A question just popped into my head: when did cars become "modern." And no, I'm not talking about whether or not the bumpers are chromed. I'm talking about things like reliability, proper weatherproofing, driving dynamics, etc.
So, where's the line? I'd suggest that the E30 BMW brought with it the era of the "modern" car. Thoughts?
I would think it's somewhere around electronic fuel injection. That made cars much more relibale, and more driveable.
1975-1985 is a fuzzy line between old style and modern with lots of overlap. Fuel injection, good heating and cooling, front wheel drive, OBD codes and alternators with reliable electronics define modern to me, but some "modern" cars are now classics. Modern is now defined by ABS, airbags and Traction Control.
In reply to rconlon:
FWD is not in any way a positive aspect of automotive advancement
But to the point I would put it in the mid to late 80's. Manufactures started to get a handle on emission controls and those advancements lead to the great modern classics of the nineties.
In reply to rconlon: This is on the right track. ABS, airbags and Traction Control are Contemporary cars, just like the ones you can buy new. Before that you have Modern cars with the characteristics you describe--not quite like the cars you can buy new but reliable & safe enough to drive around. I would also include in Modern: disc brakes & independent suspension (at least in front), absence of manual choke, full syncro gearbox, some attention to crumple zones and bumpers that are more than just decoration. Without most of those things you have a Historic or Classic car that you would need to have a high tolerance for risk to drive regularly these days.
Good question, fuzzy line. I have an '83 Alfa Spider, classic style, classic instrumentation, classic mechanicals...but Bosch FI. Still I call it a classic, but maybe the Model T types probably don't? It's kinda' like New York, people in NYC think I live in "upstate NY", but people who live in Albany NY think I live down state and of course I feel they live "upstate" but if you live in Buffalo, NY....
Perhaps it might be best to add a sort of borderline between classic and modern cars, and divide them up like this:
The classic period. An era where stylists only had to be concerned with aesthetics, and engineering could run wild without the constraints of emissions and regulation.
The malaise era. When safety and emissions became a concern, and hastily added patches turned cars from the classic era into ill-tempered, underpowered beasts with clunky styling.
The modern era. When newer technology such as EFI and composite bumpers allowed manufacturers to comply with crash and emissions standards but get back to good drivability, styling, and performance.
Some basic designs, like the previously mentioned Alfa Spyder, managed to make it through all three eras.
I think the line should be:
WTW: With The Wall
ATW: After The Wall
The cars designed and built after this event show a true line in the sand.
Starting with Honda. The Civic range built '85-'87 are one class but the cars starting in '88 reflect a leap. One only has to look at the number of SCCA competitors in STC, yes moving to STS next year, that are competitive and dominate in a car going on 24 years old.
On a local basis we have a two tier "Historic" auto-x grouping. The challenge is the level to which cars have been modified/upgraded to keep them running. Self policing of a car based on its "enhancements" is were things start to fall apart. "Stock" and "Historic" cause lots of discussions.
MadScientistMatt wrote: Perhaps it might be best to add a sort of borderline between classic and modern cars, and divide them up like this: 1. The classic period. An era where stylists only had to be concerned with aesthetics, and engineering could run wild without the constraints of emissions and regulation. 2. The malaise era. When safety and emissions became a concern, and hastily added patches turned cars from the classic era into ill-tempered, underpowered beasts with clunky styling. 3. The modern era. When newer technology such as EFI and composite bumpers allowed manufacturers to comply with crash and emissions standards but get back to good drivability, styling, and performance. Some basic designs, like the previously mentioned Alfa Spyder, managed to make it through all three eras.
Technically, the Alfa Spider in the US was never #1- it always came with SPICA from Alfa, which was only there to meet emissions rules.
I would more suggest the P-911 was really all 3 eras.
Here's the hard part about some of the ideas- the original emissions rules came in 1969 in California, but US emissions rules didn't really phase in until 1975- and there are some really big changes in a lot of cars between 74 and 75. That was also the year where the bumper rules came in.
And it's hard to argue that '69-74 cars are really not classics.
the other thing are "continuation" cars. Like the Alfa, MGB, and Vette, as examples- they did change a lot between '69 and '75, but not so much that one could not convert them back to the older set ups. So theoretically, the Alfa can be converted back. But at what point is it not able to be changed? And does that mean it's no longer a classic?
I'd say a "modern" car would be anything that, when new, any normal, minimally-mechanically inclined person could get in, turn on, and drive cross-country, in any weather, at any time of day or year, doing nothing other than stopping for gas. I would argue this era started sometime in the 1950's.
For Volvo, the line is where pushrods went away and OHC began. The one outlier is the first year of the 240, which kept the pushrod engine in the U.S. market because the new OHC engine wasn't smog certified, and that doesn't make the 240 a classic.
You'll know it when you cross it, 'cause you'll suddenly be surrounded by old men in baggy clothes telling you that they had one just like it . . .
In reply to TeamEvil: You nailed it! Now if I buy what I had in my youth I could hold a cars & coffee all by myself at some Dunkin' Donuts parking lot. Maybe I've already done that, maybe I'm just imagining I did and it was really some British car meet in the 80s I'm thinking about :)
You may have heard the concept of how a sculptor does not create the final figure, but only removes that which encapsulated the shape.
In much the same way "Classic Cars" are born as Classics. The only role that time plays is to erode away the contemporary competitors to expose the vehicle as a classic.
I used to be of the opinion that any car with molded plastic components could never be a classic since it would not be restorable. However. I am pretty much over that. The NA Miata is a classic by my standards and it fell afoul of that rule.
For me, the definition is easy: can I get classic or artique tags for it? In PA, the magic age is 20 years. Yes, I've seen some questionable cars running around here with Antique/Classic tags. The big advantage here is being able to avoid the annoying annual inspections plus you also ditch the annual registration renewal ($75 once-and-done vs $36 annually).
The other cut-off around here is Das Awkscht Fescht - a big annual classic car show in Macungie, PA. They have a rolling 25 year cut-off. Last year I could have taken the '88 E30 if I still owned it (and provided it was actually running).
Wow, this question is wide enough to drag a SUV through while still laying on its' side. (They do turn on their side a lot, you know.) For that reason alone, I have trouble calling most SUVs "modern."
I have a problem with modern, classic, etc. designations. Especially when a broad brush such as age or license plate application is applied. To me a '70 Datsun 240Z, or a Series I XKE, or an original Mini is more "modern" than most British or American cars built to date. Yet I believe each of these gems is also a true "classic!"
When did a Volvo become modern? I sure can't say, but it seems pretty recently to me. I have a buddy who has a Cobra built just last year. It qualifies for a "antique" license plate but despite being built last year, it surely isn't modern, etc, etc.
NOHOME wrote: You may have heard the concept of how a sculptor does not create the final figure, but only removes that which encapsulated the shape. In much the same way "Classic Cars" are born as Classics. The only role that time plays is to erode away the contemporary competitors to expose the vehicle as a classic. I used to be of the opinion that any car with molded plastic components could never be a classic since it would not be restorable. However. I am pretty much over that. The NA Miata is a classic by my standards and it fell afoul of that rule.
I would add the 240Z & several other great rides with plastic parts to the list of classics. However, like the Miata, the 240Z is also very modern.
I sort of think that "Modern" means "still in its heyday" where "classic" tends to mean "Thems were the days".
For instance:
US manufactured cars = Pre 1973-ish, with "spots" here and there for the "Fox body Mustang" or... well, I can't really think of anything else... We had "great cars" then we started building a whole lot of crappy ones.
Japanese manufactured = 1970-ish till about the mid-nineties. You had Mazda Rotaries, Nissan inline-6's, Datsun 510's, Toyota Celicas, etc etc etc. Then as the Japanese supecars peaked in their twin-turbo-ness they all kind of fell off... No more Supra, No more RX-7, No more 300zx. All tried to make returns (Z and RX-8) but no REAL success. (they don't make them like they used to). The exception can be made for the Hondas that were zipping around after Fast and Furious. Those definitely had a following that fell off. I'm not entirely certain that the Japanese are making "crappy cars", but they've definitely lost the popularity (just like there are good American cars being made, but they don't have the spotlight like they used to)
British: Jaguar e-type days, and Austin Healey Sprite days. Their "classic" days ended when the roadster died.
Italian: Fiat 500 and Alfas pre-fiat. For me the Italians fell off when Alfa went FWD with their 164. bleh 
That's not to say I don't think they're "not sexy" but I cant bring myself to spend money on one. They're definitely on the right track with the 4c, but they have built some awful crap (imho)
This brings me to "why the Miata isn't a classic yet". Because Mazda hasn't killed it yet. It will be a classic "eventually" but until it sucks, there wont be a "classic Miata".
Which also brings me to the Koreans: I think we may be seeing the advent of the "Korean Heyday". They're making some pretty nifty cars that are affordable. Once they go to crap and the Chineese take over (they'll be next, I'm sure) then we'll have Korean classics (and so on)
I think every car manufacturer follows a lifecycle:
Startup = cheap crap no one buys (think Kia 10 years ago)
Getting it right (and getting popular).
The "bulletproof reliability" and "car culture" badges (when they're on top of the world)
Back to crap (and now expensive because they're playing on their former popularity **cough cough TOYOTA!)
Back to the roots: Think Jaguar. Lots of crap, now we have the F-type. Or Alfa, lots of crap now we have the 4c.
Mazda is an odd one. They always seem to have a "cool car" in their lineup, but never get credit as being a manufacturer of "cool cars"...
NOHOME wrote: I used to be of the opinion that any car with molded plastic components could never be a classic since it would not be restorable. However. I am pretty much over that. The NA Miata is a classic by my standards and it fell afoul of that rule.
Good News! Now that 3D printers are coming online our plastic parts will soon be available in whatever color we need. And probably probably cheaper than original part from a dealer. So even the latest parts will soon be replaceable during the restoration process.
Hungary Bill wrote: Mazda is an odd one. They always seem to have a "cool car" in their lineup, but never get credit as being a manufacturer of "cool cars"...
You're right! But they're still out there plugging.
When it stops going down in value, and has at least a prayer of going up, it's a Classic.
If it stops going down, and has no chance of going up, I've probably owned it.
There isn't one. There are cars that are distinctly classics, and cars that are distinctly modern, but there are also "Modern classics" out there that make it impossible to impose a line.
If you make me put rules in, I'll say that for something to be modern, it has to have fuel injection, 3-point seat belts standard, a crumple zone, and at least some hint of emissions control. However, that makes something modern--there is no reason that a classic can't have all those as well.
You'll need to log in to post.
