How do you define a classic?

On hecktrieb.de, the other forum I frequent, we had a long and fruitless discussion/flamewar about whether the Sierra should be considered a classic or a soulless, shapeless, ugly plastic car with plastic bumpers. I must confess I rather like the Sierra and, as the last RWD EU Ford it deserves a special place in Ford's history, but I can understand the other side ("round headlamps, chrome bumpers") as well...

...even if there's a bunch of surefire classics from the MK1 Capri to Opel Rekords and Kadetts with square headlamps.
 
Last edited:
How have I only just heard about that museum today? And it's closing on the 1st of December?! Damnit. I have one long weekend before then, so time to look at some flights...

Maybe that's part of the problem, if more people had heard about it it wouldn't have to shut down...

- - - Updated - - -

I must confess I rather like the Sierra and, as the last RWD EU Ford it deserves a special place in Ford's history, but I can understand the other side as well...

Owning a Sierra is a really good cure for any positive feelings towards them :p
 
Owning a Sierra is a really good cure for any positive feelings towards them :p
I almost bought one last weekend. It did end up with another mate of mine, in the end...

dsc_00551xnu9x.jpg
 
Damn, that is a nice colour...
It's completely rust-free as well. One-owner, low-mileage, high-spec car, garaged it's entire life. But it's the ghastly last facelift from the early 90s, so I had to pass.
 
Yes but that is simply a dating procedure. It doesn't define whether something is a classic or not. Face it some cars that qualify as "vintage" are utter pieces of crap and only have value because of history and the fact their owners cherish them.

It does inspire an interesting thread for the game forum....


I did not see your initial post when I made mine. I don't disagree with you for the most part, but isn't somebody cheerishing a vehicle what it is all about?

Vintage is also one of those terms that can be twisted into whatever the user wants it to be.
 
Sierra the last rwd EU Ford? I beg to differ. :lol:
 
The 25 year tax exemption, used to work well. The problem is, is a 1991 Escort Eclipse a classic now? No.
 
I don't think you should limit the label 'classic' to round lamp chrome bumper cars only. A classic should combine at least two of these factors:

- exceptional / timeless design
- great to drive
- have an interesting technological feature
- derived from a successful racecar
- rare due to limited production and/or low number of survivors.

For me, cars like the 928, Delta Integrale, or Escort RS Cosworth are classics already. That, however, does not apply to the base versions of the latter two.
 
I don't think you should limit the label 'classic' to round lamp chrome bumper cars only. A classic should combine at least two of these factors:

- exceptional / timeless design
- great to drive
- have an interesting technological feature
- derived from a successful racecar
- rare due to limited production and/or low number of survivors.

For me, cars like the 928, Delta Integrale, or Escort RS Cosworth are classics already. That, however, does not apply to the base versions of the latter two.

Interesting choice of factors, though I'd argue you could cut the second to last one so it can apply to cars like this:

citroends1_fotos.gtacaps.com_.jpg
 
So what I gather from this thread, is that classic car is a car that you like for whatever reasons and it is sufficiently old relative to your own age. This is of course an utterly useless definition, because it's personal.

Can you think of a car that you personally don't appreciate for any of its qualities, but someone else does, and that you would still consider a classic?

To be honest, these kind of discussions always draw me because of my desire to categorize and organize things, and always annoy me because it is technically impossible. It's the same as defining a sports car. There are certain examples that everyone agrees on, and then we try to find a cutoff point, and that leads to heated arguments. Classic is even worse because it's a moving target.

Oh, and again, "future classic" is a misnomer and shouldn't be mixed with the classical definition of "classic" :p
 
Can you think of a car that you personally don't appreciate for any of its qualities, but someone else does, and that you would still consider a classic?

Hate them. Vile little things. Dull as dishwater, automotive porridge for people who have no imagination. But yes, it's a classic.

morris-minor1-fron_1795826b.jpg
 
Some watershed examples that spring to mind:

Classic vs youngtimer/not-quite-classic?

Alfa Romeo Alfetta coup? ? Alfa Romeo GTV
BMW E12 ? BMW E28 (or you can move E28 to the other side and nominate E34 as not yet classic)
Citro?n DS ? Citro?n CX (or you can use the chrome bumper rule, in which case plastic CX is the youngtimer counterpart)
Peugeot 504 ? Peugeot 505
Renault 5 ? Renault Supercinq
Every rear-drive Corolla except ? AE86
VW Golf Mk1 ? VW Golf Mk2 (again, chrome bumper rule?)
Volvo 144 ? Volvo 244

Is my Polo a classic? It is very 1970s in origin, and earlier examples have been in historic plates for ages. But it's been an unremarkable car from day one, so not everybody would elevate it to classic status (despite the model name actually being Polo Classic...); still, it was the base Beetle of its day.
 
Interesting choice of factors, though I'd argue you could cut the second to last one so it can apply to cars like this:

citroends1_fotos.gtacaps.com_.jpg

I didn't say that a car must fullfill all of those conditions to be considered a classic, at least two is enough. See the DS: it's an exceptional design and has interesting technical features => classic.
 
You're right. I can't read.

Hey, at least it fulfills more than two/every factor except one.
 
Top