1st Nov 2008, 07:56
I agree about spending family money wisely. With the downturn in the housing market, stocks etc. I am glad I sold our former oversized home 2 years ago and took the profit and just paid off our current smaller home. I still have room and a big garage. If I held the other home til now I would have to take a hit or not be able to see it. And I would rather buy cars now.
And if you focus on popular restored classic muscle cars (the ones with appeal), I see it as a sounder investment today. They will dip at times, but still are climbing in value.
I prefer GM, but like most restored domestic classics. My oldest son wisely started with classic Mustangs. He owned 3 Mustangs in a row and now owns a Viper. The last 1966 he changed to a 95 GT drivetrain and added retro A/C. From the outside it looked pure stock. The others were "restified" meaning they can be quickly returned to original form.
Choosing a car like an early Mustang is smart. It is the most important production car of all time ever developed. This makes it have broader appeal and easy to have a valuable vehicle. And to sell easily.
I am not seeing any great Toyota cars or trucks with the appeal of any of the high production classics. What's an old Corolla or Camry worth today? The secondary car lots are full of some pretty sad examples. I see them as basic transportation only. The horrors I see are the winged ones with the f... pipe with bad rings and torched springs, mainly Civics with all the racing stickers down the sides. I rather see a modified pink one in nice shape than old rusty examples.
1st Nov 2008, 12:46
"Hands down, Honda, Toyota, and their luxury divisions are a higher quality."
Come one, I think you need to challenge your preconceived notions. Toyota is experiencing severe quality problems, including widespread instances of complete engine failures at low mileages. Aside from me personally witnessing and being financially damaged by such disasters, they are also documented on Consumer Affairs:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html
I do not think that makes Toyota the standard-bearer for quality.
Moreover, the absolute primary reason cars have "evolved" to the way they are today (i.e., front wheel drive unit body configuration) is for one reason: to make them easier and less expensive to manufacture. All manufacturers have to do is stamp out a body, put a suspension, stuff a transversely oriented engine under the hood in any convoluted way they can get it, and link its power to the road through an incredibly fragile and physically non-sensible driveline configuration.
Why do you think car manufacturers (including Japanese companies) are returning many of their models to rear wheel drive? Many people who grew up with RWD dislike FWD for good reason. For example, they are tired of constantly replacing drive axles, and bloodying up up knuckles during (or paying outrageous prices for) even the slightest repair or maintenance procedure. Have you ever replaced a transmission or clutch on a FWD? It is not pretty, nor is the repair bill that results.
I agree vehicles should evolve, and will even admit that the Japanese vehicles generally shifted the automotive tide in a direction it needed to go in when they were introduced. However, vehicle "evolution" should be tailored toward what is best for the consumer, not the manufacturer. I do not think that is what has occurred.
2nd Nov 2008, 10:09
Comment 12:46 is an example of an informed and accurate comment based on fact and citing credible data. As a mechanic I totally agree about the front drive issue. It is simply cheaper for the manufacturer, and the arguments about better handling and better traction, etc. are pure ad hype to sell uninformed drivers on a system basically designed to make more money for car makers by cutting costs, and making the cars so difficult to work on that people HAD to take them to the dealer and pay $800 to have a $50 water pump installed.
We currently own one domestic front drive car, one rear drive domestic sports car, and a mid-sized rear drive domestic SUV. If we get a snow or ice storm, the front drive car stays in the driveway, as it has way less traction and handles MUCH worse than the rear drive SUV.
Due to the extreme repair cost and difficulty in working on them, I'd never own a Japanese front-drive vehicle of any kind. They require more maintenance and generally break down much more often than domestic vehicles. The one front-drive we have is a GM, and in typical GM fashion has never required a single repair in 8 years.
2nd Nov 2008, 21:26
"For example, they are tired of constantly replacing drive axles"
This may be true for most imports. The CV joints in our Honda were clattering at only 40,000 miles. However this has NOT been the case with our domestics. My last Dodge went over 240,000 miles without CV joints are half-shafts (or anything else, for that matter). Our current front-drive GM is going on 9 years old and has never had a CV joint or half-shaft problem. Everything on it is still original except the tires, battery and brakes.
31st Oct 2008, 11:41
It's actually quiet easy to find facts that support these claims: Just about any consumer or industry quality reports, and no - we're not talking "initial" quality either, but rather how long a car lasts 5,10,15 years. Hands down, Honda, Toyota, and their luxury divisions are a higher quality. They might also be your only choice sooner or later because both GM and Ford are on life support.
Lastly, yes indeed I grew up with Japanese cars. The argument that they aren't exciting doesn't make sense considering that some of the "collector" cars now are cars like Chevy Novas. These were bland, pedestrian, bare-bones cars back in the day. But guess what? A lot of you drove them back when you were young, and therefore you like them and will pay lots of money for them. The same goes for people like me. Things change. Tastes change.
In regards to old cars and values, there's something to be said about a man with a family who spends $40,000 and $50,000 of the family's money restoring an old car. I can't tell you how many guys I knew where the family was barely making it, yet good ole' dad was spending all of his free time fixing up some old car.
I myself happen to own a 55' Mercury. Yes, it isn't perfect, has some bondo here and there, has the original interior, and drives fine. But it gets just as much attention at the shows as some of those cars someone spent 100,000 restoring. People in many cases actually like to see wear and tear and not some absolutely perfect, slick, flawless car. There's 100's of them anyway, so once you see one 55 Belair, 65 Mustang, 68 Camero, or yet another Ford couple with a flathead... you've pretty much seen it all.
Again - car shows are increasingly becoming boring since everyone restores the same cars and in most cases do so with poor taste, using weird colors and custom touches essentially destroying the car's original beauty. Can't tell you how many ugly pink hot rods I see these days. ugh..