What is a classic car?

unkel

What do you consider to be classic cars? What's your definition of a classic car?

For motor tax, the only argument is age. Any 30 year old car, even a complete piece of sh!te, is a classic. For insurance, it depends on the car. Iconic cars not even 20 years old, i.e. a Mazda MX-5 or any Porsche or Ferrari of that era are insurable as a classic

What do you think?

Max_Damage

My definition of a classic is quite messy; an everyday car i.e. Escort, Micra, Corolla, etc. has to be about 25 years old. For example of the Escort, the Mk3 could now be considered a classis, while the Mk4, not quite yet.

I myself wouldn't call a MX5 a classic. Too young, same goes to the guy with the '89 Mercedes.

I think it also goes down to how rare car car is. A Nissan Cherry N12 would be about as rare as a Ferrari 430 nowadays, if not rarer, therefore the Cherry I would consider a classic.

It's all down to personal preference.

macplaxton

Don't go there again Unkel!

I don't know what one is any more as it's overuse and abuse has diminished it's meaning some what.

Instead, I'll tell you what a "historic vehicle" is: it's anything over 25 years old.

If I weren't applying the age card, then it would have to be when a particular model of car ceased to be "an old banger" and be cherished and preserved. Which would vary wildly, so I'll stick with the date.

mike65

Its about 46 euro a year. That what a classic is.

Eye of the beholder, curvy bits, chrome bumpers, stacked headlights, extinct marque, older than you are/older than your children, impossible to say really.

Mike.

maidhc

macplaxton wrote: »

If I weren't applying the age card, then it would have to be when a particular model of car ceased to be "an old banger" and be cherished and preserved. Which would vary wildly, so I'll stick with the date.

Very true.

For most cars it is when they manage to get through their normal service life somehow intact, which for an Irish car is a significant achievement in itself.

I guess there are some cars like the Ferrari F40 which became "classic" far before their bread and butter contemporaries, but, again, whether they are classics in the true sense of the word, or just curiosity cars is another matter.

corktina

in my view, any car cherished by its owner beyond the norm is a Classic....its all in the eye of the beholder...

peasant

Anything you'd be afraid to drive daily (and without the backup of a second vehicle), be it for cost, age, reliability or fear of damage reasons.

carchaeologist

corktina wrote: »

in my view, any car cherished by its owner beyond the norm is a Classic....its all in the eye of the beholder...

Im with this,fair enough the car tax cutoff date applies,but it really is down to the person.It can be argued till the cows come home!!:D

(though i agree about the cherry....maybe im biased though...:p)

--amadeus--

And from the other side of the fence...

It is very much a personal thing and I know that cars that were everyday biffabouts have cult followings when they reach a ceratin age. If an old datsun or renault is your thing then best of luck.

But I really don't see the point.

At the risk of being seen as a car snob for me a classic car is one that has something a little bit special about it. That can be for sheer volume produced (2CV, beetle), technical innovation (mini, DS), looks or performance. Marque history has an influence as does the history of the model - the MK II Jag means more han the MK X because of the history of that particular car.

Now a Nissan is - for the most part - just a functional piece of kit. They weren't exciting in the day and age or rarity don't make them exciting now. As individuals we may have happy memories or an interest in them - of teh "my dad had one of them" kind - but that doesn't make them a classic.

So for me a classic is a car not currently in mass production that has a generic and widespread appeal. If the only people interested in the car are interested for "memory" reasons then it's not a classic, in my opinion.

carchaeologist

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And from the other side of the fence...

It is very much a personal thing and I know that cars that were everyday biffabouts have cult followings when they reach a ceratin age. If an old datsun or renault is your thing then best of luck.

But I really don't see the point.

At the risk of being seen as a car snob for me a classic car is one that has something a little bit special about it. That can be for sheer volume produced (2CV, beetle), technical innovation (mini, DS), looks or performance. Marque history has an influence as does the history of the model - the MK II Jag means more han the MK X because of the history of that particular car.

Now a Nissan is - for the most part - just a functional piece of kit. They weren't exciting in the day and age or rarity don't make them exciting now. As individuals we may have happy memories or an interest in them - of teh "my dad had one of them" kind - but that doesn't make them a classic.

So for me a classic is a car not currently in mass production that has a generic and widespread appeal. If the only people interested in the car are interested for "memory" reasons then it's not a classic, in my opinion.

Im cool with that,i see your point,i know alot of people dont get the datsun or toyota thing,same as i cant get the 2cv at all!!:D
What do you drive yourself?

--amadeus--

I personally wouldn't want a 2cv either, but i doubt anyone would argue it's not a classic. Other side of the coin is that my grandad had a Hillman Hunter and my dad a Vauxhall Viva and I've always had a secret hankering for one of them. Or a Capri... Not sure they count as "proper" classics but I love them.

My own car is an Elan+2 (check the sig, everything must go!!)

carchaeologist

Nice Elan,a little out of my price range though at the min....
I have a capri(not on the road at the min)and a vauxhall chevette(same running gear as the viva,so theres a little bit of common ground anyway!!:)

corktina

a Capri not a proper classic!!!!:eek:

--amadeus--

lol - I meant the Hunter and the Viva!

maidhc

corktina wrote: »

a Capri not a proper classic!!!!:eek:

How is it though that Fords from the 70's seem to be more popular than anything from Rootes of opel/vauxhall or almost anything else.

As the owner of a capri I was attracted because

a) I like them
b) My dad had one once and was not a viciously opposed to one as he was to a merc
c) Parts
d) They are modern and reasonably quick.
e) Cheap to buy and run
f) Very easy to work on
g) cheap tax and insc

Really none of the above have anything to do with the car being a "classic". I don't really cherish or mind the car in the way someone with a 1950s merc would. When I drive it, I drive it on. I think the car is a classic, but that is not why I bought it, I just wanted the best bang for my buck from a second car.

Dades

I think I remember reading something here before that I agreed with...

A classic car is a car that makes children point. Children are the true judges of what is classic and what isn't.

unkel

I wasn't too sure when I started this thread. Can of worms and all that and this is the last forum where people should fight. That said, I'm quite happy with the posts so far. We should all recognise and respect people for having a sentimental / emotional bond with a (make of) car. I love some of the definitions forwarded but I didn't like this one:

peasant wrote: »

Anything you'd be afraid to drive daily (and without the backup of a second vehicle), be it for cost, age, reliability or fear of damage reasons.

I've no garage and for that reason I would not own a car that will rot because of rust. That said, I have little respect for wealthy "investors" taking lovely classic cars out of the public view, speculating on their value and storing them out of sight

Drive your classics, folks!

--amadeus--

Dades wrote: »

I think I remember reading something here before that I agreed with...

A classic car is a car that makes children point. Children are the true judges of what is classic and what isn't.

Ahhh that was me I'm afraid.

It was the school wall test of car cool. A classic car (or future classic, in the case of a modern Ferrari, Aston or something like an MX-5) is one where you pull up at the school gates and all the young lads stop playing footie and run to the wall and ask what it is and the classic "how fast will it go?!"

Kids have no preconceptions about a marque or a car and no sentimental attachments, they judge a car simply on what it is. A wildly rare 1970 eurobox saloon would probably leave them cold but a VW Camper Van (or a Capri) would have them scrambling over the wall for a look.

Funny enough they go gaga for the pop-up lights on the Elan. I was out running the other day and this young fela shouted across to me "Hey, you're the guy with all the car's aren't you?!" Fame at last!

zilog_jones

I think a lot of people still can't come to terms with the fact that cars from the '80s are now actually old. I guess there is the fact that cars from the '80s/'90s seem to generally last a lot longer than their predecessors, especially regarding improvements in rust-proofing.

I have a Classic & Sports Car magazine from 1989, and on the cover is a Triumph TR6 - a car that was in production until 1976 - and a feature on some "historic" rally which a 1974 Triumph Dolomite Sprint took part in. I also have a 1994 Practial Classics which has a guide on Cortinas, going up to the Mk. III.

Going by the above standards, cars that would be considered classics today would include:
- Alfa 75
- BMW E32 7-series, E28 5-series, E30 3-series
- Citroen BX
- Ford Fiesta Mk. II, Sierra
- Honda Civic EF ('87-'91)
- Nissan Bluebird T12, Micra K10, Sunny N13, that hideous first gen Prairie lol
- Toyota Corolla E80 and maybe even E90 series (at least the AE86 was interesting and historically significant)
- Volvo 480, 700 series

I know it's still a very subjective matter. Personally I could consider a 20-25 year old car a classic but it would depend on certain criteria (I'm not saying I fully agree with the above list ):
- Historical importance/significance, e.g. the AE86 Corolla/Sprinter being the last mass-produced lightweight FR Japanese sports car. I guess the death of the Triumph marque increased thier classic potential in the magazine above for the same kind of reason.
- Current rarity - if I see an old car and have to think of when I last saw one then it's certainly old enough! E90 Corolla wouldn't qualify for that - there's still loads on the road somehow. Can't remember when I last saw an N13 Sunny/Pulsar though (still not sure whether I'd consider that a classic...)

Max_Damage

I think a lot of people still can't come to terms with the fact that cars from the '80s are now actually old. I guess there is the fact that cars from the '80s/'90s seem to generally last a lot longer than their predecessors, especially regarding improvements in rust-proofing.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing not too long ago.

Current rarity - if I see an old car and have to think of when I last saw one then it's certainly old enough! E90 Corolla wouldn't qualify for that - there's still loads on the road somehow. Can't remember when I last saw an N13 Sunny/Pulsar though (still not sure whether I'd consider that a classic...)

I agree with this. I happened to see a Triumph Acclaim the other day, and when I gave it a bit of thought, the last time I saw one was at the Terenure show last year!