Er, none of 'em.
Too many hideously complicated and hugely expensive electronic bits which will be impossible to fix, substitute or work around in 25 years time when the parts are unavailable.
There are no "future classics". What we have now is what we get.
|
I likes the XK and the DB9 - they remind me my ole 240 Z
:}
|
>> There are no "future classics". What we have now is what we get.
Your post is depressingly convincing TC. I'm afraid you are right.
There are still relatively simple sporting cars built in small numbers though - Morgans are an example. Those will last if maintained.
|
I have a sneaking suspicion that even moggies are now electronically fuel injected and have an ECU. Try fixing that in 30 years when most of the electronic components in it haven't been made for some time, assuming you can get the source code for the ECU programming and port it to more modern architecture.
Looking at more mainstream cars, the list of horrifically complicated things that now must work for it to be legally roadworthy is growing all the time.
|
Every time new technology appears on cars, people say it will cause trouble and premature demise of any car thus equipped. First it was electronic ignition, then electronic fuel injection, then catalytic converters, then common rail diesel injection. Each of these predictions has been proven to be nonsense. Troublefree examples of all of them with starship mileages are all over our roads.
However, I do sense things are changing, not so much in terms of the reliability of the technology, but the resource for repairing it when it does go wrong. The sheer complexity of a modern car's interconnected and interdependent systems is slowly but surely exceeding the skill and/or equipment of an increasing number of the technicians or mechanics we rely on to properly diagnose and fix them. How many times do we hear of people shelling out hundreds or even thousands for replacement parts fitted by professionals in the car repair trade (dealer and indie), that don't fix the issue? It's common, and it's becoming even more so.
And as TeeCee says, who the heck is going to have access to a scanner, in working order, that will properly interrogate a 20 year old engine management system in 2032, much less the understanding of how to interpret the codes, and troubleshoot the system correctly.
|
I'm sure DP has it right: the need to 'repair by replacement' is the price we have to pay for having more reliable, usually electronic, components in the first place.
But I'm not sure that that should influence whether a car becomes a classic or not. There can (and possibly will) be endless debate on 'what makes a classic?', and there are surely a whole lot of factors. Whoever made this list seems to put desirability at the head of his (undoubtedly a male) priorities, with 8 out of 10 being coupes or sports cars.
Most of us would probably agree about the MX-5: but then this is a car that's conspicuously good at what it does, and gives owners a lot of satisfaction without breaking any records. You could say the same about, say a VW Golf - but are there too many of them around to make it a classic?
|
to be a future classic, it has to be desirable, (fun, good looks, character, unique, a first, - any of those things)
So as far as your golf goes, A MK1 GTI fits, a MK4 GTi will never.
|
Is "classic" then just down to looks? Because the MK4 is a better car than a MK1, albeit not as innovative or as pretty.
But for braking, accelerating, reliability, economy, sophistication, functionality et al the MK4 is a "better" car.
I've had a few classics, I;ve loved them and they're frequently pretty. Typically not very good though.
|
>> Is "classic" then just down to looks? Because the MK4 is a better car than
>> a MK1, albeit not as innovative or as pretty.
No, it was also ground breaking, highly admired and much sought after, in its day.
>> But for braking, accelerating, reliability, economy, sophistication, functionality et al the MK4 is a "better"
>> car.
Nearly every car these days beats the MK1 golf in those respects, few if any will be future classics tho.
>> 've had a few classics, I;ve loved them and they're frequently pretty. Typically not very
>> good though.
The MGB is considered a "classic" It was a complete shed in its day.
|
Tell me about it, I've had a couple of MGBs. Loved them but damned awful cars.
So, is classic;
1) Looks
2) Originality, leading functionality and innovative engineering in its day
Or is there more?
Because I think the new Jag is superb, but I agree it won't be a "classic".
|
"There is no fixed definition of a classic car, popular acclaim through a large number of classic car magazines plays an important role in whether a car comes to be regarded as a classic. It is all subjective and a matter of opinion.
Picking 'future classics' that are current 'bangers' is a pastime of people into classic cars in the UK.
Successfully picking and buying one can result in a profit for the buyer as well as providing transport.
An immaculate well cared for prestige model with high running costs, that impacts it's value, but is not yet old enough to be regarded as a classic, could be a good buy".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_cars
:)
|
Top 10 future classics? - TeeCee
