05 Mustang, the next classic?

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by Fubak, Mar 31, 2004.

  1. What????? Ok, so a 71 mach 1 is not a classic??? a 69 gt?? You are crazy. You dont have to be a cobra or a shelby to be a classic. If I were to see even part of your point, I dont really think cobras and shelbys can be mentioned in the same sentence. If it's a real Shelby then SVT's entry will not compare.
  2. No, they wont be classics. Just due to the way these cars are being massively produced, with no real options that make some models different from others. There are too many smog restrictions, and these cars aren't the first in the line of Mustangs. There are just too many reasons why they wont be classics.
  3. YEs.. exactly 65shelby.

    Those model years would def be classics, as the production nuimbers werent that HIGH.. and are unique.

    But these new cars... 120k a year... no way a classic... lets say 75k of these are V8's... still no way a classic.

    A 2001 Bullitt will definantly be a classic.. only 5,600 or so produced... so will be the COBRA's... but probably not worth as much as the Bullit or other special editions with LOWER build numbers.
  4. Do you know anything about the classics. I believe the 64 model year had just over120k produced. And the 65 went to 560k produced. Let's check out facts before posting something.

    As for the 2005 being a classic. That all depends. In the strictest of terms a 20 years old car is a classic. Do I expect them to fetch a high price. Not particularly no. I think it will take closer to 40 years before they start gaining value. And yes I do think they will eventually gain in value. But let's again join reality. And ask ourselves. How many of us on this board right now are going to buy and keep one for 40 years? I'm going to bet not many.
  5. Production numbers might have something to do with value, but nothing to do with whether the car will be considered a classic or not.
  6. absolutely 66Satellite, nothing to do with numbers. I dont know how you could say that the 69 gt's and convertables are not classics(among many other, I just have a fondness for the 69). Not to mention, who cares what they are worth in 40 years? A classic is about the feeling a car gave when it was new. If these cars are great and we love them, in time they will be classics no matter how mass produced. I think you guys are mixing the meaning of rare cars with classic
  7. I don't want to sound like an arse, but there were 680,989 1965 Mustangs produced (late and early models, early models while sold in 64 all were all 65 models), and over 1 million Mustangs in the first two years. How is it that the "mass produced" '05, that may only sell 180k units, will be much more available 30 years from now then say a 65 model is now?

    "IF" the 05 has a great following, including the younger crowd, it is quite possible that 20-30 years from now 05 Mustangs will be much more rare than, 65 and 66 Mustangs are now.

    GT Mustangs will still be desirable cars 20 years from now, just as finding a good Fox body GT is still desirable today. It may not rise to the level of a '69 Boss 429, but still good examples in good condition are very hard to find.

    Collectable cars retain their value because they are "cool" or have sentimental value. If the '05 has those attributes, then 20 years from now a '05 GT in good condition will be an excellent find.
  8. I think everyone is comparing apples to oranges. The 05 GT could be as classic as the 65 GT. The 06 Cobras,Shelby's or whatever they produce could be compared to the 65/66 Shelby. Of course a barebones stock V6 won't be as desirable as a 65 GT350. I think we can all agree that if we came across an original, unrestored, 1000 mile 65 GT we would all drool at the chance to own it. I think it will be the same for the 05 GT 40 years from now. There will be less of the 05's then than there are 65's now just because of the production numbers. Also the odds of them being wrecked and totaled are way up.
    And who doesn't like the mid 80's cars? The GT350(famous lawsuit) is a very collectible car. The SVO's are very sought after. I remember my 85 GT, the last of the carburator and the 86 GT was the first year of the FI. Those cars were very tunable and could create great horsepower.
    I guess beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.......
  9. All you guys have not mentioned the current body style to include the mach 1 and bullitt
  10. Basically any car 25 years or older is considered a classic--so right now any car built 1979 or earlier is a "classic." Whether it's a desireable classic is another question. People get nostalgic for weird things, though--there's no accounting for taste. Even the Yugo has a following.
  11. Bingo... They'll all be "classic", but that's just a generic term for an old car that didn't suck when it was new. A '66 Riviera is a classic, a '75 Coupe DeVille is a classic, and a '65 Mustang is a classic. And anything that they build today that makes most people smile (for what it is) will be called "classic" someday. But COLLECTIBILITY, VALUE, those terms can laugh at the word "classic" sometimes. The early VW Beetles are considered to be extremely HYPER classic, an icon, but you can still pick up a nicely restored one for peanuts, it's not worth much, but very very "classic". The ZR1 argument made me laugh, has anybody seen how cheap used ZR1's are these days (relatively speaking)?? They sold for around 70-flippin-grand in the early 90's, and you can get one with less than 30K on the odometer today for less than 30K of TODAY'S dollars. When you factor inflation and lost potential on the cash invested, that "classic" was a flat-out foul investment looking at it today. Maybe that will turn around in the future, but I doubt it. A new Z06 will put a total whoopin on a ZR1, so it'll go down in history as a classic and as an oddity, but collectibility will never equal that of an old '67 427 tri-power, or a '57 Fuelie, cars that were more than just performers, but beautiful works of ART. And that's a big point, art. Why do collectors pay over 1 million dollars for a classic Ferrari, or Duesenburg, or Mercedes? It's not how "classic" it is, it's that the car stands by itself as fine art. The newer cars just don't seem to have the "soul" and "art" the oldies did. Their primitive engineering and artistic styling gave them personality, and it's that personality that gives them a God-like status. The newer cars have less and less personality, less art. They don't shake, they don't vibrate, they don't have the rough-edge to them mechanically, and they don't have the fine-art to them aesthetically. They do everything perfectly, computerized, smooth and insulated from the road, but...... That's why Porsche and Ferrari continues to build future collectibles, they haven't lost the art, or the soul and personality and feeling of the machine around you (except that sell-out Porsche SUV, but I digress). Drive one, you'll see 1st-hand how lifeless and robotic our new American cars have gotten. Although they ARE getting better, and the new Mustang is a nice step back to art and style in a Mustang!!
  12. I concur...AMEN :hail2:
  13. No, sorry, it's not. Any car over 25 years is considered an "antique", but only certain highly desirable or exceptional cars are classics. A 52 Ford Sunliner is a wonderful antique (I'd love to have another) but it is definitely NOT a "classic".

    Early Mustangs are classics due to the unique style, and the way they impacted the auto market. A Falcon of the same age is definitely NOT a classic. Let's use the term "Classic" to mean what it is, an exceptional, historically significant car. An old car is just that, an "antique" if in good shape. But there are few classics out there.
  14. I guess it depends on how you look at it. The CCCA wouldn't consider a Mustang to be a classic.


    Then there are the "milestone" cars, which include the Mustang and my Satellite:

  15. I think as they point out the term is more often defined.

    More common usage, however, fundamentally equates Classic car with the definition of Antique car as used by the Antique Automobile Club of America, who define an Antique car as one over 25 years old. Thus, popular usage is that any car over 25 years old can be called a 'classic car'

    I don't think until there is an acceptable definition. And as far as the falcon goes. I bet there are falcon owners who might define the falcon as a slassic.
  16. Wow, it's SEMANTICS OVERLOAD!!! 65conv50, your narrow definition of "classic" is a bit too narrow, and extreme, especially for a bunch of Mustangers who would be snubbed as absolutely NOT classic if we were on "Bugatti-net". "Classic" is purely the eye of the beholder, not a label that some hoity-toity panel of automotive experts decree from on-high to be law and absolute. There is no firm book definition of "classic" as it refers to a car. The fact that different clubs may endeavor to limit the scope of what they consider "classic" is fairly meaningless. If you think your Mustang is a classic, do you consider it any "less" classic simply because the CCCA doesn't recognize your car?? Hogwash. The CCCA doesn't have ownership of the term, just an opinion. Even in Websters, the NUMEROUS definitions of "classic" run a huge gambit from very prestigious to rather mundane. One definition caught my eye as applying well to the car hobby, and it is:

    adj. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring

    Anything that is collectible and old, I think, you can safely call "enduring" and "of worth". That's why the premise of this thread is a bit misguided, because there is no governing body that will someday have a ceremonial induction shindig, decreeing that the '05 Mustang is "as of this wonderous moment, A CLASSIC"!!! It'll be a classic to anybody who looks back on it with reverence and fondness, and who thinks it's worth collecting and taking up space in the garage. It just happens that the early Mustangs are considered classics by a huge huge number of people. That number will likely be a bit less on the newer Mustangs, which is natural.
  17. That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. So you're telling me that only a 65 shelby is a classic and the 6 cyl's and 289's are just old cars? :nonono:
  18. Ummmm... YES.

    Why is it absurd?

    They made only a small quantity of SHELBY's and what not.

    MAYBE, JUST MAYBE in 100years V6's and 289's will be worth SOMETHING depending on how many are around... but for now... SHELBYS and the other LOW count Mustangs are worth a penny, and are considered CLASSIC COLLECTABLES.
  19. It's absurd because all of those cars even the 6 are considered classics. Rarity only has bearing on how much someone is willing to pay for it. Not whether it is a classic or not.

  20. I agree