When is a classic car not a classic car?

[Hobson]

I was talking to my History lecturer at college today and we started talking about classic cars. He came up with a valid point to which I can't answer:


How old can a car be to be refered to as a classic?


It confused me as my dad can't insure his '88 Volvo 340 as a classic, but the Classic Saloon Car Club will run a championship for Pre-90 cars this year.
Whats the answer guys?

[Ray Bell]

Age alone doesn't make a car a classic. A minibox modern sedan like the little Volvo will never be a classic, though it might be a bit of a collector's item when it's forty years old.

The E-type Jag was a classic when it was new, for instance. The Aston Martins might have taken a little while longer, but that depends on your point of view.

Peugeot's 504 sedans were mass-produced and not at all deserving of the 'classic' nomenclature, no matter how good I think they are... but the 504 coupe has Pinin Farina bodywork and was made in small numbers... they are a classic at 20 years old.

It is also a matter of your perspective... tough question.

[Michael M]

When and why can a woman described as pretty looking??
Hundreds of answers

[GordonThom]

A wheelbarrow can be a classic. age does not make a car a classic. However any car can be a classic in the eye of the beholder but when many fancy the same make / model the car becomes a thoroughbred.

[DAVID PATERSON]

Officially, a Classic Car is a 1948-1960 model. Pre 1948 is vintage and 1961-1969 is post classic. These are the terms used by car insurers and classic car clubs etc.

[TimD]

That may well be a specifically Australian demarcation, David. In Britain, the only line drawn is the government's daft licencing law which says that a pre '74 car is a cherished classic and thus exempt from annual duty, and a post '74 car can never be.

Irritates "N" registered MG B and Triumph Stag owners mightily, I can tell you!

I think that to be honest, the term "classic" is rather too broadly used in the context of the old-car movement. I mean, a Nash/Austin Metropolitan is cute and distinctive, but it was also a terminally ghastly car in almost all respects.

But every Metropolitan which has made it this far is worth preserving, for its obvious will to live against all the odds.

My own hobby car, a 1970 Mercedes Benz 220, currently in immobile pieces in a lock-up, I would never describe as a classic. It's a distinctive old car. An icon in Beirut perhaps where the vast majority of them have served their time as taxicabs, running for 200,000 miles on paraffin and no maintenance. But it's not a classic in any sense of the word. Nor will it ever "become" a classic by virtue of having survived long enough. But that doesn't make her any the less precious in my eyes, and certainly does not make her any less worthy of preservation.

[Ray Bell]

My understanding was that Vintage was restricted to pre-1931... that there were Post Vintage Thoroughbreds and Classic was a name invented to allow more modern cars to sound better...

[GordonThom]

Graham Robson 1977 (April) Autocar gives a good discription of what a classic is. He said the only hard and fast rule is that if you think a car is a Classic, then it is one to you. I tend to agree with this statement.
Regards
Gordon Thom

[Dan Friel]

What makes a car 'historic' then??

'Classic' car insurance seems to cover rather modern cars these days, including my friends Honda CRX from 1984. Which is a future classic perhaps (decent car and extremely quick)