What constitutes a classic
Discussion
Dipping in for an opinion on a prospective purchase - not that it matters, I'm just curious as to what people think.
My current car (ford puma - modern classic!) is getting a bit leggy + rusty, and I want something more practical for shoving bikes in. But I also want van style carrying capacity. And I want a camper van. And I want to be able to get around in winter. And I want a classic. And I'm not one for spending a great deal on car purchases.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.. The Mitsubishi Delica
.jpg)
My vote is it's a classic purely due to the slightly mad max style appearance of it.
My current car (ford puma - modern classic!) is getting a bit leggy + rusty, and I want something more practical for shoving bikes in. But I also want van style carrying capacity. And I want a camper van. And I want to be able to get around in winter. And I want a classic. And I'm not one for spending a great deal on car purchases.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.. The Mitsubishi Delica
My vote is it's a classic purely due to the slightly mad max style appearance of it.
d offspring of a Shogun and a sprogbus? Seriously...?For me, classic cars are those built using the older set of design paradigms. These includes:
Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
To me; anything with a plastic dash, integrated headlights and moulded bumpers isn't a classic, 'cos it's just the same as any other modern car. Early examples would be Jaguar XJ-S and the Mk1 Golf.
I, personally, see a very clear line between classics and moderns, that other people don't seem to 'get'. To me, the design and feel of these earlier cars is very different to things designed about post '75. Experience has told me that how they drive is very different too.
Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
To me; anything with a plastic dash, integrated headlights and moulded bumpers isn't a classic, 'cos it's just the same as any other modern car. Early examples would be Jaguar XJ-S and the Mk1 Golf.
I, personally, see a very clear line between classics and moderns, that other people don't seem to 'get'. To me, the design and feel of these earlier cars is very different to things designed about post '75. Experience has told me that how they drive is very different too.
varsas said:
For me, classic cars are those built using the older set of design paradigms. These includes:
Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
Try naming a few. Seperate headlights will rule out most post war cars and 15" or smaller wheels will rule out most pre-war cars. 2CV maybe? Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
TA14 said:
varsas said:
For me, classic cars are those built using the older set of design paradigms. These includes:
Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
Try naming a few. Seperate headlights will rule out most post war cars and 15" or smaller wheels will rule out most pre-war cars. 2CV maybe? Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
Have to say the type of car he refers to also appeals to me. There was a period when car details changed fundamentally and this was probably around the end of the 1960's to very early 1970's. Once moulded plastic became commonplace a certain link with the past was broken.
mph said:
TA14 said:
varsas said:
For me, classic cars are those built using the older set of design paradigms. These includes:
Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
Try naming a few. Seperate headlights will rule out most post war cars and 15" or smaller wheels will rule out most pre-war cars. 2CV maybe? Sepearate, chrome bumpers
Seperate headlights
Seperate instrumenst in a dashboard
The car will usually have a 2 valve/cylinder engine, carbs, and 15 inch or smaller wheels. Not all classics share all these features, but they are unusual if they do not.
This type of car was never around when I was growing up. I have only ever seen them at shows, in magazines and occasionally on the road (and in my garage). No one I have ever known has driven one as a daily. They are always special, second cars.
Have to say the type of car he refers to also appeals to me. There was a period when car details changed fundamentally and this was probably around the end of the 1960's to very early 1970's. Once moulded plastic became commonplace a certain link with the past was broken.
The problem is there was overlap, so you can't set a definate year. It's amazing to me that cars like the Triumph Stag and MGB were being sold alongside things like the Lotus Esprit and Mk1 Golf...they are so different. You are about right on the timing, I'm struggling to think of any car I would consider a classic being designed in the 70's. The Stag would have been very late in '72 but that was a development of the '60's Triumph 2000.
Edited by varsas on Sunday 17th May 17:10
varsas said:
Hi. yes, that's right about the headlights.
The problem is there was overlap, so you can't set a definate year. It's amazing to me that cars like the Triumph Stag and MGB were being sold alongside things like the Lotus Esprit and Mk1 Golf...they are so different. You are about right on the timing, I'm struggling to think of any car I would consider a classic being designed in the 70's. The Stag would have been very late in '72 but that was a development of the '60's Triumph 2000.
The problem is there was overlap, so you can't set a definate year. It's amazing to me that cars like the Triumph Stag and MGB were being sold alongside things like the Lotus Esprit and Mk1 Golf...they are so different. You are about right on the timing, I'm struggling to think of any car I would consider a classic being designed in the 70's. The Stag would have been very late in '72 but that was a development of the '60's Triumph 2000.
Edited by varsas on Sunday 17th May 17:10
Not a classic?
Itsallicanafford said:
its very simple...the line is at 1989, and more specifically a G reg NA MK5.
Cars built before are, cars built after are not.
Please feel free to pick holes in this flawless argument.
It's not possible to pick holes in a flawless argument -that's what flawless means. Cars built before are, cars built after are not.
Please feel free to pick holes in this flawless argument.
The designations Veteran and Vintage are based solely on age. An Austin 7 and a Bentley Speed Six are both Vintage cars. It doesn't matter how desirable anyone thinks they are or what their value is.
There will never be any agreement on categorising particular cars on merit. The only way is on AGE.
Perhaps it's time for the "Classic Car Industry" (whatever that is) to put together a definition that can be universally accepted.
Whichever cars we favour as individuals I think the vast majority of us would agree that they have to be of a certain age and usually out of production. Why not define that age and be done with it ?
There will never be any agreement on categorising particular cars on merit. The only way is on AGE.
Perhaps it's time for the "Classic Car Industry" (whatever that is) to put together a definition that can be universally accepted.
Whichever cars we favour as individuals I think the vast majority of us would agree that they have to be of a certain age and usually out of production. Why not define that age and be done with it ?
mph said:
There will never be any agreement on categorising particular cars on merit. The only way is on AGE.
In that case it surely makes sense to go with the government's definition. If you get free road tax due to age it's a classic if you have to pay (or free for some other reason) then it isn't.Good that's settled then. My daily driver isn't a classic and my classic is.
a8hex said:
In that case it surely makes sense to go with the government's definition. If you get free road tax due to age it's a classic if you have to pay (or free for some other reason) then it isn't.
Good that's settled then. My daily driver isn't a classic and my classic is.
The government's definition (based on age) does not mention the word classic - the taxation class is Historic i.e it's just an old car which is exactly what most of the dross some people try and pass off as a classic Good that's settled then. My daily driver isn't a classic and my classic is.
Itsallicanafford said:
varsas said:
Hi. yes, that's right about the headlights.
The problem is there was overlap, so you can't set a definate year. It's amazing to me that cars like the Triumph Stag and MGB were being sold alongside things like the Lotus Esprit and Mk1 Golf...they are so different. You are about right on the timing, I'm struggling to think of any car I would consider a classic being designed in the 70's. The Stag would have been very late in '72 but that was a development of the '60's Triumph 2000.
The problem is there was overlap, so you can't set a definate year. It's amazing to me that cars like the Triumph Stag and MGB were being sold alongside things like the Lotus Esprit and Mk1 Golf...they are so different. You are about right on the timing, I'm struggling to think of any car I would consider a classic being designed in the 70's. The Stag would have been very late in '72 but that was a development of the '60's Triumph 2000.
Edited by varsas on Sunday 17th May 17:10
Not a classic?
If you want a classic you need to walk down to your local Jeep dealership and buy a Renegade...
By god that hit a lot of branches when it fell out the ugly tree!
Edited by //j17 on Monday 18th May 12:41
Edited by //j17 on Monday 18th May 12:41
The trouble with limiting the definition of a classic to only very old and expensive cars is that the whole thing becomes a minority interest and will end up moribund. Surely this can't be a good thing?
I am reminded of an experience I had visiting a classic car show a couple of years ago. I noticed a chap standing next to a beautiful old Jaguar XK. I asked if it was his; he confirmed it was. We talked about the car - and other classic Jaguars on the stand for a little while.
He asked me if I had a Jaguar; I replied that I did - an XJ40. Recoiling in utter horror and looking like he had stepped on a moist turd, he muttered "Oh dear" - and retreated. That is how the classic car scene looks to an outsider!
I am reminded of an experience I had visiting a classic car show a couple of years ago. I noticed a chap standing next to a beautiful old Jaguar XK. I asked if it was his; he confirmed it was. We talked about the car - and other classic Jaguars on the stand for a little while.
He asked me if I had a Jaguar; I replied that I did - an XJ40. Recoiling in utter horror and looking like he had stepped on a moist turd, he muttered "Oh dear" - and retreated. That is how the classic car scene looks to an outsider!
I think for a Classic there should be 2 main rules...
1) 25 years. For no other reason than it is a considerable amount of time for most of the model to have dissapeared, and to have one in useable condition means so embody must have loved it at some point!!
2) that's it. If you feel you love that particular car and could bore the tits off complete strangers on why you love it so much, then that us good enough for me!!
Then it's a classic 100%.
There are some great reasons here previously for acceptance. My favorite is a car you loved and longer for from your youth . That is probobly the most valid.
The wrist is it has to have single headlights and not a plastic dashboard??? Ha ha ha whatever, congratulations on stagnating the Classic car scene in one clean swoop.
1) 25 years. For no other reason than it is a considerable amount of time for most of the model to have dissapeared, and to have one in useable condition means so embody must have loved it at some point!!
2) that's it. If you feel you love that particular car and could bore the tits off complete strangers on why you love it so much, then that us good enough for me!!
Then it's a classic 100%.
There are some great reasons here previously for acceptance. My favorite is a car you loved and longer for from your youth . That is probobly the most valid.
The wrist is it has to have single headlights and not a plastic dashboard??? Ha ha ha whatever, congratulations on stagnating the Classic car scene in one clean swoop.
I think for a Classic there should be 2 main rules...
1) 25 years. For no other reason than it is a considerable amount of time for most of the model to have dissapeared, and to have one in useable condition means so embody must have loved it at some point!!
2) that's it. If you feel you love that particular car and could bore the tits off complete strangers on why you love it so much, then that us good enough for me!!
Then it's a classic 100%.
There are some great reasons here previously for acceptance. My favorite is a car you loved and longer for from your youth . That is probobly the most valid.
The wrist is it has to have single headlights and not a plastic dashboard??? Ha ha ha whatever, congratulations on stagnating the Classic car scene in one clean swoop.
1) 25 years. For no other reason than it is a considerable amount of time for most of the model to have dissapeared, and to have one in useable condition means so embody must have loved it at some point!!
2) that's it. If you feel you love that particular car and could bore the tits off complete strangers on why you love it so much, then that us good enough for me!!
Then it's a classic 100%.
There are some great reasons here previously for acceptance. My favorite is a car you loved and longer for from your youth . That is probobly the most valid.
The wrist is it has to have single headlights and not a plastic dashboard??? Ha ha ha whatever, congratulations on stagnating the Classic car scene in one clean swoop.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff