Will our 2’s ( and other “modern” cars survive to become Modern Classics

[Joesson]

When we think of a Classic car today, we likely think of something with chrome bumpers and sometimes hand beaten aluminium bodywork, but what of future Classics?
My thoughts on this were brought about by two unrelated occurrences, both happening yesterday.
Firstly, we have an aneroid barometer that has hung on the wall in the hall of our last two houses, so for around twenty five years. Yesterday I saw what looked like a blob of Nutella on the light switch below it. It wasn't Nutella, even less likely it was a droplet from one of the buffer pads on the back of the barometer, like cabinet door buffers. This was starting to liquify!
Then Mrs Joesson told me the shower hose was leaking . As the (electric) shower is around ten years old I thought it prudent to open it up and check there were no internal leaks. No leaks but the plastic moulding that the cover fixings screwed into had age/ heat hardened and were breaking up, as was the plastic material of the casing around the wall fixing screws.
I telephoned the shower manufacturer to determine the replacement for the shower and was told (understandably) that our original was past economic repair and had outlived the anticipated seven or eight years of life.
I believe this is built in obsolescence.
So, two unrelated occurrences each illustrating the degradation of plastic material over time - and what material features in the bodywork and many other areas and items of our 2's and other "modern" cars - plastic.
So, will these cars, in time,  become cherished Classics or museum exhibits, as did their chrome plated predecessors, or " liquify" or age harden and crack or break as they become obsolete?

[Petrus]

It totally depends on the type of ´plastic´ used.
The Pontiac Fiero had most bodywork in plastic and that is, bar extreme use, still ok. My old ´84 one I sold to bloke who still uses it daily and it does not look worse for wear.

A good example on the MR is the frump plastic: the vanity cover and the wheel bucket age well, the clips do not.

I think the Spyder will age nicely.
The dash plastic p.e. sure is more durable than 80/90ties Porsche stuff.

[Carolyn]

It totally depends on the type of ´plastic´ used.
The Pontiac Fiero had most bodywork in plastic and that is, bar extreme use, still ok. My old ´84 one I sold to bloke who still uses it daily and it does not look worse for wear.

A good example on the MR is the frump plastic: the vanity cover and the wheel bucket age well, the clips do not.

I think the Spyder will age nicely.
The dash plastic p.e. sure is more durable than 80/90ties Porsche stuff.

Plus we now have excellent products to feed the plastics and keep them supple and UV protected.

These cars are very good for not getting rusty and good regular maintenance should see them survive long term.  Well, that's what I like to think!

[Joesson]

Most certainly durability depends upon the type of plastic and yes we have products to care for them. It was the coincidence of observing two failures, within minutes even, rather than hours apart and both items on the wall in our house, so not a harsh environment.
It does seem strange that the plastic materials that get dumped in our countryside or in the oceans seem to have such a long life.

[steveash]

I hadn't thought about ageing plastics but with the rise of things like 3D printers replacement parts should be reproducible in the future.

I was chatting with a couple of classic car owners and our conclusion of the biggest future threat to running our cars was the availability of fuel. By 2040 there will be no more internal combustion powered cars produced but looking at the rate of change they may be gone a long time before that. The profits on selling fuel are already small so with reducing demand petrol stations are going to start closing. We came to the conclusion that enthusiasts will have to order expensive long life fuel to be delivered and stored safely. Even then we will be limited by how far we can go by availability of top ups. I imagine running a classic will become increasingly difficult and expensive.

Sorry, that was a pretty miserable prediction to share at this time of year! Let's all enjoy our Twos while we can!

[Chilli Girl]

Sadly Steve, what you're saying is perfectly true I think.

[Petrus]

Sadly Steve, what you're saying is perfectly true I think.

It´s a politically correct scam.

Living in the andalucian heartland I cannot see that politcal pipe dream work. Ever used an electrical chainsaw for a day out in the campo? Ever tried to get anywhere out in the mountains with an e-vehicle?

It is not feasable outside of urbanised areas.

Rather sad that the car users get the blame for what is mainly an industrial issue. Sadder still that overall e-vehicles are worse rather than better.

[Bossworld]

To be honest given the low values and relatively high road tax, I'm not sure the bulk of mk3 cars will survive an elongated period of time. A lot of us are probably throwing money at something we'll never see back.

Rationally, as stock, it's a 14+ year old Toyota with the engine out of a family hatchback and some comparatively expensive parts that are going to need replacing on more and more cars as they age (suspension, sub frame).

On another forum, a poster mentions that he gets an MG F/TF for summer, then just gets rid for a minimal overall outlay. Cars get cheaper, the previous owners count goes sky high and I guess the amount of maintenance/willingness to throw money at it decreases. They've also got the problem of decreasing part availability which I don't think has started to bite us, yet.

Still, for under £2k there's very little that compares in terms of sheer fun to the MR2 and with it being a roadster I think that buys cars perhaps more of a chance of avoiding the breaker's yard than say a similarly aged hot hatch.

On the other hand, when you look at how the industry has moved to smaller, turbo'd engines and the improvements to cabin quality, ICE and all the rest, I'm quite excited for what's going to be available for £3/£4k in five year's time!

[shnazzle]

To be honest given the low values and relatively high road tax, I'm not sure the bulk of mk3 cars will survive an elongated period of time. A lot of us are probably throwing money at something we'll never see back.

Rationally, as stock, it's a 14+ year old Toyota with the engine out of a family hatchback and some comparatively expensive parts that are going to need replacing on more and more cars as they age (suspension, sub frame).

On another forum, a poster mentions that he gets an MG F/TF for summer, then just gets rid for a minimal overall outlay. Cars get cheaper, the previous owners count goes sky high and I guess the amount of maintenance/willingness to throw money at it decreases. They've also got the problem of decreasing part availability which I don't think has started to bite us, yet.

Still, for under £2k there's very little that compares in terms of sheer fun to the MR2 and with it being a roadster I think that buys cars perhaps more of a chance of avoiding the breaker's yard than say a similarly aged hot hatch.

On the other hand, when you look at how the industry has moved to smaller, turbo'd engines and the improvements to cabin quality, ICE and all the rest, I'm quite excited for what's going to be available for £3/£4k in five year's time!

Depends what you're looking at. 

I for one am entirely uninterested in anything that will be 3/4k in the next 5 years. 
A "hot hatch"? FIAT 124? Nah. 
I fear the mr2 is one of a dying breed. I firmly put it in the category of Elise, MGB, TVR, Triumph,etc.

I've had my mr2 for 5 years. What has it cost me that it needed? And not brought on by a change I wanted? And not including standard service. Subframe, manifold, cat and radiator. Manifold and cat I replaced with premium very expensive gear by choice. But if I did it all "normally", this car would owe me about under 500 quid. 100 a year for a car that makes me smile with every drive, I'm proud of and is reliable?
That's what makes a classic to me. 

[Petrus]

On the other hand, when you look at how the industry has moved to smaller, turbo'd engines and the improvements to cabin quality, ICE and all the rest, I'm quite excited for what's going to be available for £3/£4k in five year's time!

Nissan´s 1.0 3 cil. DIGI-T with 117 hp at 5250 rpm is just óne example.

It also unlines my point that a lighter vehicle designed only to go as fast as the speed limit can do with less than hálf this, so can be a 400 cc. twin, even single, weighing less, consuming less etc.
A 330-350 cc.  direct injected turbo is incredibly light and fuel efficient. Add an electronicall governed cvt and it is all you need for a commuter car, shopping car and a surprising amount of versatile utility vehicles.
Point is that gvt, thus politics gain more, literally, from expensive e-vehicles and selling electricity.

[Bernie]

Dagenham dustbins now attract crazy prices

[Petrus]

Dagenham dustbins now attract crazy prices

You lot would be surprised to see what MR2 Spyders fetch over here.

[Bernie]

Dagenham dustbins now attract crazy prices

You lot would be surprised to see what MR2 Spyders fetch over here.

We have an apartment in Pego so are over often and 2nd hand car prices are crazy never seen a 2 on a forecourt but can imagine more than UK

[Bossworld]

Depends what you're looking at.

I for one am entirely uninterested in anything that will be 3/4k in the next 5 years.
A "hot hatch"? FIAT 124? Nah.
I fear the mr2 is one of a dying breed. I firmly put it in the category of Elise, MGB, TVR, Triumph,etc.

I've had my mr2 for 5 years. What has it cost me that it needed? And not brought on by a change I wanted? And not including standard service. Subframe, manifold, cat and radiator. Manifold and cat I replaced with premium very expensive gear by choice. But if I did it all "normally", this car would owe me about under 500 quid. 100 a year for a car that makes me smile with every drive, I'm proud of and is reliable?
That's what makes a classic to me.

Bit in bold - exactly, and that's why it's a subjective topic.  I'd bite your hand off for a 124 for £4k in 5 years time, though I doubt I'd fit in it to drive it!

If you can get stuff cheap, or I suppose more importantly, fitted cheaply or by yourself, then that's one thing.  But as an example, for a large number of these to survive as long term would require the wider stock, outside of enthusiasts' hands, to be sent to garages for a £300 subframe + fitting.  Hence the example of the MG F/TF being seeing as a disposable toy at the point of MOT failure; when cars worth less than £2k start needing £500 of work doing, how many ordinary people are unfortunately just going to get shot of what can honestly be described as an 'old' car? 

I hope most people are lucky and never need anything more than discs, pads and oil but as we know it's not always the case, and I think it'll be a factor in how many of them stay on the road.  There's cars on eBay/Facebook that people are parting out as it's worth more that way, which is always sad to see.

Back to the thread title, I would argue the simplicity of old classics and ability for home tinkering has kept a lot of them going.  That'll be another generational difference between late 90s/early 00s cars and the stuff that's on the market these days - how much more complicated is it to replace an engine, how many ECUs are there, dashboards/interior plastics all enveloping the cabin area etc.

Off that, there's probably a debatable line between an enthusiast's car and a true classic car.  The 306 GTi-6/Rallye was groundbreaking at the time, but given the high VED to run one these days, the way in which hot hatches have advanced massively, and again the cost of replacing some of the parts that are starting to become suspect, and it hasn't kept the popularity of the 205 GTi.

There's also a huge question of future desirability - the MGB/Triumphs you mention will still appeal to people who were young at the time and either had to give one up or couldn't afford it at the time.  As I've been writing I see mention of Dagenham Dustbins (I assume hot fords?) which would be the same story for a different generation of people who owned a Capri, or MK2 Escort. 

Not to swing it too far the other way but there was a curious case of a showroom condition Rover Metro with delivery mileage that someone was trying to sell for upwards of £7k - arguably it's both priceless (as a snapshot in time) and worthless (as an asset), because no one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for that kind of car.

[shnazzle]

One factor to remember is production;

1990s and early 2000s was all about streamlining production lines. Focus on quality, waste reduction and customer satisfaction. How can we best the best at what we do, for a reasonable price, so that customers choose us?
That's how I was trained. 6 years of business and IT degrees aimed at quality and efficiency. 

By 2007 the drive for cost reduction was well and truly underway. 3 guesses what drove that. 
The mr2 is a perfect example of the blend of the two markets, as Toyota foresaw the future (not exactly magic).
Re-use parts, cast parts, but a car with soul and when you look at the design it's built to meet a specific purpose. 
MX5 is the exact same. It was designed from the ground up as a smile-inducer. Not as a cheap throwaway. Good documentary about that.

Now all the cars post 2010...
Profit, lies (VAG?), poor quality plastics everywhere, synthetic carpets, fix on fail mentality, throw-away concept. I know someone who had 3 engines in their Peugeot 208gti, each one failing due to a coolant sensor error. The fix? Replace engine and fake the sensor.
If Mercedes ceo from 1990 came to 2019 and looked at the latest c-series model, they'd cry at the quality. 
Toys. Status. Make it look "bling". Follow fads (suv mania). Social media. 

Exceptions? Sure. Mini. Amazing focus on quality. Kia. Honda with their new ethos of individuality and lifetime quality.

So yes, I still think MR2 can become a classic. Where Toyota went wrong is stepping out of the competition with mx5 (for good reason). But it's like a B4 Audi S4. VW PD engine-based cars. 90s Toyotas vs new ones. Land Rover then vs now.
The old ones were better. Aimed at quality, experience and longevity of materials and concept. 
None of that throw-away crap we produce these days

[steveash]

Sadly Steve, what you're saying is perfectly true I think.

It´s a politically correct scam.

Living in the andalucian heartland I cannot see that politcal pipe dream work. Ever used an electrical chainsaw for a day out in the campo? Ever tried to get anywhere out in the mountains with an e-vehicle?

It is not feasable outside of urbanised areas.

Rather sad that the car users get the blame for what is mainly an industrial issue. Sadder still that overall e-vehicles are worse rather than better.

It's certainly hard to argue that keeping a 15-20 year old petrol car on the road is more polluting than scrapping it and building a brand new eco car full of plastics and chemicals. The car industry is a vital part of the economy so governments have to encourage us to keep changing.

I read an article a while back claiming to have calculated whole life energy use and emissions of cars including development, manufacturing and recycling. They claimed the Landrover Defender to be the most environmentally friendly car as so many have been built and how many remain in use in addition to the relatively simple manufacturing and recycling. Fuel economy and emissions played a fairly minor role.

[Petrus]

It's certainly hard to argue that keeping a 15-20 year old petrol car on the road is more polluting than scrapping it and building a brand new eco car full of plastics and chemicals. The car industry is a vital part of the economy so governments have to encourage us to keep changing.

I read an article a while back claiming to have calculated whole life energy use and emissions of cars including development, manufacturing and recycling. They claimed the Landrover Defender to be the most environmentally friendly car as so many have been built and how many remain in use in addition to the relatively simple manufacturing and recycling. Fuel economy and emissions played a fairly minor role.

You see the contradiction between the two?

There is véry little proving that doing longer with a better made product which can be repaired is less eco than throw away and replace. Be aware that recycling is also a much abused argument. A newly built car is only partly made of recycled materials and the later, the more plastic/electrics/mass, all far from optimal.
The mega odd thing is that the EU is trying to enshrine the former in law yet the car industry goes the way of kitchen appliance 20 years ago.
I remain that the marketing/information of/aboutour car use is subject to a huge con.

[Johnny5]

Being a visionary/pragmatist  I got my car treated underneath at Rustbusters, just after I bought it, last November.  Twas quite an expense, but I went to a lot of trouble to find a late model (2006) low mileage (20K) car, and having looked at a few that had begun going underneath (not just the rear crossmember/subframe, but the floor in general) I decided to do what I could to preserve mine.

It's on 33K now, is used as a daily runner, and I wouldn't be surprised if I've still got it in ten years time - might be a second car by then though

[Ardent]

Rather late to this thread, but fascinating reading.

I agree with pretty much everything that has been posted. Esp. @shnazzle post 14.
I consider the mkiv golf the best engineered/built car I've ever owned.
I went to change to a mkv, the construction quality was night and day. I stayed with the mkiv.
cheap plastics, rattly thin sounding doors, bloody awful.

My own 2p from slightly different angle regards cost is this. I don't care.

To elaborate.
I view it from the perspective of a hobby and not purely from an A to B means of transport.
I am sure people spend more on sky sports a month that I do fuel.
The cost of fishing kit, how much bait is simply thrown into the river for nothing?
What do people spend on golf membership and green fees?
Football, season tickets, travel, accommodation, travel costs (their car) food or whatever else is involved.
Photography. No lets not go there. (I've spent more there than on cars)
Audiophile HiFi gear is eye wateringly expensive.

I say to any one of those above and countless other examples. I could save you thousands of pounds a year. How?
Don't do it.
But that's what I enjoy, comes the reply.
And so it is with me.

Compared to many other hobbies, I consider 2 ownership to be comparatively cheap.
I scares me to death to think what D spends on crafting stuff. Its best I don't I know.

[Petrus]

The expense is indeed relative. In absolute terms ánd relative to what yoú think is the return.

For me my cars is the wheels under my life style. I don´t really work (read; I really do not work) so although it is my daily transport, it is also my hobby vehicle.
I do about 10-12 K kms/year with my car. I can drop the cost of one full tank of gas per month as expenses with Mountain girl. As such the running costs are not an issue.

I want it to last a lóng time. That means any modifications get more return on the investment too.

Lastly I am not anal about the proof of a useful life. It has nothing to do with functionality, has no effect on longivity and eliminates an expense line.

Back to the plastic I ám aware and I dó try to keep that a bit from the UV light. I apply plastic care stuuf sfrom the car to the interior and have it parked under a roof. Also have a car cover; need to cut openings for the wing and ask a gf to finish the edges with a machine. First though try cut side plates from ´cartón pluma´.

 

[Beachbum957]

Living in the andalucian heartland I cannot see that politcal pipe dream work. Ever used an electrical chainsaw for a day out in the campo? Ever tried to get anywhere out in the mountains with an e-vehicle?

It is not feasable outside of urbanised areas.

Fossil fueled equipment is common outside urban areas and will remain so for a long time. While electric powered tools are gaining ground, current technology for basic tools like commercial chain saws, large lawn mowers, farm tractors, and other equipment isn't far enough along to replace them.  The problems (just like with cars and trucks) are the weight of batteries and run time.  A powerful battery makes a hand tool too heavy, or the run time too short.  Add in recharge time, and productivity is seriously impacted.  I can mow my yard with a battery powered mower, but a commercial lawn care company may have real issues trying to work all day. 

The problems of electric storage will eventually get solved, but based on current technology and availability of raw materials to make batteries, batteries will remain the bottleneck for quite some time.

[Carolyn]

When one considers that there are fully airworthy and certified aircraft from both World Wars still flying and with an indefinite future, there is no reason why a small car can't go on forever.

It's down to regular and detailed maintenance and doing the little preservation jobs when other work presents the opportunity.

For example, when my car is up off the ground, I inspect it thoroughly and treat any corrosion that may be appearing.  I'm not one for covering the underside in goop - 'cos that only hides what might be going on underneath.  I treat, paint with zinc primer and paint over in a tough top-coat.  The more I do this, the less I need to do.

When parts of the car are exposed for other jobs (like dropping the tank to replace cables, it's a chance to get in and tidy up anything in that cavity while it's exposed.

A lot of work, yes, but no 'classic' stays on the road and in regular use without it.

I'm planning on this one outlasting me!

It's not a matter of economics, it's a passion.  And life without passion is a pretty poor proposition.

As for fuel in the future: there will always be MILLIONS of petrol heads, and thus a ready market for petrol.