Bottom of the wish list- But why??
Discussion
Why are there many cars out there that are disliked unnecessarily??
Why do people believe a jaguar e-type 2+2 is so much worse than a roadster? Maybe slightly ungainly but still fabulous.
Why is a Porsche 944 'worse' than a 911 of the same era? The 944 Turbo could almost keep up with a base spec 911. It's not a bad looker either. Is it snob value?
Why is it that an Aston Martin DBS is so much cheaper nowerdays than a late model DB6? Is it another James Bond thing, with the cowled headlamps and silver birch paint??
Are Ferrari Mondials really awful cars? Or are they just being compared to other Ferrari's, when maybe theyre not supposed to be?
Do SL's of the 70's and 80's really have any reason to be worth tens of thousands less than the 'Pagodas' that preceeded them? Looks again??
Is the driving dynamic any worse on them? Is it just because they are maybe not as pretty as there forerunners or competitors? OR is there any real reasoning behind it at all??
Why do people believe a jaguar e-type 2+2 is so much worse than a roadster? Maybe slightly ungainly but still fabulous.
Why is a Porsche 944 'worse' than a 911 of the same era? The 944 Turbo could almost keep up with a base spec 911. It's not a bad looker either. Is it snob value?
Why is it that an Aston Martin DBS is so much cheaper nowerdays than a late model DB6? Is it another James Bond thing, with the cowled headlamps and silver birch paint??
Are Ferrari Mondials really awful cars? Or are they just being compared to other Ferrari's, when maybe theyre not supposed to be?
Do SL's of the 70's and 80's really have any reason to be worth tens of thousands less than the 'Pagodas' that preceeded them? Looks again??
Is the driving dynamic any worse on them? Is it just because they are maybe not as pretty as there forerunners or competitors? OR is there any real reasoning behind it at all??
Edited by EspritS4Kid on Saturday 10th February 00:20
Fortunately we will never be able to define why this happens.
A car needs to be both rare and desirable and then hyped by the Clasic car press for it to have a chance.
There are people who will settle for nothing less than the considered best of everything so the price rockets and along with it the economics of restoration.
But have you noticed how the non pagoda Merc coupes are suddenly appearing this year?
Also that you hear the other e-type models being talked up?
A car needs to be both rare and desirable and then hyped by the Clasic car press for it to have a chance.
There are people who will settle for nothing less than the considered best of everything so the price rockets and along with it the economics of restoration.
But have you noticed how the non pagoda Merc coupes are suddenly appearing this year?
Also that you hear the other e-type models being talked up?
In a lot of cases there are culprits such as looks or rarity that one can attribute a perceived lack of desirability to, but as the previous poster suggests, the logic can seem a unfathomable in some cases.
Not that I've driven one, but I would wonder if a Jag XJC fitted into the bracket of 'underappreciated classics' in the cost sense? XJCs strike me as a lot of car for the money. Running costs perhaps?
Case in point: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1978-Jaguar-XJC
I think fashion is also a big factor. I can well imagine that the prices of say, XJCs would fly up if you had a sequential run of articles in the commercial press praising them.
Not that I've driven one, but I would wonder if a Jag XJC fitted into the bracket of 'underappreciated classics' in the cost sense? XJCs strike me as a lot of car for the money. Running costs perhaps?
Case in point: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1978-Jaguar-XJC
I think fashion is also a big factor. I can well imagine that the prices of say, XJCs would fly up if you had a sequential run of articles in the commercial press praising them.
flat16 said:
Not that I've driven one, but I would wonder if a Jag XJC fitted into the bracket of 'underappreciated classics' in the cost sense? XJCs strike me as a lot of car for the money. Running costs perhaps?
Case in point: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1978-Jaguar-XJC
Case in point: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1978-Jaguar-XJC
A lovely example of what is by far the most desirable variant of the XJ series... I love XJCs, especially in BRG with the V12...
Could well be running costs... I think the same applies to Volvo 164s, which tend to be slated on the grounds of fuel consumption... unfairly IMO, since the consumption is no worse than other three-litre cars of similar vintage.
I do understand the E-type thing though since I do find the non-roadster variants distinctly ugly.
It's all up to personal taste plus there are a large number of classic owners who know nothing about cars. They buy the car for the status or enjoyment but their knowledge only extends as far as what they've read in the press. They seem to push up the price and desirability of some models.
I'm really not sure about E-Type roadsters from an aesthetic perspective - I think they look like a boat with something missing. I also dislike the MGB roadster for the same reason. I think the coupes are far more beautiful. I also don't like series 3 E-types..... just personal opinions though.
I'm really not sure about E-Type roadsters from an aesthetic perspective - I think they look like a boat with something missing. I also dislike the MGB roadster for the same reason. I think the coupes are far more beautiful. I also don't like series 3 E-types..... just personal opinions though.
Edited by coco h on Sunday 11th February 10:24
Playing devils advocate, the price of classic cars reflects the market there is for a particular model, the 911 is an iconic shape and your average person will recognise it as a Porsche, the 944 looks were severely de-valued by; other manufacturers copying the shape (i.e. Supra) and the superficial similarity to the 924 entry level model. The 944 is cheaper to buy than a 911 of similar age / performance but when the time comes to sell the same will be true.
I'd say the driving dynamics of the 70's SLs are much better than the pagoda models but supply exceeds demand a lot here, few good examples of the '60s model survive and so it has an exclusive cache, the 70's models are still drifting through the bangernomics stage so don't bestow on the owner the same status.
I'm not saying I agree with the above buyers, just I can see how that effects values.
I'd say the driving dynamics of the 70's SLs are much better than the pagoda models but supply exceeds demand a lot here, few good examples of the '60s model survive and so it has an exclusive cache, the 70's models are still drifting through the bangernomics stage so don't bestow on the owner the same status.
I'm not saying I agree with the above buyers, just I can see how that effects values.
In my view cars designed as a compromise end up with a lower value
Without knowing the details, my uneducated guess says -
944 - Quick porsche, but with cheaper manufacturing and servicing costs using more common technology. Part of owning a porsche has to be top of the line technology and bespoke parts, not shared with other cars
E-type 2+2 - Arguably E-types now are bought for posing. Softops are better for that
Other examples could be say the pug 309 gti vs the 205 gti. Just as capable and arguably with friendly handling, yet the 309 is a compromise between a famiy car and a hot hatch.Jaguar XJS vs the Lynx Eventer - introduce practicality for touring = nope thank you.
That said, I have no idea why Jaguar XJCs are anything less than massively desirable. They are beautiful cars, granted they came from a poor manufacturing process, but after 25 years+, the surviving examples must have had the worst issues addressed
Without knowing the details, my uneducated guess says -
944 - Quick porsche, but with cheaper manufacturing and servicing costs using more common technology. Part of owning a porsche has to be top of the line technology and bespoke parts, not shared with other cars
E-type 2+2 - Arguably E-types now are bought for posing. Softops are better for that
Other examples could be say the pug 309 gti vs the 205 gti. Just as capable and arguably with friendly handling, yet the 309 is a compromise between a famiy car and a hot hatch.Jaguar XJS vs the Lynx Eventer - introduce practicality for touring = nope thank you.
That said, I have no idea why Jaguar XJCs are anything less than massively desirable. They are beautiful cars, granted they came from a poor manufacturing process, but after 25 years+, the surviving examples must have had the worst issues addressed
shouldbworking said:
In my view cars designed as a compromise end up with a lower value
Without knowing the details, my uneducated guess says -
944 - Quick porsche, but with cheaper manufacturing and servicing costs using more common technology. Part of owning a porsche has to be top of the line technology and bespoke parts, not shared with other cars
E-type 2+2 - Arguably E-types now are bought for posing. Softops are better for that
Other examples could be say the pug 309 gti vs the 205 gti. Just as capable and arguably with friendly handling, yet the 309 is a compromise between a famiy car and a hot hatch.Jaguar XJS vs the Lynx Eventer - introduce practicality for touring = nope thank you.
That said, I have no idea why Jaguar XJCs are anything less than massively desirable. They are beautiful cars, granted they came from a poor manufacturing process, but after 25 years+, the surviving examples must have had the worst issues addressed
Without knowing the details, my uneducated guess says -
944 - Quick porsche, but with cheaper manufacturing and servicing costs using more common technology. Part of owning a porsche has to be top of the line technology and bespoke parts, not shared with other cars
E-type 2+2 - Arguably E-types now are bought for posing. Softops are better for that
Other examples could be say the pug 309 gti vs the 205 gti. Just as capable and arguably with friendly handling, yet the 309 is a compromise between a famiy car and a hot hatch.Jaguar XJS vs the Lynx Eventer - introduce practicality for touring = nope thank you.
That said, I have no idea why Jaguar XJCs are anything less than massively desirable. They are beautiful cars, granted they came from a poor manufacturing process, but after 25 years+, the surviving examples must have had the worst issues addressed
Not sure I agree:
back in the 80s, the 911 was a very basic car: air cooled, floor-hinged pedals, and the legend was true then- the 911 did need experienced hands when the road was wet and the speeds were high. Add to theis a basic heating system, and 9q11 owners were not buying them for their technology. The 944, on the other hand was very up to date, handled better and used technology better. They wree also very good on the track- in the Porsche supercup racing of the day, they would beat the 911.
E-type 2+2. I suspect you are right, but with most cars, the convertable version is worth more. Convertable aston, for example are always worth more. Sometimes a lot more.
And the lynx Evanter: this was a specialised version built by Lynx in sussex. It was never intended to be competition to the XJs. I believe you took your XJs to them, who then convertd it. Perosnally, I would want an Evanter over an XJS, but then I'm weird like that...
This may be the wrong place to ask about logic in the choice of car. As I suspect those who lurk here all drive or covet frankly illogical cars.
Reputations can ruin cars when new, some appear to survive when they hit classic status, such as the Stag, and others that never survive at all - Lancia Beta Coupe anyone?
Some cars everybody agrees are lovely, and then nobody buys them and looks after them!
XJ12C is just fantastic, one of my dream cars. Saw a sad looking Damiler XJC outside my local garage today as it happens, obviously in the hands of somebody without the cash or inclination to look after it properly. Please look after these cars becasue if I ever get rich I will be looking for a nice one! How about in black with the roof stripped off, manual conversion, big alloys and a Lister engine? Mmmmmmm. There is even one Series I coupe about made as a pre-production version that looks even lovlier. They are much more prized abroad however, particularly in Australia and America.
Still all these unloved cars mean you can find real bargains out there. Which is nice.
Reputations can ruin cars when new, some appear to survive when they hit classic status, such as the Stag, and others that never survive at all - Lancia Beta Coupe anyone?
Some cars everybody agrees are lovely, and then nobody buys them and looks after them!
XJ12C is just fantastic, one of my dream cars. Saw a sad looking Damiler XJC outside my local garage today as it happens, obviously in the hands of somebody without the cash or inclination to look after it properly. Please look after these cars becasue if I ever get rich I will be looking for a nice one! How about in black with the roof stripped off, manual conversion, big alloys and a Lister engine? Mmmmmmm. There is even one Series I coupe about made as a pre-production version that looks even lovlier. They are much more prized abroad however, particularly in Australia and America.
Still all these unloved cars mean you can find real bargains out there. Which is nice.
Edited by cml on Friday 16th February 02:21
cml said:
This may be the wrong place to ask about logic in the choice of car. As I suspect those who lurk here all drive or covet frankly illogical cars.
Reputations can ruin cars when new, some appear to survive when they hit classic status, such as the Stag, and others that never survive at all - Lancia Beta Coupe anyone?
Some cars everybody agrees are lovely, and then nobody buys them and looks after them!
XJ12C is just fantastic, one of my dream cars. Saw a sad looking Damiler XJC outside my local garage today as it happens, obviously in the hands of somebody without the cash or inclination to look after it properly. Please look after these cars becasue if I ever get rich I will be looking for a nice one! How about in black with the roof stripped off, manual conversion, big alloys and a Lister engine? Mmmmmmm. There is even one Series I coupe about made as a pre-production version that looks even lovlier. They are much more prized abroad however, particularly in Australia and America.
Still all these unloved cars mean you can find real bargains out there. Which is nice.
Reputations can ruin cars when new, some appear to survive when they hit classic status, such as the Stag, and others that never survive at all - Lancia Beta Coupe anyone?
Some cars everybody agrees are lovely, and then nobody buys them and looks after them!
XJ12C is just fantastic, one of my dream cars. Saw a sad looking Damiler XJC outside my local garage today as it happens, obviously in the hands of somebody without the cash or inclination to look after it properly. Please look after these cars becasue if I ever get rich I will be looking for a nice one! How about in black with the roof stripped off, manual conversion, big alloys and a Lister engine? Mmmmmmm. There is even one Series I coupe about made as a pre-production version that looks even lovlier. They are much more prized abroad however, particularly in Australia and America.
Still all these unloved cars mean you can find real bargains out there. Which is nice.
Edited by cml on Friday 16th February 02:21
At the risk of accruing a reputation on here as a myth buster, I am going to set the record straight about these "fabulous" coupes.
When Jaguar started production on these, they were firmly and brutally in the grip of British Leyland; this must be fully understood.
It was an appalling and destructive process that almost ruined Jaguar.
I did warranty work on the coupes and there was a point where it was almost impossible to keep up with it, they were so bad.
The following problems come back to me from over twenty years ago.
They leaked water into the cabin abominably, mainly due to the design of the pillarless window seals which simply did not work and were very badly fitted.
The door hinges were also not up to the weight of the extended coupe doors and when the slightest wear took place they compounded the water sealing problems even further.
All of the cars had vinyl roofs, not because it was trendy or it enhanced the appearance;
but because Jaguar had problems getting the roof joints right and the body solder kept showing under the paint, so they stuck vinyl on it to conceal it; yet another BL "quick fix"! In a vehicle of that price and status, this was nothing short of disgraceful.
Another extremely random and seriously difficult problem to solve was that of propshaft vibration, particularly on the V12 model. The cars were fitted with split propshafts with an adjustable centre mounting and some cars would knock and vibrate under the transmission tunnel on take off. Jaguar made an alignment tool that was supposed to cure this but my experience showed that some cars were never fully sorted no matter what you did, and I personally came to the conclusion that the shells were out of line and that was the source of the problem.
I did one car owned by a JDC member and long time Jag driver, and he finally threatend legal action over this one problem: it was particularly bad on his car. Jaguar finally relented and gave him a brand new car! Just because of the propshaft!!! Dreadful!!
But the single worst aspect had to be rust, they rusted quicker than you could repair them, I think mainly because of the water ingress problems and the fact that BL had tightened up so much on Jaguar's budget that there was virtually no body shell protection on the cars when they left the factory.
Reference the Series 1 cars:I owned a 1971 XJ12 short wheelbase saloon, and in terms of handling and performance it was quite superb.
It would attain 150MPH on the motorway in seconds; and remember this is a big, heavy car built in 1971!!
Had the coupes been based on the Series 1 model, they would have been entirely different, but the BL influence led to the spoiling of the marque; a great and promising design, ruined by corporate and political influences and a boardroom devoid of engineers.
Having said this, restoring one now, although it is a formidable task, would make it an entirely different animal when utilising modern techniques and materials and the appropriate care that was absent from the factory build.
My brief would be to build a V12 engined car with programmable, mapped injection, a manual 'box and correctly sorted suspension, probably Bilstein or Koni.
That combined with modern tyres and reduced pressure PAS would transform it into a true drivers car, but still retain the elegance of the original design.
An interesting project.
Thanks, crush my dreams why don't you?
I know there are quality 'issues' and I've never seen one that wasn't rusty. Logic? Nah, if we were all logical then it would be horrid little three box things with deisel engines for everybody.
My dad, who worked in engineering all his life, gets rather heated when talking about what BL and the like did to British manufacturing. He remains suspicious of accountants! All a horrible waste. The coupes, and the early XJS' were made just at the wrong time for build-quality. Every car of the 1960s and 70s now lets in water. I would expect the pillarless design to be worse and the rust-proofing to be rubbish. Unfortunately they remain not worth restoring if you look at it logically, actually that is probably true for almost every car of the period.
Luckily there are a few abitious nutters about, for a real job on the XJC see this amazing restoration here, fantastic. A quick bit of Googling and you'll find other such projects, mostly abroad though. Perhaps it just brings up too many painful memories of BL, strikes and what could have been for Brits, or something. I like this one.
Like the sound of your Series I V12 too.
I know there are quality 'issues' and I've never seen one that wasn't rusty. Logic? Nah, if we were all logical then it would be horrid little three box things with deisel engines for everybody.
My dad, who worked in engineering all his life, gets rather heated when talking about what BL and the like did to British manufacturing. He remains suspicious of accountants! All a horrible waste. The coupes, and the early XJS' were made just at the wrong time for build-quality. Every car of the 1960s and 70s now lets in water. I would expect the pillarless design to be worse and the rust-proofing to be rubbish. Unfortunately they remain not worth restoring if you look at it logically, actually that is probably true for almost every car of the period.
Luckily there are a few abitious nutters about, for a real job on the XJC see this amazing restoration here, fantastic. A quick bit of Googling and you'll find other such projects, mostly abroad though. Perhaps it just brings up too many painful memories of BL, strikes and what could have been for Brits, or something. I like this one.
Like the sound of your Series I V12 too.
Edited by cml on Friday 16th February 12:46
I should have just kept my mouth shut - ignorance is bliss.
Seriously though, it's very kind of JITH to take the time to provide such information. If you were thinking of buying an XJC, that's a post to print off.
BTW - The poor reputation of Lancia Betas is undeserved. They do rust (the very last cars were much more resistant) and the electrics are nothing to write home about, but on the whole, they're very rugged and enjoyable cars to own. The stories about engines falling out were typical UK-press scaremongering with no truth to them. Lancia's transmission and 'box is renowned for durability and it's not uncommon to hear of cars that have done 150K miles+ without a rebuild.
I could write a long post on Montecarlos btw... A bonafide classic, albeit flawed... Superb handling, shame about the brakes and engine. If only they'd given the Montecarlo the Volumex engine and vented discs, it could have been a totally different story.
If you want to know why Montecarlos don't fetch high prices, bear in mind that the car looked seriously quick, yet took 9 seconds to reach 60mph... Even with Series 2 brakes, fade is a serious issue on a warm afternoon through twisty A-roads.
The Montecarlo is a much better car than people make out though. If you hear someone knocking one, ask them if they've ever driven one. With 150 BHP+ and decent brakes a Monte is a lot of fun, but it'll cost much moolah to get it to that state and you won't get it back on resale.
BTW - The Montecarlo has virtually no parts in common with a Beta. The 'box and engine are of the same family of design, but ratios, cams, pistons, oil + water pump etc are all totally different.
One magazine report said of the Montecarlo, "Promised much, offered little" - sadly, in standard trim, that's about right, although it sounds lovely and can corner at insane speeds in the dry.
Edited for accuracy.
Seriously though, it's very kind of JITH to take the time to provide such information. If you were thinking of buying an XJC, that's a post to print off.
BTW - The poor reputation of Lancia Betas is undeserved. They do rust (the very last cars were much more resistant) and the electrics are nothing to write home about, but on the whole, they're very rugged and enjoyable cars to own. The stories about engines falling out were typical UK-press scaremongering with no truth to them. Lancia's transmission and 'box is renowned for durability and it's not uncommon to hear of cars that have done 150K miles+ without a rebuild.
I could write a long post on Montecarlos btw... A bonafide classic, albeit flawed... Superb handling, shame about the brakes and engine. If only they'd given the Montecarlo the Volumex engine and vented discs, it could have been a totally different story.
If you want to know why Montecarlos don't fetch high prices, bear in mind that the car looked seriously quick, yet took 9 seconds to reach 60mph... Even with Series 2 brakes, fade is a serious issue on a warm afternoon through twisty A-roads.
The Montecarlo is a much better car than people make out though. If you hear someone knocking one, ask them if they've ever driven one. With 150 BHP+ and decent brakes a Monte is a lot of fun, but it'll cost much moolah to get it to that state and you won't get it back on resale.
BTW - The Montecarlo has virtually no parts in common with a Beta. The 'box and engine are of the same family of design, but ratios, cams, pistons, oil + water pump etc are all totally different.
One magazine report said of the Montecarlo, "Promised much, offered little" - sadly, in standard trim, that's about right, although it sounds lovely and can corner at insane speeds in the dry.
Edited for accuracy.
Edited by flat16 on Tuesday 20th February 12:50
If you think back you will remember John Steed's XJC which was the best thing about the New Avengers. Maybe a case for KWE getting in and doing their stuff, same as they seem to be able to do on XJS's. So far as BL are concerned don't start me. My father owned 26 Jags in straight succession from 1958 until about 1978 until you couldn't get an XJ6 to leave your garage without a stout tow rope. I remember collecting them new from the dealer and you opened the bonnet and underneath was already rusting. He changed to Mercedes and has never changed back.
That's how the brit car industry went to hell. Same as shipbuilding. Not that we couldn't do it, just bloody mindedness and mismanagement. The whole country is going like that now.
That's how the brit car industry went to hell. Same as shipbuilding. Not that we couldn't do it, just bloody mindedness and mismanagement. The whole country is going like that now.
EspritS4Kid said:
Why is it that an Aston Martin DBS is so much cheaper nowerdays than a late model DB6? Is it another James Bond thing, with the cowled headlamps and silver birch paint??
Are Ferrari Mondials really awful cars? Or are they just being compared to other Ferrari's, when maybe theyre not supposed to be
Edited by EspritS4Kid on Saturday 10th February 00:20
I think one of the problems with the DBS is the cost of restoring/maintaining them. No more expensive than other Astons, but woth current values so low, it's always going to cost more to make a car good than that car is worth. I recall reading one of the AM Indy's in Octane saying that he wouldn't bet against someone spending 50K doing one up and marketing it at 70K, and that the market may take it. You never know...
The Mondial is grossly underrated, and it is purely by comparison with the other F-cars. There are some enlightened owners out there that actually prefer it to it's contemporaries. Remember, the Mondy was more expensive and rarer than the 308/328/348 it was based on, and I've read many a road test from the period and can't find a bad word against them.
TBH, saying 'I drive a Ferrari, but it's only a Mondial' is a bit like saying 'I'm shagging one of the less attractive supermodels'. It's not a bad place to be...
The mondial is indeed a good car but many people come at it from a strange angle. When my first daughter was born I had a 355 and tried to move from this to a Mondial. If it is one of your first encounters then you will probably love it and the same goes for the (IMHO beautiful) 308GT4. They are both fantastic cars. Alot of the problem is a snobbery thing. Definately the Bertone styled 308GT4 will IMHO change considerably in price as wedge shapes become better appreciated. But then I am a bit biased! A s for old Astons I actually prefer the DBS to the DB6 (Lord Brett Sinclair) but I can't understand why Interceptors are worth twice their money.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff