Classic Cars that Disappointed
Discussion
Was quickly scanning the latest threads and I misread the one entitled "Classic Cars that Disappeared" as "Classic Cars that Disappointed". That piqued my interest until I realised my error, and I was accordingly disappointed!
So what classics have you owned / driven that you were super excited about but that ultimately left you disappointed?
TD
So what classics have you owned / driven that you were super excited about but that ultimately left you disappointed?
TD
The problem is that what, looking back what is now a classic car was then a modern.For handling,doubtless the 107SL was bad even in the day but two cars I loved were the E30 325i and a Jetta GLi Mk1. But of all new cars I drove the worst was a friend's company Escort in the 90s. A pig if ever I saw one. In the 60s the Cooper S was a true revelation, light years in front of most cars. And on we go.
Xtriple129 said:
MG B.
Not as I expected at all. Noisy, slow and handled like a camel. Shame as it was a new shell and all new throughout.
It does depend on the B. I drove a standard rubber bumper BGT on standard 165 tyres and it was absolutely terrible. Chrome bumpered or modified / lowered Bs are much much better.Not as I expected at all. Noisy, slow and handled like a camel. Shame as it was a new shell and all new throughout.
My dad had a MkIV MG Magnette (the Farina Oxford / Cambridge clone). The only thing that was good about that car was the semi-octagon speedo surround. Awful car, powered by a 1600 B series. Woeful brakes, handling, noise.
I think that to be disappointed by a classic car is somewhat missing the point. Of course, a bad individual is a different thing, but a make or model has to be taken for what it is. Many classics, in comparison to modern cars, are noisy, slow, not always comfortable and often handle... um... interestingly.
But classic car enthusiasts have them specifically because of, rather than despite those foibles. In a classic, the journey is the event. The different driving technique is part of the package. There's also the "Will we make it?" thrill and, of course, the almost universally positive reactions of the general public.
Threads on PH do suggest that many people think they should get a classic because it'll make them into a millionaire in five years' time. I admit that I am puzzled and a bit annoyed by those threads entitled "I Want A Classic Car, What Should I Buy?" We all know that What Car threads on PH are amongst the most irritating, but I feel that if you want a classic, but have no idea what you want, then you don't actually want a classic, and you will be disappointed with whatever you get, because you don't 'get' classics.
Classic car enthusiasts (I'm distinguishing between them and 'investors') often buy the cars they admired when they were young, or cars their dad or a rich uncle had, or cars they used to see on the way to school. Classic cars are about the emotion of ownership. If we were realistic about the driving experience, the fragility or the cost of ownership, then we'd sell them. But classic car ownership should transcend those considerations, because it's all about stirring the heart.
If I bought a classic that was quiet, fast, reliable, well equipped and handled well, then that's the one with which I'd be disappointed.
But classic car enthusiasts have them specifically because of, rather than despite those foibles. In a classic, the journey is the event. The different driving technique is part of the package. There's also the "Will we make it?" thrill and, of course, the almost universally positive reactions of the general public.
Threads on PH do suggest that many people think they should get a classic because it'll make them into a millionaire in five years' time. I admit that I am puzzled and a bit annoyed by those threads entitled "I Want A Classic Car, What Should I Buy?" We all know that What Car threads on PH are amongst the most irritating, but I feel that if you want a classic, but have no idea what you want, then you don't actually want a classic, and you will be disappointed with whatever you get, because you don't 'get' classics.
Classic car enthusiasts (I'm distinguishing between them and 'investors') often buy the cars they admired when they were young, or cars their dad or a rich uncle had, or cars they used to see on the way to school. Classic cars are about the emotion of ownership. If we were realistic about the driving experience, the fragility or the cost of ownership, then we'd sell them. But classic car ownership should transcend those considerations, because it's all about stirring the heart.
If I bought a classic that was quiet, fast, reliable, well equipped and handled well, then that's the one with which I'd be disappointed.
Doofus said:
I think that to be disappointed by a classic car is somewhat missing the point. Of course, a bad individual is a different thing, but a make or model has to be taken for what it is. Many classics, in comparison to modern cars, are noisy, slow, not always comfortable and often handle... um... interestingly.
But classic car enthusiasts have them specifically because of, rather than despite those foibles. In a classic, the journey is the event. The different driving technique is part of the package. There's also the "Will we make it?" thrill and, of course, the almost universally positive reactions of the general public.
Threads on PH do suggest that many people think they should get a classic because it'll make them into a millionaire in five years' time. I admit that I am puzzled and a bit annoyed by those threads entitled "I Want A Classic Car, What Should I Buy?" We all know that What Car threads on PH are amongst the most irritating, but I feel that if you want a classic, but have no idea what you want, then you don't actually want a classic, and you will be disappointed with whatever you get, because you don't 'get' classics.
Classic car enthusiasts (I'm distinguishing between them and 'investors') often buy the cars they admired when they were young, or cars their dad or a rich uncle had, or cars they used to see on the way to school. Classic cars are about the emotion of ownership. If we were realistic about the driving experience, the fragility or the cost of ownership, then we'd sell them. But classic car ownership should transcend those considerations, because it's all about stirring the heart.
If I bought a classic that was quiet, fast, reliable, well equipped and handled well, then that's the one with which I'd be disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the same page about the point of classic ownership. Cars should have character (classic or not) - it is what I assume many value above even handling and performance, but some times I imagine that a classic simply does not deliver the level or type of character that one was hoping for when buying it.But classic car enthusiasts have them specifically because of, rather than despite those foibles. In a classic, the journey is the event. The different driving technique is part of the package. There's also the "Will we make it?" thrill and, of course, the almost universally positive reactions of the general public.
Threads on PH do suggest that many people think they should get a classic because it'll make them into a millionaire in five years' time. I admit that I am puzzled and a bit annoyed by those threads entitled "I Want A Classic Car, What Should I Buy?" We all know that What Car threads on PH are amongst the most irritating, but I feel that if you want a classic, but have no idea what you want, then you don't actually want a classic, and you will be disappointed with whatever you get, because you don't 'get' classics.
Classic car enthusiasts (I'm distinguishing between them and 'investors') often buy the cars they admired when they were young, or cars their dad or a rich uncle had, or cars they used to see on the way to school. Classic cars are about the emotion of ownership. If we were realistic about the driving experience, the fragility or the cost of ownership, then we'd sell them. But classic car ownership should transcend those considerations, because it's all about stirring the heart.
If I bought a classic that was quiet, fast, reliable, well equipped and handled well, then that's the one with which I'd be disappointed.
FWIT I currently have a knackered old LR Discovery 2 and an immaculate 5.0l Supercharged Jaguar XKR.........and I think I prefer driving the Disco 2 because it has bags of rattly rusty character! The XKR is sublime and supremely competent, but possibly simply too good at everything. That said I know which one I'd drive to France and back in!
I have owned a few interesting classics cars, looking back the only car that has really disappointed me, was a standard stock 1974 De Tomaso Pantera GTS. It looked and sounded the business, but the Cleveland engine in standard tune wasn’t very powerful or free revving, but had some toque. The engine was also very heavy with the mid-engine layout you could feel the momentum and pendulum effect during fast cornering which could be a handful. Plus it also suffered from heat as the cooling was underdeveloped and had a tendency for the front to lift and get very light at speeds over 80mph, which was very unnerving.
But saying that all the above can be put right with investment and that’s why most of the Panteras you see aren’t standard but have been seriously modified, with high compression cylinder heads, big or multi carbs, exhaust and headers, lowered suspension with new bushes, shocks and roll bars, big alloy radiator up front, due electric fans, front and rear air ducts, grills on the bonnet and body attachments that look almost comical. That big rear wing is really needed to keep the tail in line.
But as a standard 1974 car it was way underdeveloped and unreliable, but looked fantastic in true standard unmolested form. (Although I do like them lowered with GT4 arches). A complete opposite to the Lancia’s I now have, which you can only say are way over developed in every aspect.
As they say never meet your heroes.
But saying that all the above can be put right with investment and that’s why most of the Panteras you see aren’t standard but have been seriously modified, with high compression cylinder heads, big or multi carbs, exhaust and headers, lowered suspension with new bushes, shocks and roll bars, big alloy radiator up front, due electric fans, front and rear air ducts, grills on the bonnet and body attachments that look almost comical. That big rear wing is really needed to keep the tail in line.
But as a standard 1974 car it was way underdeveloped and unreliable, but looked fantastic in true standard unmolested form. (Although I do like them lowered with GT4 arches). A complete opposite to the Lancia’s I now have, which you can only say are way over developed in every aspect.
As they say never meet your heroes.
Jaguar XJS V12 convertible.
Now, I'll admit to hiring the particular model we drove, so it may have been de-tuned and slightly worn, but it felt utterly flat and lifeless with similar steering feel and a general feeling of 'could do much better'.
I desperately want to be convinced otherwise.
The Series II E-Type we also hired that same weekend was significantly better and had the opposite effect on me.
Now, I'll admit to hiring the particular model we drove, so it may have been de-tuned and slightly worn, but it felt utterly flat and lifeless with similar steering feel and a general feeling of 'could do much better'.
I desperately want to be convinced otherwise.
The Series II E-Type we also hired that same weekend was significantly better and had the opposite effect on me.
For me, it was an Austin Healy 3000 - not sure exactly which version. It felt more like a truck than a sports car - heavy, vague steering; poor brakes; dreadful suspension. It left such a negative impression on me that I'm unlikely to try one again.
It made a nice noise though.
Now, it's by no means the worst car I've driven (that honour would go to a Morris Marina 1300), and maybe my expectations were wrong, but it was certainly the biggest disappointment.
It made a nice noise though.
Now, it's by no means the worst car I've driven (that honour would go to a Morris Marina 1300), and maybe my expectations were wrong, but it was certainly the biggest disappointment.
Every one I've ever owned, as I wait for the RAC. Isn't a definition of madness doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome? I'm on my second TR6 and fourth Quattro. An unmodified TR6 is IMO a dog of a car and a Quattro in anything less than spot-on condition completely underwhelming to drive and a total money-pit.
I found the GT6 on the other hand to be far sweeter than I expected, pretty, reliable and thoroughly lovely. The Scimitar was a relaxing old beast, cheap to run and tough as nails. Obviously I've not persisted with either of these models.
I found the GT6 on the other hand to be far sweeter than I expected, pretty, reliable and thoroughly lovely. The Scimitar was a relaxing old beast, cheap to run and tough as nails. Obviously I've not persisted with either of these models.
To be honest, pretty much all relatively recent hard top "classics"... By recent I mean from about 1970s(ish), most just feel like an old version of a modern (and I don't like driving moderns), not as competent and more worn out. I feel old cars need an edge such as no roof, or pre-war engineering, an interesting soundtrack, amusing handling, or I can forgive most faults for a sense of drama hence why I dislike dull interiors...
I too was disappointed with a big Healey but after a day of driving began to warm to its character - I still felt a well sorted Spitfire was nicer to drive in every respect tho'.
I too was disappointed with a big Healey but after a day of driving began to warm to its character - I still felt a well sorted Spitfire was nicer to drive in every respect tho'.
The MGB has already been mentioned and I venture to say that a standard MGB with no tweaks is a poor drive. The steering and handling are bad even by the standards of the time. The success of the car then and now was and is a triumph of marketing and looks over performance. By contrast, I think that an MG Midget is a hoot to drive.
The Classic Car Club had a Lotus Elan +2 at point. It was supposed to have been played with by Spyder engineering to have some ford lump in it. It was spectacularly bad. I think they used steel for the engine mounts due to an issue.
Ok it was the +2 but I was expecting big things but it was a vibration laden mess that I just didn't like one bit for the whole weekend I had it.
I am ok with classics and I was pleasantly surprised by their XK150, Mini and Karmann Ghia so its not an old vs new thing at all.
Ok it was the +2 but I was expecting big things but it was a vibration laden mess that I just didn't like one bit for the whole weekend I had it.
I am ok with classics and I was pleasantly surprised by their XK150, Mini and Karmann Ghia so its not an old vs new thing at all.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff