Autoextremist.com ~ the bare-knuckled, unvarnished, high-electron truth...

Editor's Note: This week, Peter examines the continuing frenzy and absurd prices being paid for older, "classic" automobiles and questions whether our memories have created a glorious past that overlooks the reality of what it was like to actually drive them. In On The Table, we take a look at this year's Autorama. And we have a new historic video, "The 1964 Road America 500." Our AE Song of the Week is "You Belong To The City" by Glenn Frey. In Fumes, Peter presents the next chapter of his new series, "The Great Races" focusing on the 1964 Laguna Seca 200. And in The Line, we have results from INDYCAR's season opener at St. Petersburg and MotoGP's opener, the Thai GP from Buriram. We're on it! -WG

By Peter M. De Lorenzo

Detroit. With the rise of bringatrailer.com and other sites devoted to moving classic and even newer, of-the-moment automobiles, inevitable comparisons are going to be made between the older machines vs. the contemporary automobiles of today.

The absurd prices being paid for some of these older “classics” are staggering. I’m not talking about the true exotica, like 50s and 60s Ferrari models and 60s and 70s Lamborghinis, because those machines occupy a stratosphere that few enthusiasts are able to participate in. No, I’m talking about fairly ordinary older machines that are bringing truly extraordinary prices. Who would have thought an extremely low-mileage Acura Integra R would bring $65,000 on BaT? Or, older, resto-mod pickup trucks pushing $100,000? Or Camaros, Mustangs, Chevelles and VW buses, just to point out a few? Not to mention the older Porsche 911 prices, which passed the absurd level at least a decade ago.

But a difficult question needs to be asked at this juncture. Was it really better back in the day? Were the machines of our past really that much more desirable in reality, or was it just in our minds?

Let’s take a look at one huge part of our motor memories: The Muscle Car era. Let’s face it, few automobile eras have been written about more than the Muscle Car era, which took place roughly from 1964 to 1970. This era was powered by legendary machines like the Pontiac GTO and 421 cu.-in. Catalinas, Bonnevilles and Firebirds; Dodge and Plymouth HEMIs; SS Chevelles and Camaros, Boss and Cobra Jet Mustangs, and on and on. Even relatively pedestrian Chevrolet Impalas and Ford Galaxies could be equipped with 427 cu.-in. V8s back then.

Yes, it was a glorious, Golden Era of Speed, but the High-Octane Truth is that although the cars were able to go fast in a straight line, they generally couldn’t stop worth a damn and they handled like crap. I had countless experiences in the finest high-performance cars back in that era, and the ugly reality is that braking and handling were merely concepts – theories to be glossed over by the manufacturers and the enthusiast publications. It really came down to two basic questions back then: How fast? And how much?

Yes, of course, there were exceptions. The 289 and 427 Cobra, the Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray and a few others actually stopped, steered and handled with relative aplomb along with their blistering performance, but that era was defined by big horsepower and not much else. So, when I see some of these prices for the older machines at auction – $200,000 and counting for a 1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429, for example – I have to cringe, because any contemporary high-performance Mustang is so much better in every way than that car that it’s not even worth discussing. There’s simply no relevant comparison that can be made. In terms of performance, handling and braking, a contemporary Mustang Dark Horse is simply in a different dimension than that Boss 429, so there has to be another reason why someone would shell out $200,000+ for a grossly nose-heavy Mustang that goes – but not nearly as fast as today’s Mustang – and doesn’t stop or handle worth a damn.

The cruel reality is that our motor memories play tricks on us. It was a fleeting moment in time in our formative enthusiast years when the sun was brighter and the sky was bluer. Everything seemed to be on an upward trajectory back then, and the machines that defined that era are permanently etched in our collective memories as soul-stirring monsters that left an indelible impression that sticks with us to this day. But again, the reality was so much different. I can’t tell you how many hard-core enthusiasts I’ve talked to over the years who recounted lengthy stories to me about the one car that they lusted after in their youth, and then, after finally getting their hands on their dream machine, how an empty disappointment soon came rushing over them. The idea of the car was one thing, while the reality of actually driving a decades-old machine left a lot to be desired.

Then there’s always the discussion about a car’s “soul” and how some machines still hold up to this day. I am a True Believer in that, but frankly, the machines from the Muscle Car era don’t do it for me. Would I actually go out and buy a HEMI from the 60s when I can go out and get a HEMI Challenger or Charger (when available), or even one with the Twin Turbo 550HP 6-cylinder today that would clean its clock by every measure? Or spend $65,000 on a '69 Camaro instead of buying the most recent one? No, I would not. Yes, I like to look at the old stuff at the endless car shows, but putting real money down for one? Nah.

And, as most AE readers know, I love Corvettes. I love the ‘57, the ’58, the ’62, the immortal ’63 Sting Ray and, of course, the ’69 L88. But unless you’ve driven one of those 50s machines in particular, you don’t realize just how far we’ve come in terms of car building. To say they don’t drive all that well is the understatement of this, or any other year. Would I still love to have a Sting Ray? Oh, hell yes. And I’d leave it untouched, because it’s a design and industry icon. But I would be sorely tempted to do a RestoMod road racing treatment on the others. Would I consider a new Corvette? Absolutely, but it’s just not in the cards.

Back to that “soul” question. AE readers also know that I love the Porsche 911 and have had several over the years, with the mid-‘70s to the mid-‘80s 911s being my favorites. In the case of the 911, the new ones do nothing for me (except for the current 911 RSR race cars – that’s a completely different story). Yes, I can appreciate the sheer performance of the current 911 and especially the hot GT2 and GT3 versions, but the reality for me is something less altogether. It’s not just the cost factor – which is knee-buckling and unobtanium – and the fact that the cars are so good as to be almost antiseptic; it’s the sheer size of the new 911 that bothers me. They’re huge, there’s just no way of getting around it. The older 911s were light, responsive and compact, and they were demanding to drive. There was no relaxing behind the wheel of an older 911, you had to be fully engaged all the time or it could and would bite you in the ass, but the experience was fantastic. I loved it and I miss it to this day, and I find myself watching the driving videos posted by sellers of the older 911s on BaT just to remind myself of just how special it was to drive them. For me it never gets old, and one of the few cases where it was better back then, in my estimation. But talk about unobtanium. When it comes to older 911s, the price for going back in time is crushingly out of reach.

In conclusion, as we’ve said for years around here, buy what you like and like what you buy. But a gentle reminder – your inflated expectations will rarely pan out the way you think they will. That’s because our motor memories play cruel tricks on us, even if sometimes it’s simply too hard to resist.

And that’s the High-Octane Truth for this week.

Editor's Note: Click on "Next 1 Entries" at the bottom of this page to see previous issues. - WG