The general rule is a classic car can be any vehicle as long as it has reached a mature 30 to 35 years of age (or grater) and is in mint condition. Sentimental value also plays a role. If you own a older vehicle (no matter what it is) that you are very fond of for any reason, and sacrificed time, money, blood, sweat and tears to painstakingly restore it back to it’s former glory; then that my friends, is a classic, not a waste of time.

There are rich pompous a** hole classic car groups (like the Classic Car Club of America) who think [and I quote]



These cars that they describe as being classics (and it’s a short list) are hard to find and end up costing way more to own, restore or buy, than say a ’57 Chevy Bel Air or ’66 Ford Mustang. So in other words, what they are saying is, that owning a real classic car is for rich and wealthy people only.
As the average person cannot afford the types of cars they suggest are classics.
Why should owning a classic car be for the rich only? (it shouldn’t) Who has the right to suggest what is and what isn’t a classic? (no one)

Oh and by the way, the CCCA does not even consider the ’57 Chevy Bel Air nor the ’66 Ford Mustang as classics (the nerve!)

I agree with them, actually. I think 35 years ago is far to recent to be considered classic. I can't think of anything newer then 1959 I'd call a 'classic car', and the CCCA's list (PDF here) doesn't have anything newer then 1947.
My opinion doesn't mean anything, I hardly care about any cars made before 1965. Theirs... sort of does, I guess, but you're free to ignore it.

The term classic is kind of overused with old cars. But what the Classic Car Club of America considers true classics might be better described as true collectors items. In my book the '66 Mustang (or should that be '65?) and '57 Bel Air are definetely classics.

I know what Neptune is saying but I can't agree with it 100%, with cars I refuse to consider any old rubbish as classic. Neptune says as long as something is in mint condition it's fine, but you can't polish a turd, some cars were just crap when they were new and they'll always be crap. Or average. If a car means something to it's owner, that's fine, but sentimental value only applies to that one person, it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. So you can't call something a real classic unless it's widely regarded as one. That doesn't only mean things like the Jaguar E-Type and Aston Martin DB5 (two of the ultimate classic British cars and thus are pretty expensive in mint condition), a classic has to be something special. And I don't really buy into the idea that classic status is only determined by age. Today there are so many cars on the market, they can't all be become classics. Things like the Rover 200/25, Vauxhall/Opel Vectra and Nissan Primera will never be real classics. Unless they became extremely rare, but when that happens imagine how rare all the exotic cars will be, and they'll be far more valuable. And that's the way life is, the greatest things cost the most money. Yes, there are classic cars which are more affordable (and classic cars aren't just for the rich), but not everything can be "classic".

All I have to say on this matter is, 40 years ago would anyone have ever thought that the Volkswagen Beetle would turn out to be a classic? The Volkswagen Beetle! The cheapest, noisiest, slowest, ugliest little piece of crap ever produced? Well just look around you today in 2008, what is the most well-known and beloved classic car in the world? The Volkswagen Beetle. Hell, Volkswagen even went to the trouble to design a whole new model devoted simply to this little car that you would consider "rubbish". So I would think twice, G-MANN, the next time you want to say that a "common, boring" car like an Escort or a Lumina will never be a classic, because you just never know.

Classics-To me, a classic is an old car in good conditon. Even though I am a van of the Mustang, I wouldn't consider it a classic-I'm pretty sure a classic in Austrlia is a car from pre 1959. Even so, Shannons Car insurance, (insure people who like their cars) insure anything, if it is demed a classic, rare, worth lots, or the owner is willing to pay more, for better insurance. When Hitler designed the Bettle, I don't think anyone would have geussed it becoming the worlds most reconisable car, just like when Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, or when Ronald McDonald was created, no-onem whould have seen them being the worlds most reconisable painting, or the most reconisible charcter.

The Beetle is a classic for a few reasons:

1) It was designed as the "People's Car" for Hitler's Germany, this gives it a certain significance.

2) It became a cult car, associated with hippie and surf culture.

3) It had a very distinctive design.

4) Perhaps most importantly, it had the longest running production of any car (that wasn't redesigned) and was also the highest selling car ever.

Things like the Escort (I presume you mean the US version) and the Lumina will never become automotive icons like the VW Beetle, because they are too run-of-the-mill, their design didn't last as long and didn't have the worldwide success of the Beetle.

The only chance those things have of being classics is if they are immortalised in a hugely successful movie, like Back to the Future did with the DeLorean (which was a failure when it was made, but then it was still a distinctive design).

You can't predict that kind of thing but you can tell which cars definetely won't be classics because they aren't distinctive or successful enough. When a car is first released, you don't know if it will be successful or not, but the cars of the 80s and 90s (which aren't yet classics) have had their day, and the ones that didn't completely take off or stand out won't be remembered. Even something like the Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit (which was a top luxury car in it's day) won't be as highly regarded as the older Rolls-Royces and it's not as good-looking.

Well there are a million things on my mind right now that I can say in rebuttal to your posts G-MANN. But unfortunately getting into an argument on the IMCDb forum (and most forums for that matter) is a neverending journey that leads us nowhere. So I would rather just keep my mouth shut now and agree to disagree. We obviously aren't going to change each other's minds, so what's the point of wasting our time spewing our opions at each other if it is worth nothing in the end? You think what you think, and I think what I think. Sound good?

Yeah you said it right Max, each of us have our own opinion and besides i think that what is making us all argue in here is that some of us don't have the same concept as to what we consider or appreciate as a classic, so i guess it's all said...

yes, everyone has their opinion on what is and isn't a classic, just the same as whta cars we do and don't like.

You sound a little peeved, taxiguy. I'm not trying to put you down, I'm just saying I don't think every car can become a true classic (and I'd like to think some would agree with this). Unless you use the word classic to describe something of a certain age, but I think the word should be used to describe something special (in the popular sense, not just special to a few people). It's like with films, not every old film can be called a classic. As for what Marioman said, Citizen Kane isn't my favourite film, but I'd be a fool to go onto the Citizen Kane board on IMDB and argue that it's not a classic film.

Only time will tell which of today's cars will become classics.

Cars up to the seventies are classics to me, and as years go by, later cars will become classics to me as well, if we don't consider them as classics what do we call them? just old cars? it sounds so bad to me! they are not just that, it's something you won't see anymore, something of the past, something from the nineties and eighties is an old car now but im sure in a future they'll become so interesting to see and they'll be classics for us, im sure.

By the way G-MANN, I am not upset. I am just saying it is useless for us to argue forever, we have said all that we think. Now the only things we could possibly say would be repeating what we have already said. We both think the way we think and that's the end of it.

Well we haven't been arguing forever. A good debate should be a bit longer than this (but not endless) If you have something to say in response to my comments, I'd like to hear it. Although I'd probably just end up debating further, but when you said you had loads of things you could say, that got me interested. Also when someone says something like "There's a million things I could say to that", it kind of sounds like "you're talking crap!" (although I'm not saying that's what you meant )

Well ok if you would really like to know then I guess I will say it. Rather than retype what I have already said in a conversation I have had with... ahem, an anonymous third party, I will just copy in paste it here. I think it includes most of my points in it: (I have deleted the other side of the conversation to protect their identity)

Grand Marquis GS says:
plus even if the escort and lumina don't become classic than they still don't deserve to be burned on an episode of top gear


Grand Marquis GS says:
and i'm sure he's right, neither of those cars, and also most other cars of the modern area, will not gain popularity like the beetle. but that doesn't mean that they won't be considered desireable in 50 years


Grand Marquis GS says:
after enough time anything will be considered classic. i mean in 300 years when archeologists dig up the ancient ruins of some city and they discover a car, wheateher it be a porche or a chevy it will be put into a musem and will be considered a valuable relic of an era bygone

It is probably easier to find a DB5 than some old cheap "rubbish" cars as you mention them.
For example the FSO pickup of Top Gear, or some others which became very rare on roads due to rust or just because disliked by most of the people, as mentioned previously.
It is well possible that the Marina becomes rarer than the DB5 (it is maybe even the case )

For me as a classic-car-fan, the most cars, which were seen manly a "classic", didn't have a relation to my opinion about a classic car. For me it's a "classic", when I can add some personal intentions, memories or feelings with them. I was born in 1970, car-interested since my kindergarten-time, so the mid-70ies. "Classic" in my opinion are the former all-day-cars "Brot-und-Butter-Auto", we say in German = "bread-and-butter-car". So a Ford 20 M, a Opel Rekord C, an Audi 60, a Chrysler 180, the Renault's 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 16, Mercedes W 115 and W 108, NSU Prinz, Audi 100 Coupé S, VW 1600 etc. etc. etc. have more meaning for me than a Ferrari, Maserati and so on. These premium-cars I knowed from my "Auto Quartett"-card-games or the motor-magazines, but not from the real life.

I must admit, that also the most British cars, except Jaguar, Mini and Land/Range Rover haven't existed in my "car-brain", because just they haven't existed around me. Same goes for Japanese cars. US-cars I've noticed mainly in movies or car-magazines.


About some car, called "Classics" in the popular opinion, I'm really sucked (mostly just des-interested, when I see them again and again.
So German classic-car-meetings or -rallyes are often boring for me, because the majority of participating cars is represented by: Mercedes SL [W 113] "Pagode", Porsche 911, Porsche 356, Jaguar E-Type, Austin Healey 3000, Chevrolet Corvette, etc. These "classic" cars are nerving me. They are just too much. No kidding: nowadays there are more Porsche 356 registrated in Germany than ever before! For the other cars, this goes, too. So many were re-imported from America.

@Antoine: I'd say, the Marina IS rarer than an Aston Martin.

Think about the fact, that of the many-million-seller VW Golf actually in Germany are registrated only 6 or 7 (SIX or SEVEN!) 1974-models. Also are only known 3 (THREE!!!) running Renault 6 over here. The amount of the different Opel "Kastenwagen" or "Van" (estate without back side windows) versions of Kadett and Rekord is not bigger.


Just try to find among the thousands of cars, called "classic" or "oldtimer", any kind of vehicle in the absolutely naked basis-version. Doesn't matter, if car or van. This will getting hard, eh?



P.S. I forgot annother ugly car, which had caused my disliking of cars, newer than the 70ies: the Ford Sierra. Worst!

I also remember that story about an original old VW Golf for which an "old timer" registration was rejected, or something like that. Wasn't you who told that? I could not find it in old comments.

Yes, it happend South of Hannover (not far away from the towns Wolfsburg, Braunschweig and Salzgitter, where VW-plants are located). A guy in the car-registration-authority denied to give one customer with a perfect 1975-Golf a historic-license-plate (that one with the "H" after the numbers. His reason "It's just a VW Golf. This will never be a classic."

The owner went to the court, but I don't know, how the decision was.

In Spain you can declare a car as "historic" (or classic as said many times) when it's older than 25 years old i think, no matter it's model or brand, they have some limitations but well these are just disadvantages of declaring it as classic, like only going to the inspection every longer period of time or having a limited amount of kilometres to do during the year, i don't think i'd ever declare a car of mine like that, you also must change the number plate to another uglier and modern one begining with an "H" and followed by several numbers.