So should we collect 1970s cars or just forget the whole thing?

Sure Randall, there is no reason why you shouldn?t collect whatever makes you happy. If that happens to be cars of the 1970s, it?s fine by me. Keep in mind that they are not the cars that CCCA concerns itself with, so if you find people making negative comments about them on this discussion forum, don?t be surprised. It doesn?t make them any less interesting to you. It just means they are off the radar of many of the people who frequent this forum.

Well I appreciate the sentiment, but I think I meant this to be broader sense. This was brought up in another forum talking about generation gaps and the gradual demise of the car hobby.

Most young people polled seem ignorant and uninterested in the Classics of the 20s, 30s and 40s. Most older people are uninterested, even disparaging, of newer cars. I am not saying we need to collect 70s cars....I am suggesting we discuss it because it may be a way to bring the generations together. What value can we see in cars of newer origin, if any? This is not to say the Classics will be anything more or less than what they are. But shouldn't we as collectors and automobile historians try to step back and see the last 100 years as a whole, in context, in regard to that industry? If not, then do we just write off anything newer than 1970 and focus on the first 60 years? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Randall:

Clubs will do whatever their leadership wants to do, supposedly representing the desires of the membership.

There is a definite generation gap in the hobby, though, and I tend to favor clubs broadening criteria for collecting old cars rather than narrowing them. But it is not clear that this would broaden the age distribution of the membership. Fact is, clubs of all types tend to attract most new members that have an age distribution similar to their current membership. Look at civic organizations, many churches, etc. All of them work hard to attract younger members, and most have difficulty doing it. Many young folks don't want to hang out with geezers, and vice versa!

Personally, I don't think the cars of the 70's will be forgotten, even though they may be forgotten by some of today's organized collector car clubs. There are collectable cars of all eras, including the 70's, and a few folks will recognize their value and collect the cars and organize themselves. Just like the CCCA folks did in the 50's.

Meanwhile, I have noticed a great trend of younger folks collecting cars of the 20's and 30's. Usually, it is the case of a grandfather passing away and leaving an early collector car behind -- and one of the grandkids takes an interest in it. We have a 20's Buick and noticed at the recent Buick centennial that more than a few of the owners of similar cars were in their early 30's.

Bill S

Albuquerque, NM

My own take on the subject is we should encourage younger people to collect cars, regardless of the era. If you are interested in the hobby, then you have to start somewhere. If that is a 1970s car, so be it. Most people are not going to purchase a Duesenberg for their first collector car.

Just because someone likes cars doesn?t mean that they will immediately be attracted to the ones that this, or many other clubs, concern themselves with. CCCA Classics are generally an acquired taste. The same could be said for brass era cars, or many of the various orphan cars that single marque clubs thrive on.

People who have an appreciation for automobiles tend to admire all kinds of vehicles, even though there are probably specific models and eras that really get their adrenaline flowing. Even though they may not share the same devotion, they usually appreciate the other guy?s passion.

Many people who first come into the hobby buy a collector car to use as a second vehicle. I know I did this when my wife and I were first married. She got the ?good? car, while I puttered around in a 1959 Mercedes. At the time, it wasn?t even an antique. It was just a reasonably priced, but interesting, old car that required some restoration skills to make presentable. This proved to be a very economical way to run a household. As a result, I drove a number of ?collectable? cars as my daily driver for a number of years. It was even fun. The last one was a ?57 Thunderbird, which I sold just before the price skyrocketed. (Timing is everything).

The result of all this is I?ve been a life-long car collector. As the years have gone by, my tastes have changed and matured. My financial situation is also a bit better than it was when I was 25, so things have evolved somewhat, but I still like cars of just about any era. Even though I?ve belonged to a number of different clubs over the years, I wasn?t ready to join CCCA until I was in my mid 40s. I doubt that my experience is unique.

Even though there will be some who say ?They?re just used cars.? There are quite a few 1970s era cars that would be interesting to own. You just have to look for them. It won?t be as easy as saying ?Which 1932 model car would you like to own?? (My own answer to that is ?all of them.? I haven?t seen a ?32 anything that I did not like.) When CCCA was first formed, the ?serious? car collectors said their cars were ?just used cars.? History has a way of repeating itself.

If we are looking to keep specialty clubs like CCCA prosperous, we need to recruit people who are already confirmed ?car nuts.? We should go out of our way to be courteous and enthusiastic, and do little things that make them interested in what we have. A little education and nourishing can go a long way to plant an interest in cars that the person may have never previously considered owning. Just inviting other local clubs to participate in your events can go a very long way towards making lots of new friends. Car Pox is a contagious disease. A simple ride in your car can get somebody very interested. Letting them actually drive your car can usually ?close the sale.?

But please, don?t ever tell someone that the car they consider to be special, is ?just a used car.?

As a guy who graduated from high school in '77, I think that the 70's were generally a black hole in terms of domestic production of significant cars. The oil embargo and safety legislation by the feds lead to some of the worst cars, as impact bumpers were tacked onto otherwise decent designs, and anemic performance became general rule.

That is one reason why I tend to gravitate to foreign cars: In my era, Detroit just wasnt putting out a very good product. Just look around. The foreign manufacturers have made mincemeat of the big three in the past 30 years and I think this took root in the 70's. Hell this year Toyota will outsell Ford, but realistically the toyotas are probably more american made than many of the Fords so who really cares.

All things eventually become collectable however, and now these cars are 30 years old and fit into the "Antique" Catagory, so we are seeing more and more of them restored.

I do think now is the time to buy these cars, if you are so inclined. they are pretty cheap generally speaking. I have had 4 70's cars given to me in the last 3 years.

Shawn

Shawn, I agree with you on the quality or lack of it on 70s cars. I graduated in 1975 and loathed them. However, time has a way of moving on. My Dad has told me that he recalls how disenchanted folks were in the late 1940s with their cars...poor quality, lack luster and basically unappealing, where his words. But they represented a time when the American industry was swinging into a new era of granduer and opulence...not to mention cut throat practices. My grandfather Pieper was laid off at the age of 54 because the company he managed wanted a new, CHEAPER man in the position. Grandpa was a Harvard business graduate and very good at his job. He ended up selling shoes door to door until he found a better position, but he was never able to recover completely. Just like today, people were looking for something New and Modern. In the 70s we were coming down from the heady times of the 50s and 60s...the economy was limping and new regulations began to take their toll of profits which drive the big automakers. There are very few cars from that era I would even consider owning...some Cadillacs, the BIG Lincoln Towncar from 1977-1979 (Signature Series or Collector Series) and maybe the last year of the Chrysler Imperial. From 1970 to 1977 there are still some really good cars but the quality was falling fast. I looked at, and rejected, a Cadillac Brougham from 1976...it was the ugliest puke green and only had one or two poorly placed plastic wood trim pieces that looked ridiculous...forget that it had the first airbag offered..the car was FUGLY.

That really says it all for the 70s.

I think my Eldorado Biarritz is probably the best of the lot, although the Lincoln is really good. That does not say a lot for a decade. Of course I am only talking luxury cars.

I still remember some awful American cars from the 1970s. At the time, I traveled a lot, and was a real regular at the rent car desk at many an airport. Most cars I rented were everything you said they were: awful!

There were some bright spots in the European corner. A Mercedes 450SL wouldn?t be bad to own. Neither would a Volvo P-1800. I?m sure there are others.

I think the decade will be remembered for cars like the Chevy Vega or the Ford Granada. Yuck! But I?m sure somebody loves them, and that is OK by me. I'll bet an AMC Pacer would gather a crowd at your local cruise night. One in nice shape would go well with the bell bottom trousers that I don?t fit into any more.

<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I completed high school in 1971, and was already a committed car fanatic. I found that the cars of the early '70's -- at least through 1972 -- represented a logical progression in styling and engineering from the cars that immediately preceded them. I think, for example, that the 1971 and 1972 Cadillac DeVilles and Fleetwoods were a very clean, bold, striking design. These cars were excellent performers that did not suffer the driveability problems of some of the cars that followed. I disliked the addition of the 5-mph bumpers in 1973, and it seemed that things went downhill from there. The integrity of the original 1971 - 1972 design was frittered away, and everything that had made that design so appealing was rapidly squandered. The same could be said of all the full-size GM cars of the 1971 - 1976 period. I remember thinking to myself that it was almost as if the designers gave up; I remarked to friends that GM seemed to be giving its market share away on a platter to anyone who wanted it. The opera windows, landau roofs, wire wheel covers, pillowy velour interiors, spring-loaded hood ornaments and upright formal grilles that came into vogue with the 1974 or so models were a tremendous turn-off to me. If you consider the impact of ever-diminishing build quality and poor driveability and fuel economy due to the early emissions controls, it is a wonder to me that anyone wanted to buy these cars. The down-sized '77 models were solidly-built cars that were probably a correct response to a changing marketplace, and there is certainly some collector interest in the '77 - '79 DeVilles. It seemed, though, that GM was diving headlong into the cookie cutter school of design, and much of what had previously made Cadillacs distinctive and desirable was now gone.

Randall, I have to disagree with you regarding the Eldorados of this era. The cars were not a worthy successor to the 1967 - 1970 style, and the consensus among my friends is that these cars look far too large and bloated. The designers gave in to the styling fads of the era, and the Eldorado suffered. I will say that I think that the '75 - '78 Eldorados are somewhat more successful than the '71 - '74 models with their ponderous-looking, skirted rear quarters.

My vote for best Cadillacs of the 1970's: 1971 - 1972 Calais, DeVille and Fleetwood. The first-generation Seville (1976 - 1979) also has merit.

Other GM highlights: 1971 - 1972 Full-Size

1970 - 1972 Camaro/Firebird

1970 - 1972 Intermediates, incl. Monte Carlo & Grand Prix

1976 - 1977 2-door Olds Cutlass/Buick Century & Regal

Ford was certainly no more successful than GM during the decade. I frequently have opportunity to see a mid-'70's Lincoln Continental Mark IV. After all these years, I still think that the proportions of the car were all wrong. It has always struck me that the front overhang is silly and enormous; the car would have been far more impressive had the wheelbase been lengthened and some of the sheetmetal in front of the front wheel opening was moved behind the front wheel opening.

Best Lincolns of the 1970's: 1970 - 1972 Lincoln Continental (non-Mark models)

and, of course, the 1968 - 1971 Continental Mark III.

Styling of the '71 and '72 Ford LTD and Mercury Marquis was attractive, but it was all downhill from there. The basic, early versions of the 4-door Granadas and Monarchs weren't bad, but they looked terrible as 2-door models, and the basic lines were lost when the vinyl roofs and other era fripperies made their appearance.

As far as large cars go, I think that the full-size 1974 - 1978 Chrysler products were some of the most attractive of the decade. These cars were welcome replacements to the awkward-looking 1969 - 1973 cars, and Chrysler seemed to do the best job of integrating the 5-mph bumpers into the overall design. Yes, the landau-style coupes were ugly and awkward, but the other cars seemed almost patterned after the '71 and '72 GM full-size cars. As a result, they were reasonably clean and striking. Chrysler's intermediate size cars were usually ugly during the era, with a few exceptions. The first Cordoba in 1975 and the Chrysler LeBaron / Dodge Diplomat cars of the late 1970's were attractive. Forget about the Aspens and Volares.

AMC? Well, I think that the first Hornets and Pacers were not so bad. Subsequent facelifts ruined them. And can you believe how they destroyed everything that looked right about the '67 and '68 Rebels and Ambassadors by facelifting them into the hideous Matadors and Ambassadors of the early to mid-'70's?

As a 1980 high school graduate, I can testify that many of us laughed at the mid-70s Trans Am's with the "Screaming Chicken" stickers on the hood and fake plastic dual exhausts bolted on. But to focus on the underlying question here:

I think the pre-war cars, and especially the full Classics, will *always* find new fans with every generation. You don't see art museums tossing the Greek statues and Rembrandts out, do you? Those of us who are a little young may have to wait until our budgets catch up with our tastes, but it'll happen someday. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

That is good to hear. My son is only 18 but is already building a collection. Nothing pre-war yet but if he bides his time, he will get my 47 Cadillac.

I guess the 70s are for the most part a period of transition, with some appeal and some other really ugly cars. The 77 Eldorado is a large...strike that...say VERY large coupe and is opulent but it does lack the class of the earlier models. When I compare it to the 72 Eldorado convertible I can see the difference immediately. Still that is what I have for now. It is a good car to drive, leaving me with the 47 to work on and maintain. Good thread! I appreciate all of your comments. Let us hope others add to it.

Well, if I may add my two cents...

I am 30. And I just recently finally got MY old car- I have wanted one since I was 15, but school, marriage, house, all put it off until now. This means a few things, and I would like to share an experience. First, what I have seen: I started driving in the late eighties, meaning that I was getting leftover 70s cars in High School and college. In order, they were 76 Monte Carlo, 78 Buick Electra/Limited, and 79 Pontiac Catalina. It is important to note that I did not choose any of those- they were what came my way for cheap transportation. All three of them ran extremely well, despite their high mileage. The sheet metal on all three was in a state of decay that was hard to believe after only 12 to 17 years. All were rotting out from beneath me. And stylistically they were all poor. Really really dull, is the problem. That is, they weren't Edsel-ugly (meaning ugly in a ground-breaking, original way), they were Toyota Camry-ugly (meaning ugly in a boring, I look like every other appliance on the road). The 80s cars were by and large no better, but I was in no position to pick up anything for more that $300.

The only one I think I would want back is the 78 Buick. It had a simple "big car" elegance, but that could just be because I had it during the best (socially) years of my life.

What I wanted, for years and years, was a full sized Buick or Olds convertible from the 50s or 60s. I got a 67 Olds 98 convertible this past summer, after wanting and looking. I love it, and I know that I might be the only person actively interested in restoring one of these. But I don't care.

I love a lot of those prewar luxury cars, but I have to be realistic- between family and house, etc, they won't likely ever be in my reach. But amongst my peers there are very few interested in cars as anything more than appliances. When I bring the beast into work, it is the older guys who gather round (very white collar; I think there are more car nuts amongst my blue-collar friends). I fear for the hobby, like I am finally getting in "for-real," but I might be the guy bringing up the rear. I really hope that isn't true.

As for my experience: it seems like whenever I go to a cruise night, if I show up in my daily driver, all the guys with cars stand around and talk to each other, and if I mention that I have a 67 Olds, they seem to act like they think I am talking out my ass. It is as though I have to show up IN the thing to get any credibility. I really don't feel very welcome. Could this be because I am 30, but look about 24? I tell you though, with attitudes like this (mostly from guys who bought their cars already done), no younger folks will be drawn in. And we need people who, in addition to appreciating the cars, work on them to keep the tecnical knowledge alive.

Just my thoughts.

Dave, I think we can all agree with your experience. Most of the people I interacted with during my tenure as a systems programmer and network administrator through the 80s and 90s were more interested in electrical gagets and toys than objects like Classic cars. I use the term here as perscribed in the CCCA. I doubt I will ever have a true Classic. My health and life are now down to the point of simply existing, living day to day, as I try and figure out what I can do with myself for the next 40 years. I would love to own a pre-war Cadillac but that is not in the cards.

The people around me like computers, PDAs, and all of the little things we add to life. There is too much of mindless spending these days, but that is another subject. I count myself very fortunate to have found, and had the opportunity to fenagle the current Classic I do own. As it is, it is a 1947 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan...yawn...which is nice but unremarkable by most counts.

So imagine the response I get over my 1977 Eldorado in its gold skin. I have to admit there is not much to the 70s, 80s or 90s that generates interest. I am not even sure it is sad, but inevitable. As technology improved, cars became more and more equal in what they offered the public. I remember clearly that Cadillacs, Lincolns and Chryslers were all so much more luxurious than the run of the mill car that it excited curiousity to see one in a parking lot. That was in 1976. But even then, I saw that the mid size cars were becoming more like their expensive big brothers. And then you have the imports. Now you can buy a Hyundai Sonata fully decked out with the same fake wood trim and leather as a Cadillac or Lincoln, for around $18000....why buy the $50000 marque unless you just HAVE to have the badge? Yes I know it is heresy to say that. But I cannot imagine spending that kind of money for a car that will not survive the test of time as well as its predecessors. Besides, with the new electronic systems, the cars have become so much more complex that you spend nearly all of your time fooling with sensors and digi this, and digi thats. It seems to sell cars, the automakers have foregone building quality machines in favor of bright, expensive baubles that will fade and break in a few years, but then who cares when you have a warrenty to fix it...then dump it to buy a new one furthering your dependance on credit, I might add. I DO like some of the new cars. The Cadillac Brougham for the mid-1990s are handsome...pitty they were the last...and the newer CTS is a good looking car. It is just a pitty it is so small inside. I am past the time when I want to wear my car like a suit. When touring the local Caddy dealer recently, they showed that the DeVille comes in a basic style, to which the dealer can tack on a fake carriage roof with snaps, in gold if you like! But the basic car is the same. One style...one interior...thick with padding and unimaginative. That is not what I would want for my $50,000. So I stick to the older generations. I thought I might show my Eldorado but it just is not the same. It is too modern...all fluff and no spark. I like it, very much in fact, but it is not inspiring. For that I would have to stick to the 60's, or 50's. Maybe the problem is with me. Not so much my generation but me. I like things that only a few like. I am turned off by excess. I dislike the way we are going in this country. There is so much to enjoy, so much to offer, and yet the very things that make life worth enjoying are fading; honor, self-respect, integrity, charity, concern for others. How many even know what the Golden Rule is let alone understand it?

Age may be the telling variable here. When I figure it out, I'll let you know. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />