Unloved classics that deserve more respect.

Besides the Porsche 928 I can think of a couple:

Triumph TR7 - The early cars made at the Speke plant were junk but the later cars made back in Coventry were quite good. They also introduced the convertible too late. Where they really blew it was not going with the 16V Dolomite Sprint head which would have met emissions. It would have been the world's first production 16V and made the TR7 unique enough to compensate for its short comings.

Porsche 924 - Even more unloved than the 928. In reality the turbo version was faster than the original 2.5 944. The turbo version in particular is a good car but nobody realizes it.

Can you think of any others?

BMW 320i , you never see them in un-thrashed condition and they were fun to drive.

For sure 924S, I fear these will all end up beat to death.

Mitsubishi Starion, zooty boy beater.

      Tom

80s GM G-bodies. Full frame, V8, infinite engine swap candidates, dirt-cheap parts, massive aftermarket support, dime-a-dozen availability.

Maserati Quattroporte III, yeah they arent the best looking car, but they were hand built with under 2k ever made, and they have the same engine as other maseratis that are in the $50k-$100k range. But, you still see them in pick and pull.

TVR's. I have no idea why they aren't worth a fortune. Rare, very engaging to drive, superior (for the time) engineering. Yeah, they weren't screwed together very well, but a good restoration takes care of all that.

bravenrace wrote: TVR's. I have no idea why they aren't worth a fortune. Rare, very engaging to drive, superior (for the time) engineering. Yeah, they weren't screwed together very well, but a good restoration takes care of all that.

You asked and answered your question all in one.

They are perceived as kit cars and as not particularly well assembled or reliable.

My old Grantura race car was built in the early 60s when the company was in receivership and the mehcanics had to crawl over the wall between the assembly area and the stores to sneak out enough parts to complete a car the next day. I always figured that was what accounted for them forgetting to install a front sway bar (it had two left hand side lower A arms and thus no place to plug a sway bar link on one side). OTOH, it did have the rarer and more expensive shortened steering rack (bump steered), probably as a result of those being on a shelf closer to the wall and easier to hook out the previous night...

Fun cars but they'll never be worth a ton.

Where they really blew it was not going with the 16V Dolomite Sprint head which would have met emissions. It would have been the world's first production 16V

Not even close. They'd been building Jensen Healeys for at least 3 years before the TR7 started, using the Lotus 907 4 valve engine.

Fiat X1/9. Obviously.

although beginning to appreciate... the Volvo 1800 line is way under valued most of the time.....

As long as we're schilling vehicles we own, I submit the Datsun 280zx. The comfy-couch / overweight big brother of the famed 240/260/280z's. Turbo cars are suitable only as an engine donor to the older ones. Folks forget about the improved aerodynamics, the fact they're not significantly heavier than the final years 280z, and the ease of improving the handling with a set of struts and springs.

mikeatrpi wrote: As long as we're schilling vehicles we own, I submit the Datsun 280zx. The comfy-couch / overweight big brother of the famed 240/260/280z's. Turbo cars are suitable only as an engine donor to the older ones. Folks forget about the improved aerodynamics, the fact they're not significantly heavier than the final years 280z, and the ease of improving the handling with a set of struts and springs.

Totally agree. I've owned both a 240Z and 280ZX, and in stock form, the 240 is clearly better. But you can modify the ZX using 240 bits underneath and it will be faster on track due to the aero. The windshield is more raked making up a good portion of that.

Also agree with the X1/9, and if you go a little newer, the first gen MR2.

mikeatrpi wrote: As long as we're schilling vehicles we own,

not sure about others... but I haven't owned a Volvo of any kind in over 20 years...........

I obviously like the Volvo 1800s. I no longer own one, but I'm restoring two of them with performance enhancements for customers right now. I don't know that they are particularly overlooked, though.

The old Volvo that is overlooked, except by some die-hard Volvo fans, is the 123GT.

oldeskewltoy wrote: not sure about others... but I haven't owned a Volvo of any kind in over 20 years...........

It was a gentle jab at the guy above you... by which I mean no disrespect

TR8 - British V8, manual, convertible, sports car and not worth a ton.

I'd also say Jensen Healey and Lotus Elan +2

First generation Rx-7s are fantastic but seem to be worth nothing.

It's not a car, but early Range Rovers. They are pretty much solely responsible for the luxury SUV thing. Of course maybe that's why we should hate them. Considering all the terrible decisions british car companies made during the 70's, they got the Rangie oh so perfect right off the bat.

In reply to wspohn:

They are no more of a kit car than a real Cobra is. That perception is incorrect, considering they don't fit the definition of a kit car, which is a car sold as a kit. TVR's were fully developed and manufactured in a plant, not by owners.
I owned a 9k mile TVR, and I own an original 65 Mustang. The build quality of the TVR is no worse than the Mustang, but that hasn't stopped Mustangs from gaining in value. The TVR also drives and handles infinitely better than the Mustang. Anyone who has driven a TVR knows that how they drive more than makes up for any build quality issues, which in reality are limited to the interior and the electrical, the latter being no worse than any other British car, and both of which can be dealt with during a correct restoration.
The fact is that the tube frame was both light and rigid, and rare in a production car of that era. These cars were lighter and handled better than many other cars of the era.

Every AMC! The prices on the 2-seat 68-70 AMX have been climbing for a long while, and now the 68-70 Javelin and 71-74 cars are starting to catch up.

Trabants and old Ladas. For that matter, I think most any communist era car deserves more love than they get.

There are a lot of "better" cars I'd take a Trabant over any day.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to wspohn: They are no more of a kit car than a real Cobra is. That perception is incorrect, considering they don't fit the definition of a kit car, which is a car sold as a kit. TVR's were fully developed and manufactured in a plant, not by owners. I owned a 9k mile TVR, and I own an original 65 Mustang. The build quality of the TVR is no worse than the Mustang, but that hasn't stopped Mustangs from gaining in value. The TVR also drives and handles infinitely better than the Mustang. Anyone who has driven a TVR knows that how they drive more than makes up for any build quality issues, which in reality are limited to the interior and the electrical, the latter being no worse than any other British car, and both of which can be dealt with during a correct restoration. The fact is that the tube frame was both light and rigid, and rare in a production car of that era. These cars were lighter and handled better than many other cars of the era.

I agree, the TVR is a very nice car especially so if you do your own repairs. However I'll add saying the build quality of your TVR is no worse than your Mustang is truly damning with faint praise!

bravenrace wrote: In reply to wspohn: They are no more of a kit car than a real Cobra is. That perception is incorrect, considering they don't fit the definition of a kit car, which is a car sold as a kit. TVR's were fully developed and manufactured in a plant, not by owners.

That's incorrect, insofar as the being sold as a kit is concerned. The early cars (Granturas) could indeed be bought as a kit (usually a trimmed tub on a complete chassis) and you could order up any of about 5 engines and have the factory stick it in, or you stuck it in, or you could order them with no engine and do what you liked.

Later on (perhaps what you are thinking about) they were all completely assembled at the factory. They were never a 'kit' in the sense that you bought a body and frame and then sourced all the other stuff yourself.

For that matter, a Lotus 7 could also be purchased in knocked down form back in the day, IIRC.

VClassics wrote: I obviously like the Volvo 1800s. I no longer own one, but I'm restoring two of them with performance enhancements for customers right now. I don't know that they are particularly overlooked, though. The old Volvo that is overlooked, except by some die-hard Volvo fans, is the 123GT.

Lets add the 140-series Volvos to the list. Great packaging and good handling as well.

Well they are some of my favorite cars, but clearly most of the rest of the market disagrees... 1960-'66 Dodge and Plymouth A-Bodies: Lancer, Dart, Valiant, and Barracuda; particularly the '64-'66 run which includes the first generation Barracuda (the real first Pony car, by 2 weeks).

cpdave wrote: Well they are some of my favorite cars, but clearly most of the rest of the market disagrees... 1960-'66 Dodge and Plymouth A-Bodies: Lancer, Dart, Valiant, and Barracuda; particularly the '64-'66 run which includes the first generation Barracuda (the real first Pony car, by 2 weeks).

If the Barracuda was first, then why aren't they all called Fish Cars?

cpdave wrote: Well they are some of my favorite cars, but clearly most of the rest of the market disagrees... 1960-'66 Dodge and Plymouth A-Bodies: Lancer, Dart, Valiant, and Barracuda; particularly the '64-'66 run which includes the first generation Barracuda (the real first Pony car, by 2 weeks).

Ditto!

Jerry From LA wrote: If the Barracuda was first, then why aren't they all called Fish Cars?

First doesn't always stick. Look at all the folks who came to the Americas before Columbus, or the folks who kinda sorta "flew" before the Wright brothers.

That, and, honestly, the first Mustang looks good from any angle. The early Barracuda, less so.

Jerry From LA wrote: Lets add the 140-series Volvos to the list. Great packaging and good handling as well.

The 140 definitely does fit the thread title. They never made the leap from being just old cars to being classics. Most people think of them as a cruder version of the 240 series rather than as a super-Amazon.

It's like the original Porsche 912, which also fits the category. Is it the final, best development of the 356, or a poor cousing of the 911?