Is my car a classic?
Discussion
SV8Predator said:
TurboBlue said:
I think technically it could be defined as a minimum of 25 years old,
What do you mean by 'technically' in this context? Where does your information come from?OP's car looks very modern to me.
TurboBlue said:
For what my opinion is worth, I would say yes, although I think technically it could be defined as a minimum of 25 years old, so in 2015 definitely. I'd be positive too - in a classic sense - about the RX-7 history as it has it's own rotary-engined, sports car niche all to itself.
I bought my 1959 Frogeye as a basket case in 1984, so it was 25 years old but was definitely a classic by then and had been for a few years, I guess by that point it had been down to the 'old banger only worth scrap' value and was beginning to climb the other side, but AH3000s by that time were classics and the newest were only 16 years old, there's no rule that says 25 years, anything can be a classic if some people believe it is, and that partly depends on your age. It's a bit scary that at nearly 25 yr old the RX still looks as new, my Frog was completely buggered in all possible ways by 25 yrs old!
TurboBlue said:
SV8Predator said:
TurboBlue said:
for example, for taxation purposes, the HMRC would define a classic car as something more than 15 years old
?Where did you get that info from?
the age of the car at the end of the year of assessment is 15 years or more and
the market value of the car for the year is £15,000 or more and
that market value exceeds the amount carried forward from step 3 of Section 121(1) ITEPA 2003.
So being over 15 years old is not the HMRC definition of a classic car, there are other criteria.
What a load of rubbish, so my 40 year old Cortina isn't a classic as it's not worth £15k?!
Back the car Mazda in question, I'd personally call it retro, it's too new to be officially classed as a classic but it's no modern car, it's like those MX-5's and owners calling them classics, yes a future classic like the MGB was 25 years ago but at the moment there just retro.
Back the car Mazda in question, I'd personally call it retro, it's too new to be officially classed as a classic but it's no modern car, it's like those MX-5's and owners calling them classics, yes a future classic like the MGB was 25 years ago but at the moment there just retro.
The HMRC definition is very narrow, I expect to avoid BIK loopholes.
The concept of the modern classic is not a new one. I 1st got into classic cars in the very early 80s and remember well that all MGBs and Midgets were considered classic, even though the newest were barely 3 years old. I remember reading an article in T&CC talking about the Triumph 2000/2500 as a well established practical classic in no small part because the newest were coming up to seven years old!
The concept of the modern classic is not a new one. I 1st got into classic cars in the very early 80s and remember well that all MGBs and Midgets were considered classic, even though the newest were barely 3 years old. I remember reading an article in T&CC talking about the Triumph 2000/2500 as a well established practical classic in no small part because the newest were coming up to seven years old!
If you're going to use the HMRC and insurance companies as the experts on definitions why not use the DVLA and just call older cars "Historic".
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if a car was cr*p/dull/boring/ordinary when it was brand new it doesn't suddenly become a classic when it reaches 10/15/25/ whatever years old.
Age and classic status are not synonymous.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if a car was cr*p/dull/boring/ordinary when it was brand new it doesn't suddenly become a classic when it reaches 10/15/25/ whatever years old.
Age and classic status are not synonymous.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff