seems that there is becoming a general consensus that 3rd gen F-bodies are better looking cars than 4th gens

that is clearly in the context of "this is what i have noticed," and then defending that position rather than ignore my true life experiences, makes me a liar with an agenda. sheesh. i could really give a **** whether these two like 3rd or 4th gens, but my experience has been that in the here and now, people generally appreciate the 3rd gens stylings over the 4th gens. i'm really not sure whether these two have had disimilar experiences or are just speaking from their own biased opinions on the matter. i'm guessing the later.

[GTOlover]

Originally Posted by Linson

if you dont mind, comiserate with me, brother.

i dont disagree with what youre saying. only you say 3rd gens look "alot" better, i'm saying that most people (myself included) would say they look "somewhat" better. even though they are essentially a kick-ass motor and tranny wrapped in a plastic car, i actually do like the looks of some 4th gens, but i believe that they have begun to lose thier appeal with the general public, and some 20 years removed from the end of their run, the 3rd gens have begun to gain some appeal. that's all.

i dont know what is with some of these people. why a statement such as that is clearly in the context of "this is what i have noticed," and then defending that position rather than ignore my true life experiences, makes me a liar with an agenda. sheesh. i could really give a **** whether these two like 3rd or 4th gens, but my experience has been that in the here and now, people generally appreciate the 3rd gens stylings over the 4th gens. i'm really not sure whether these two have had disimilar experiences or are just speaking from their own biased opinions on the matter. i'm guessing the later.

hey I love the look 3rd gens but if I were looking for a performace car to mod out and have some fun with. That also had some daily driver reliability.. I would go for the 4th Gen just for the LT1/LS1 and T-56 set up.. sure the corpoarate 7.5" rear end sucks but nothing a ford 9" swap won't fix.

the 3rd gen to me would need a ZZ4 engine swap a whole lot of subframe and suspension/brake work done to even get stock 4th gen type performance so sure it looks better but froma performce standpoint I would opt for the 4th gen. Since it is very east to get amazing modren levels of performance out of them without costing too much $$$

[Linson]

[quote=Felix C;19720431]

You wandered all over the place and were a bit incoherent in your response to my post.

yes. indeed i did. what with going into my past actual experiences that have lead me to my (believe it or not) unbiased opinion on the matter. sorry about that. and sorry i dont have the raw data on some pie chart the way you wanted.

Yes, you started with mostly or mainly and then went to generally. Those are your words.

those are all synonyms. you know that, right?

You did begin this issue by proclaiming that 3rd gens were more attractive than 4gens and I countered your poor selection of a 4th gen Camaro with a more representative one.

fine. the red LS Camaro you posted illustrates my point just as fine.

If the 3rd gens were considered more attractive we would see more of them with modern hi-performance engine conversions as we do Fox bodies. We do not.

actually, yes "we" do. in my experience, much moreso than Fox Mustangs.

L98 only available on F-bodies beginning in 1987 so most of the decade it was only 305s. So what was your point with that nonesense?

you just made my point. had you not been so hot in the head while reading my post, you wouldnt have missed it. this is essentially what "Turd Gen Syndrome" is. your sensory perception is inundated by the large numbers of lesser, lower performing models which make up the majority of 3rd gens, and therefore you lump them ALL into the category of low-performance turds ("Turd Gens.") personally, i believe that your opinion on the looks of 3rd gens vs 4th gens is somewhat skewed by you misconception of the performance characteristics of the 3rd gen.

No manual transmission either with the 5.7.

that's because they made a stock 345 lb/ft of torque. thats more than an LT1, thats more than an LS1 and more than those factory 5 speeds at the time could handle - or so thought General Motors.

Looks like you are losing your cool.

ya know, up until now, i actually thought we were having a freindly enough difference of oppinion. i respected you and i was enjoying our conversation. but now, youre the one who has lost his cool, and i dont know what the reason is for this nastiness that your showing now.

I never mentioned V6s. We are and have been referring only to the performance optioned cars of these years.

dude! seriously? i brought up the V6s in order to illustrate for you a clear understanding of "Turd Gen Syndrome" which you clearly have. and you still have no idea what i mean by Turd Gen Syndrome?

Now you are mentioning some unknown "people" who say this and that.

you want names? you want dates and places too? the nature of those relationships? sworn affidavits?

I disagree with all that you mentioned in these comparisons about what looks like what.

you can say that you disagree all you want, but you, me, and everyone else knows that you know better.

Again, you have no standing to claim mostly/mainly or generally. Stock 1/4 mile is not the issue, it is the combination of appearance and performance. 3rd Gens have little redeeming value compared to a 2nd or 4th gen. Well, perhaps the 3.8V6 Buick Turbo intercooled one.

yeah right. thats the only one. gimme a break. you've got it bad, man.

I just properly pointed out that you were presuming far too much without any real data.

we've been through this. damn, i wish i had recorded or video taped all those conversations.

The best and the appropriate action would be to state "My opinion and the people I have come in contact with is that 3rd Gens are more attractive than 4th Gens" Now does that really appear as mainly/mostly or even generally? The answer is no. No one I know believes so.

yes, youre right. i should spelled it out more clearly that i didnt mean that everyone in the world thinks that 3rd gens look better.

[stevo75]