Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What makes a car a classic? It’s age? It’s badge? It’s features and overall desirablity? It’s something I’ve been thinking about recently. My car, a navy blue Alfa Romeo 156, recently turned 16 years old. The model itself dates back to 1997.

Is it a classic? I don’t know, because of the variables. When talking about age, is it the car’s own age itself or the model’s age that matters? Is it only specific models that matter? There’s the original, 1st gen 156 with the black plastic wing mirrors and twinspark engines. Then there’s the second generation ones (which mine is) which featured body coloured wing mirrors and the JTS engine, then there’s the third gen ones with the revised grill design (which imo made a pretty car into a very pretty car). With production ending 14 years ago, are all 3 classics or only the first gen ones?

Apparently, the first generation Ford Focus is now entering classic status (deserved, imo) because of its age, despite the fact that the focus as a car is still in production. This could be because of its own history; it was such a radical departure from the Escort it kind of shook up the market at the time and started a rather nice period for Ford. Yet, you can buy a brand new Focus right now. I say the mark 1 focus is a classic, on account of its effect on the market and what it started in terms of design and performance. Which might be weird because I don’t consider the last 2 generations of Escorts as classics, on account of them being undesirable, clapped out rubbish which sucked when they were new.

What do you guys think?

I think you can award classic status about the time when prices stop going down and start going back up again, as that suggest sufficient people a nostalgic about the car

In terms of not having to pay tax and the like, I believe its a rolling 35 years(?) of age.

I work on the principle to be a true classic (rather than something that is just old, but qualifies for classic tax and insurance) it must be old, 25-35 years minimum and either interesting, desirable or rare. If it’s not one of those three it’s just old. I admit they are all subjective

I’d say it doesn’t really matter, different folk are going to have different opinions. It’s some combination of age, desirability and historic importance. I certainly wouldn’t call a focus a classic, there’s not many cars from the 90’s that I would call classics. Over here you can get historic club reg for any car over 30 years old (pre 1989), but even there I sometimes see some boring common 80’s commuter with a H plate on it and think it doesn’t really deserve it.

The “classic” cars I own are 40 and 50 years old, a family car and a sports car. 80’s and 90’s cars are the ones I grew up with, I don’t consider myself old enough to start calling them classic but if you want to, sure.

I’m sure some folk who drove pre war cars wouldn’t even consider my 1979 car a classic, in fact I know they wouldn’t because I’ve been to events with a 1978 cut off date, lol.

Veteran for aircraft means over 25 years old.

I think a car becomes a classic when film companies want to hire examples for authenticity in period productions. For example, Ashes To Ashes (Life On Mars 2) featured an Audi Quattro, which was a hot new pursuit car in the early 1980s.

I would think, it's when it gains a reputation for certain quality's and uniqueness and generally i would say maybe takes about a decade or so for that to be called that in some cases, but generally would take alot longer.

I’ve got my own criteria, of sorts:

The model of car must be at least 20 years old, and to have been out of production for at least 10 years. Effectively, it should be a car of two decades ago at least. For us now, in 2019, that would mean it should be a ‘nineties’ car at least. For me, this aspect is essential. Anything else is just ‘an old car’.

It should also have significance, such as being the first generation of its type, or being a sales success in its day, or otherwise have a talking point. Ironically, to me this means that ‘bad cars’ can achieve more of a classical status than supposedly superior ones. For example, I would consider the Morris Marina and Austin Allegro classics because of their terribleness, not in spite of it. They are instantly noticeable, and will start conversations, which is what this aspect is about. It’s been said before; terribleness is a character trait in its own right...but being boring and unnoticeable is unforgivable.

Very interesting topic!

In Sweden, we have two "ranks of veterancy" that are automatically given to cars of a certain age:
Cars that are 30 years or older are exempt from roadtax.
Cars that are 50 years or older are exempt from regular inspections(?).

Thats "veteran car" though.
What defines a "classic car" on the other hand, seems very subjective.

My own criteria would be "age", "desirability" and "rarity" - all three are required.
(Some would probably consider "expensive" a requirement as well, but a car can be considered a "classic" without costing a kidney and a liver imo.)

- A car needs to be a certain age in order to be considered a classic in my book, otherwise it's more of a "future classic". At least 20-25 years old seems appropriate.
- A classic needs to be a car that is desirable in some way, for obvious reasons. This again is very subjective, as people desire different cars for different reasons.
- Lastly, the model needs to have a modicum of rarity. I'm not sure if I would ever consider a car that is owned and driven by, say, 20% of the population a "classic".

I own 3 cars: A Ford Escort Orion -88, a Porsche 944 S2 Cab -90 and a MG ZT 190 -03.

The Ford has the age down and is quite rare around these parts. It's not very desirable however. Not a classic.
(But it become one if it ended up very desirable for some reason.)

The MG is super rare here, and it's very desirable in some circles. It's only 16 years old however, so I can't consider it a classic, but very possibly a "future classic".

The Porsche is also super rare, it's very desirable in some circles, and is 29 years old. I'd consider it a classic.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

For a car to be a classic, I'd agree it needs to be 20+ years old...and most importantly it needs to stand out - for some reason. Even a bad one.

1) Limited edition.
2) Super high performance
3) Incredible value, market slaying
4) Incredibly unreliable
5) Incredibly dangerous
6) Incredibly attractive
7) Incredibly ugly.
8) Bizarre as hell
9) Economic saviour (VW bug, etc.)
10) Car made famous in the media and became a sales success
11) Incredible driving experience

etc.

It has to stir somebody for some reason. If we look at some of the finest cars ever produced (Japanes and German cars, early-mid 90's)...a bunch of them will never be classics. The venerable Honda Accord, etc. Amazing car, arguably far better than later versions, etc. World-beating economy and reliability etc. It'll never be a classic though. Why? Because it's a simple four-door sedan for people who didn't like driving.

I currently drive a MkV Golf. It'll never be a classic. In the Golf lineage most will never be classics. A handful of GTI models will be and suitably so (namely MkI and MkII). Again the Golf is a simple economy car. The early GTI models were kings of the hot hatch market, etc. Later GTIs became perfectly fine cars, but they likely won't be classics. The MkIII was pretty awful, the MkIV was uninspiring, etc. Just luck of the draw.

I agree with all of these sentiments. And they make me confident that my own car is a very near, if not already, classic.

 MinscS2 wrote:
MG ZT 190 -03.

That's the only car I ever regretted selling. Mine was the 160 (with a 190 badge on) though from 2002. I can definitely see it being a future classic and the values will presumably start coming up as there can't be that many of them left (I don't think it sold that well initially), especially in Sweden (as your flag denotes, anyway).

There's only about 4 for sale in the UK right now, so it's rare.

I think the 4.6V8 (the Mustang engine) is already a classic, here's one for £10k (essentially 10x the value of the 2.5) because there were maybe low hundreds produced. There are a handful of supercharged ones as well (the ZT385) but will be almost impossible to find.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201902084736132?radius=1500&sort=sponsored&postcode=nw14aq&advertising-location=at_cars&make=MG&model=ZT&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20New&onesearchad=New&page=2