I have lived long enough and had a decent exposure to a few decent cars and even raced for a brief very expensive period during the Sixties, that of course does not make me the go-to for advice or solid opinion on automobiles but it does give me some credence in what follows.
During this long period on Earth I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly on two and four wheels and have even owned (briefly) one of the ugly despite it being revered by what seems everyone else - my awful 1300 Beetle. The reasons for my ire with that car I have written about before, what I want to show here is what I call the faux classic car movement.
There was a time when a classic car had to have certain credentials: rarity, but not without some merit, advanced engineering, ahead of its time style-wise, and sheer quality; some have or had all that and more.
Yet if you go by today's various programs such as the auctioneers in Yorkshire or some of the cars on Bangers and Cash for instance, and even the various magazines devoted to the subject, all appear to have lost their integrity on what constitutes a classic car. Now pages and programs are devoted to cars that never had a reputation for anything but appear to have become ‘classic ‘ simply because an example has been found in a shed and restored; with many of them I ask myself why?
Naturally there are some cars restored by people because they owned one in the past and the vehicle reminds them of a good period in their lives or a special person, these can be discounted. What I am getting at is the glorification of certain vehicles that when new were considered a pile of junk or something approaching that level, and cars don’t improve with age just because someone decides they are ‘classic’.
Whatever I write here will inevitably bring forth the ‘you are wrong ‘ response from some and they are entitled to their opinion, but so am I.
I can only mention cars that were made here or Europe, no doubt people in the USA and elsewhere could compile similar lists as the desire to own a ‘classic’ car has no boundaries.
I haven't driven all of these so it would be easy to say ’you don’t know what you are talking about’ all though I have had more than a passing interest in and also first-hand owner accounts at the time.
Some cars fail the classic car title in my eyes not because they were not good cars in respect of design and execution, but because of the atrocious build quality and reliability. A classic example, that word will crop up here more than I wish, is the Alfasud, a delightful early hot, for the time, hatchback. I did drive one of these in its earlier incarnation and it was a peach regards handling and response, a flat four OHC engine, four wheel disc brakes and design feature from the Lancia Flavia. It sold in large numbers. Its Achilles heel was rust, big-time: poor quality Russian steel was stacked outside the factory in all weather and completed bodies ditto; this also applied to other Alfa models during the ‘nationalised’ period and all suffered the same fate, the advance of rust was so rapid many were rust buckets in five years max. Sadly no car however meritorious that would never see even middle age because of rust and poor quality assembly should ever be a classic car, but as with all these here some of these rot boxes now fetch quite good money.
All Alfa models during the nationalised period, like BL here in the UK, also suffered from poor workmanship and build quality, which was sad as some models deserved a better fate.
Triumph, renowned for its TR sports cars which do attract classic status in the TR2-4 models, also have the Herald which I can only describe as a waste of space, and that was about its only redeeming feature: the whole front bonnet lifted to give great access to a very dated engine, the car shared suspension with the Spitfire (another would be classic), neither had handling that could be considered adequate even in those long ago days, it was rubbish as was the build. A six cylinder engine version of both gave some improvement but the basics remained poor.
It was unusual in that it was built on a chassis when unitary construction had become the way forward, which allowed various body types to be easily affixed to the ladder chassis. If you read the classic bumf on the car they omit that the handling was dire and that the chassis rusted and the old engines were a pre war design with little grunt.
The rear suspension was transverse leaf spring and they had the cheek to call it independent suspension. A friend at the time had an ex works Le Mans Spitfire in which he was lucky to escape serious injury when the back end drifted out of control at the old Crystal Palace circuit and crashed heavily; the car was designed for Le Mans which is not exactly twisty, the modifications on the works car were shall we say extensive and it was still no good. Oh, and the Spitfire had raised welded ridges on the bonnet that they claimed were a design feature but looked like the factory could not afford proper welding equipment. Classic? I don’t think so.
Triumph also had the disaster that was the Stag. Any car that had the engine problems this one did - overheating, corrosion, aluminium heads on an iron block, timing chains broke and water pumps burst, poor quality engine construction compounded it all - should have been withdrawn from production until the problem was solved, but no, they ploughed on, replacing God knows how many engines, many that didn’t make it to six months. It was so bad that many had Ford V6s inserted in them, nice-looking but didn’t go far. A classic? Yet there is a thriving classic car club for the model; amazing.
https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/triumph/stag/
 |
| Typical ending to a day out for a Triumph Stag. |
Injecting a bit of humour into this is the Peel Trident, not really a car though it claimed to be the world's smallest. Why anyone would want to buy one of these let alone collect them is beyond comprehension; the only thing guaranteed with them was that in hot weather you could bake potatoes in them and similar for the unfortunate driver.
And yes there is an owner's club, who consider it a collectable classic.
The NSU was the car that broke the firm, who before they got involved with cars were the biggest motorcycle producers in Europe. The car for the time was gorgeous, advanced with four wheel disc brakes, semi auto transmission, and a low drag coefficient. The problem was its engine, a twin rotor Wankel rotary design. Beautifully smooth as later Mazda owners would attest to, it had an enormous double whammy: the rotor tips wore very quickly if the engine was revved at all and it simply drank petrol. That didn’t stop it being voted, prematurely, as car of the year in ‘68, but the engines were being replaced at an alarming rate even then. The tip wear was finally overcome to a large degree after different ceramics were used but the fuel consumption was never addressed as the later Mazda owners of rotary models found out.
NSU ended in a parlous financial state and were purchased by VW I ‘70 and subsumed into Audi. The Audi 100 model 15 years later had a remarkably similar body shape. The NSU should have been a classic but like the Triumph Stag the engine relegates it to an interesting try, and as with that many had Ford V4s implanted in them, not the greatest of lumps but the only one that would fit.
Trabant: the name conjures up visions of Stasi and razor wire borders. People actually seek these out. The construction alone was so poor very few have survived and the Duraplastic body had an attraction for pigs that ate them. Certainly the people who purchased them and drove them had no choice, but that doesn’t change the fact this was an abomination of a car, why bother? When the Wall came down the Trabant should have been buried under it. Another attraction was the fact it had no brake lights! Or indicators. Still, you always knew were it was as it left a trail of smoke everywhere.
Giving one a two-tone paint finish is frankly taking the proverbial.
The De Lorean: what can one say? Back to the Future may have made it a collectable cult car, but the reality was it never became more than a poor attempt at a sports car. The gull wing doors may look cool but if you park anywhere you can’t get out unless you have a car's width each side. It was also painfully slow for a sports car and the stainless steel finish produced comments such as 'saucepan' though it did have the advantage that small scratches could be removed with a Brillo pad, but on the other hand small iron particles in the steel gave the appearance of surface rust; and it cost a fortune for what it was, the people of Northern Ireland where it was built named it the 'con car' in some circles for obvious reasons after huge sums were given to the factory to build the things. Even bringing in Colin Chapman of Lotus fame who almost completely redesigned the car could not save it.
Another of similar ilk was the absolutely gorgeous in many people's eyes, others more 'meeh', yet always striking: the Aston Martin Lagonda (1976). Sadly Aston Martin in their haste to make this a car of the future put all their faith in digital electronics before their time; employing Joseph Lucas, a company renowned for failure to ever produce anything reliable and known as Lucas the Prince of Darkness, was an error on a catastrophic scale.
Hugely expensive, fuel economy (mpg) down in single digits and totally unreliable because of the electronics, it amazingly staggered on in small production in various editions until 1989. The latter versions were more reliable to a degree but the body shape was emasculated and by that time no longer cutting-edge.
The Allegro represents everything that was wrong with the British motor industry at the time: atrocious build quality - a fault not just reserved for the Allegro - anaemic engines, a flexing body that meant in certain conditions the rear windows fell out, doors that would not open because of the flexing, poor interior space... it was a dog. Reams have been written about how bad this car was, yet again it was or is becoming collectable; would anyone in their right mind exchange money for one of these?
Sir Digby Jones summed it all up rather well: "It is what I call 'the British Leyland model' – you put a lot of money in at the top, and an Austin Allegro comes out at the bottom." Not many survive; it became a favourite vehicle to be broken up for parts as its engines fitted several BL models including MGBs!
BL or BMC could have the whole article to themselves: so many cars of inferior quality emerged from their factories during that industrial strife period, and many have a devoted following, sort of a death wish for many.
Yes, people do actually collect restore and form clubs devoted to the Reliant Robin. There was a garage not far from the last house we lived in that ‘specialised’ in these three wheelers, and when it closed the numerous bodies and complete cars were rapidly bought up. Once again unless you have a sense of humour, why?
The fact that it was classified as a motorcycle for tax purposes and could be driven? The cheaper motorcycle licence does not redeem it and yet the company made the bloody things for thirty years and even boasted a chief designer. They even had limited editions with a gold plaque on the dashboard with the owner's name inscribed; why would anyone want to admit to owning one? Wonders never cease.
The MGB is a classic car. Why? Mainly, by the standards of its period it was reliable, cheap to run and it looked good. Other than that, and I did drive a few, it didn’t exactly set the world alight with an engine design dating back to ‘48, but it sold well and became much loved. What is sad is that abominable plastic-bumpered and castrated power wise by US emission control regultaions version is also a classic car as are the equally rubbish V6 versions. The extra weight spoiled what was half decent handling and they were not that quick either, so why buy any model other than the wire wheeled chrome bumper version?
Maserati, such a proud name in Italian racing and sports car history, went through hard times and in 1984 underfunded and desperate for a ‘hit’ car they produced the Biturbo in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy. To put the proud trident badge on the front of this monstrosity was an act of blind faith or downright stupidity, you choose. The name evokes amazing cars and they came out with this: you name it and it went wrong the litany of claims for failure would fill Encyclopedia Britannica, and it looked like a cross between a van and a Datsun. How could they do it. Yet again the fact it had the badge means it is a ‘classic.’ God help anyone who owns one, they need very deep self-filling pockets. I actually drove one of these, not mine I might add, the engine was quite powerful for the time but suffered from severe turbo lag that made driving ‘interesting.’ Sales in the US came to a halt after the unreliability problems but surprisingly the Biturbo sold well in Europe; the cheap price tag as it always does lures people to a badge and it staved off the financial hawks circling Maserati. To me it remained a good engine, as the lag problems were largely sorted in later versions and there were a lot of them, but for me this is a car that is still cheap to buy for obvious reasons and does the marque no good at all despite the relative success. Rather like the entry in to the everyday market by MB today, only the badge sells them.
Some of these cars qualify for the 'worst cars ever' category, the list for that is very long but most fortunately have sunk without trace; it is those that have survived to become classic as defined by their deluded but enthusiastic owners.
Some categories of car fall outside the mainstream. Kit cars following on from the Lotus 7 have appeared and disappeared with astonishing speed, most simply because they offered nothing different to that which they copied, and most did copy something, and most were on a nostalgia trip for a time when most have moved on.
I lived not far from the Ginetta factory in Essex years ago. The Ginetta was a successful, one of the few attempts to build a road worthy modern version of a Lotus 7 and succeeded. It has a loyal following where very few others do, they don’t warrant it; Ginetta went on to bigger and better things but still eventually folded.
TVR are another classic sought-after make, yet again and I have driven three versions including the incredibly quick at the time Tuscan. TVR failed again because of quality issues; the Tuscan on a couple of brief drives showed why, parts from current production mainstream cars shoe-horned in badly to save money, carpets that didn’t fit, strange non-fitting side windows, an exhaust that was stupidly noisy for the driver - it appeared to be placed by your ear - and a penchant for oil use, plus reliability problems. They went under several times and have a loyal following as a classic car. It failed, all it has is novelty value; it was not a good car, and the earlier ones like the M series were heavy to drive, had kit car build and unless you were always preening them unreliable, so too near to a kit car for me and not good enough for a classic. One to two of the later V8s may be a different story but the company was always in financial trouble and produced new models just to stay in the game.
It also had so many parts from other manufacturers, in itself not unusual for this type of vehicle, but in the TVR excessive to the point that in some models there was little that was TVR, the driving position and ergonomics on the early ones were atrocious.
Only the British could produce a ‘sports car’ that had a top speed of 62mph and took over thirty seconds to reach 50 mph. The Berkely did just that. Really a kit car in disguise, it had several editions up to 1960 when the firm went bust, but you have to ask yourself how did it last so long (3 years)? Amazingly there is a Berkely owner's club so it is officially a classic car; oh well, if you say so.
There was one car that was the reverse of the NSU and the Triumph Stag: the Daimler SP 250 sports car. It had a beautiful 2500cc V8 engine that Daimler stuck in the pig-ugly plastic body you see in the picture. The police even purchased them for motorway duties, but the body was terrible, it flexed so badly the doors flew open and road holding for a sports car was woeful, it never sold and especially in the States, its intended market. There were few made, under three thousand, and it finished Daimler who were purchased by Jaguar. Yes, there is an owner's club and they consider it a classic. How they could mess up with this having such a gem of an engine is beyond comprehension; Jaguar used the engine previously in the Daimler 2.5 V8 which was a Jaguar Mk2 with the Daimler grill and engine, this was a cracking car and for many better than the actual Jaguar straight sixes. Again, how could they waste such an engine later in the 'Dart' as it was known?
This one is short and sweet. The car is quite good and it has an owner's club which is commendable for a standard medium class saloon, but how can anyone delude themselves that this is collectable and warrants classic status? It is a Ford Mondeo with a Jaguar grill, I know it and so does everyone else, cheapskate Jaguar motoring minus the blue oval it should have; mind-blowing.
The Renault Dauphine is a classic, that is, a classic case of advertising winning over substance,. Those of us who are of a certain age remember the relentless catchy ‘seventy miles an hour bags of power’ advert; it worked, two million of these cars were sold world wide. The Renault Classic car club welcomes members with Dauphines, as they only can find 26 in the country (that many!); the reason for the scarcity is the atrocious handling and the gutless engine, along with having to be a midget to enter the thing which then cooked you because of the rubbish ventilation system. As one journalist said…."the most ineffective bit of French engineering since the Maginot line" and saying that it could actually be heard rusting." Yes, this is a classic car.
A car that was relatively successful because it was an American car in miniature and therefore stood out at the time of its introduction (1956). Based vaguely on a Hudson design in austerity times it seemed a breath of fresh at first glance. Was it a bad car! It had the wallowing suspension of American cars of the time, vague steering to match and for a small car a turning circle of a bus because it had covered wheels that restricted wheel movement.
An acquaintance had one, he was the boyfriend of singer who fronted the Johnny Howard band at the time, and the first time he turned up at the dance hall in it I thought it looked like he was driving a bath tub coated in multi coloured ice cream. Awful and cheap, but it made you look and that was a difficult thing to achieve with a car in those times; but a classic, no.
Brian Sewell the late art critic was also a writer about automobiles and his words sum up the Metropolitan: "now perversely recognized as a collector's car"; exactly.
It is difficult compiling a list of cars considered classic by some but not by me, as many start falling into the ‘worst cars ever’ category, and the list for that is endless, but luckily cars like the Yugo and Lada (the mobile skip) and Morris Marina, too many to list, are great fun to write about but don’t have a classic car club for them as far as I know, well not yet but the way it is going it won't be long.
The VW Karmann Ghia has become a classic car, much sought after, and fetches good money, yet again it is a car that flatters to deceive. The lovely body is dropped onto a standard VW Beetle chassis and engine, so no sports performance there and all the other handicaps of a Beetle. What is the point? Fine if you want to pose in one on the Promenade des Anglais but to drive a waste of time and I have driven one; absolutely gutless, apart from sitting in, what’s it for?
 |
See what I mean...? |
There is now another side of owning a classic car: many are purchased as investments and over the years owners have benefited from spectacular price rises in some cases. It is a guessing game getting it right though; no doubt the Ferraris and similar will stay valuable, but lower down the order there are going to be fewer people wanting an ICE powered car at all as time goes on, presuming of course we are allowed to have one?
There is a chance that generations born now will never own an ICE powered vehicle; it will become a historic oddity, something we have since passed by, and that will mean outside the die-hard collectors of exotics those other classics will simply disappear. After all, where will you fill up and what would it cost, even if you are allowed to drive them?
Naturally this might not happen for reasons that would fill another article, but it is something in this new age to consider before embarking on what could be a very expensive undertaking.
