CLASSIC Motorsports. Right?

"No Bret, I will not point to the classic, although it is clear to me. It’s simply a trap."

LOL! Yes in a way it was a loaded question – as they're both 78's... Please don't hate me? ;)

I can’t tell if you’re just being argumentative or whether you’re insulted by the suggestion that your 928 isn’t a “classic” in relation to CM or whether you really are missing my point.

At the risk of sounding "Argumentative" I was merely asking you to expound on why you felt the way you do by playing the Devils Advocate. Sure I disagree with your statement (at least about the 928) but I don’t think that means that I have a “chip on my shoulder”. Truth be known I truly wasn’t the least bit insulted – but was rather curious as to your motivations for expressing your seemingly unbending notion of what is or isn’t a classic.

And yes you seemed so serious in your comments that it was hard to tell if you where simply voicing an honest opinion or if your comments where the result of snobbery. I mean I’ve got my idea of what constitutes a classic just like you & like you – I really don’t care what others think of me and that’s ok.

My 928 like my MGB where chosen for among other things was their “Redheaded Stepchild” persona. Often times shunned even within their own communities. In the case of the Shark – many of the P-car folks to a large extent don’t understand them & hate ’em outright. Likewise – while the Rubber Bumper Bs are starting to come into their own – there was a time when they where similarly & widely looked down upon by their chrome bumper brethren. So if there’s one thing we can all agree on – car snobs do exist. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t one.

But the two cars pictured above are my pride & joys and while they’re two totally different driving experiences – I feel that they are indeed classics.
:cool:

Tisk tisk – don’t ya know that back handed diatribe is oh so passé. :nice:

BTW the chrome Bimmer & Benz are burning my eyes. ;)

Well, I do belive that the closest definition so far is lust.

My submission: Passion.

Not a corprate passion, but a personal drive. Chapman, Shelby, Morgan, ect...

And of course, Us. A guy that loves his Pinto has the passion!

Leo

I have my own definition of which cars are suitable for Classic Motorsports, but let's play a game.

Which cars are classics?

1964 MGB

1979 Mazda RX-7

1993 Alfa Romeo Spider

1980 MGB LE

1990 Mazda Miata

1983 Porsche 911 SC

2008 Porsche 911 Turbo

1970 Datsun 240Z

1976 BMW 2002tii

1960 Porsche 356B

1988 Honda CRX Si

1999 Ferrari 550

2003 Porsche Boxster S

1997 Acura Integra Type R

2002 Bentley Arnage

I don't know, but I think those that aren't will be.

David: If I ran a magazine, I would want all those "classics" and their owners to feel welcome. Perhaps the issue is more about the enthusiast and a state of mind than the automobile. If I feel like a "classic motorsport" enthusiast while tooling around in my 1993 Miata with the top down, then so be it. Or, if I am just commuting to work in my economical 1979 Fiat Spider which I am forced to maintain by myself, that is fine as well.

Cheers Ron

To me, it's more about being notable for some reason. A great racing heritage or technological innovation helps a lot, but even being representative of a class of cars can help. I don't think rarity is a prequisite, otherwise the MGB wouldn't make the list.

On David's list, definite classics for me: 1964 MGB

1997 Acura Integra Type R (it's the R that counts)

1990 Mazda Miata (the most popular sports car ever, and with some competition chops)

1988 Honda CRX Si

BMW 2002

Porsche 356B

1979 RX-7

1970 Datsun 240Z

Newer cars that are evolutions or continuations of classics, and fall into an awkward grey area. 1993 Alfa spider

1983 Porsche 911 SC

1980 MGB LE

New and impressive, but not classics. Or not yet, anyhow:

Ferrari 550 (but it will be, simply due to sheer styling loveliness and the Ferrari badge)

Bentley Arnage

2008 Porsche turbo

2003 Porsche Boxster

For some, if the car is still in production, that makes it invalid for classic status - as if this somehow negates the car's contribution. The Miata is the perfect example. If it had the lifespan of its cousin the Mercury Capri - dead by 1994 - I don't think anyone would dispute its place in Classic Motorsports. But the car suffered the sin of working well and being popular, so it's been kept around and was updated over the years.

I'd have to say that, at some level, rarity has to play a part. Calling an MGB common is pretty funny, really. I must have seen 20 Miatas today in a 10-mile drive. Not an atypical day, and I couldn't tell you much about any of them, except the grey mazdaspeed that belongs to an acquaintance. I'm half-looking for one, for a friend. But there are so many out there, and so many of the owners are not car people, that they barely even register when I see them. Yes, I have a better idea how many miatas I passed today than how many tauruses; I appreciate miatas, and I respect them. But they're not memorable cars.

I remember the last fiat and the last MG I saw that weren't mine, and it's been weeks since I saw them. The last time I saw a Seven on the street? 18 years ago this July. Last Lotus Elan I saw on the street? October, 1995, turning right off Route 1 onto Route 52, in Longwood, PA.

Keith, if your targa miata passed me, I'd take note. But no matter how cool it is (and I respect that car a lot) I doubt I would remember it in 2026.

So that's my basic idea -- that memorable cars are classics. Which is purely subjective, of course; but find me a definition that won't be.

Matt

Well, the MGB is the second most popular sports car ever made- as long as your definition of sports car doesn't include Corvettes or Mustangs :) But they're certainly not rare cars even if you don't see them on the street every day. I don't see a lot of Ford Aerostars either...

There's a lot of merit to the memorable idea - although something can be memorable without being classic. Just about any Ferrari, for example.

When I win the Targa Newfoundland in my Miata and you see it on the street, you'll remember that :)

Absolutely, the Miata is a classic. It brought an affordable, traditional "classic" performance sports car back to the masses. The fact that it caused such a media sensation and drove prices up to insane levels in the dealerships when introduced(like the 240Z and the first RX7) was a testament to the designers filling a void in the market that no one else was willing to gamble on until they saw the success of Mazda's Miata. When a car creates such a stir, that puts it in the classic category in my books.

Do classics have to be sports cars?

Funny, I was reminded of John R. Bond's first article when he went to Road & Track back in 1948. "What is a sports car" was the title of his article. I guess not much has been settled in the last 60 years.

Great point! The water gets kind a murky when talking about classics right? More so when you look at Muscle cars, GTs & of course Sports cars.

Defining the classic car is a tough one, especially with all of the interesting cars of the last few decades. Its sort of like antiques; there is a difference between an antique and something thats just old.

I've put a lot of thought into why and its difficult to articulate. But, when I think of "newer" cars that are classics I would include the early Miata.

On the same list I would put the Mitsu/Dodge Starion/Conquest, but not the Daytona, the 944 but not the 968, the 928, but oddly I can't find a reason to say a newer 911 or Boxster is a classic, its just a Porsche, the 3rd gen Rx7 and predecessors, the Supra, the VW GTI and Scirocco, and even the old Eagle 4x4 hatchbacks and wagons of the 80's.

But here is where there is a line, just like the difference between an antique desk and an old desk. Some cars are vintage and classic, and some are just vintage, they represent a time and place in automotive design and engineering that is worth remembering but not particularly memorable. It may be worth remembering because of what was happenning at the time or because of what we were doing at the time they were made. Its like last summer, I spotted one of those weird Oldsmobile Omega quasi-hatchbacks of the 80's. It was absolutely mint, no dings, perfect paint, all original as I remembered them.

Was this a classic car? No, but it was old and well looked after, it was what I would call a vintage car. I thought it was cool as hell, too. But, its just not a classic car.

Anyway, bottom line, I suggest that the definition of classic car be liberally constued for the purposes of the magazine and this board. I can't see any benefit in limiting it, and I know everyone here loves cars and can appreciate all kinds of them, even the Omega...It looked just like the Citation...

I'm sticking with lust. Lust is the answer.

For the most part they all are, but on my particular list, I'd leave off the Bentley, Boxster, and Ferrari 550 as being too new. I was going to say the Type R too, but somehow it was a classic in the day it was released. The others are expensive to be sure, they they are also still depreciating new cars, and in the case of the Bentley, dropping like a rock.

Just to drag this on a little further, classic or not classic?

2008 Morgan Aero 8

2008 Morgan 4/4

2008 TVR Tuscan

1996 Lotus Elise

Luke - to answer your questions: No, no, no and no. :grin:

I figured it out. I finally have the answer.

A classic car does not have cup holders!

Now there's one point I will add to the official definition of a classic car: No cup holders. Those things are so 'corporate' and mass produced.

And they use metal keys. :grin: