Opinion: 6 classics that don’t match their mythology
Anyone who’s ever read a comment section online knows that there’s no shortage of “expert” opinion out there extolling the virtues and vices of our favorite rides. Much of it is based on second- and third-hand experience, or even outright hearsay. That doesn’t stop the momentum from building, though, and before long a car gains a reputation that may or may not accurately represent the actual ownership experience. After having 40+ cars pass through my often-undeserving hands, I’ve developed a few opinions of my own, often running contrary to conventional wisdom.
1963 Buick Riviera
I’ll concede I’m probably not the target market for a first-gen Riv. Floating down a perfectly paved freeway for hours on end isn’t what I’d choose to do behind the wheel, even if I knew of a such a road anywhere near me. But that’s what the Riviera excelled at, sort of. Its undulating ride was more disconcerting than cruise-worthy. It had the turning radius of a city bus, and its puny brakes may have set a postwar record for largest inverse relationship between horsepower and stopping ability. And don’t get me started on the numb power steering. While the Riviera was certainly attractive, as a driver, it fell miles short of Bill Mitchell’s aspiration to build an American Ferrari. I sorely wish that Mr. Mitchell had been able to pry some brake, steering and suspension mojo from the excellent C2 Corvette. Sleek styling wasn’t enough to forgive its ills, so I’m forced to say the Riviera is overrated.
1965 Jaguar E-type
The Series I E-type is undoubtedly a good-looking car, regardless of whether or not you believe the story of Enzo Ferrari calling it the most beautiful car he’d ever seen. What is rarely talked about is how well the car drives, even by modern standards. It’s the opposite of the Riviera in that its chassis dynamics were commensurate with its good looks.
The Jag’s rack and pinion steering is delightful, communicative, and precise. Power assist isn’t even needed. The post-1964 all-synchro four-speed is a joy to shift, and its 4.2-liter dual-overhead cam straight six, while not rev-happy, makes good torque and more than adequate power. That said, I suspect its advertised 265 hp may have been a touch ambitious. No matter, at just under 2,900 lbs., it was good for 0-60 in about seven seconds. D-Type-inspired four-wheel disc brakes were good for the time, and while the car was set up more for GT-style driving than track-ready handling, if you could deal with the body roll, you could have fun exploiting the car’s power and near 50/50 weight distribution.
The car isn’t without its peccadilloes, particularly with regard to its electrical system. But ultimately, when you look at values of its more exotic competition relative to their performance and livability, The E-Type begins to shine. For that reason, I find this cat a bit underrated.
1971 Datsun 240Z
I’ve owned four first-generation Z cars, though I’ve never kept one for a long time. There’s a reason for that: of any car I’ve owned, the corner-cutting to achieve a bargain base price is most evident in a Z. There’s almost no sound deadening to be found anywhere in the car, from the floors to the lightly padded, vinyl headliner, and as a result the freeway drone is maddening. In addition to the gratuitous noise (I will admit that the actual exhaust note is pleasing), in any significant crosswind, the early Z’s freeway wander is downright scary. The BRE front spoiler helps, if only a little. Inside, the plastic quality is backyard kiddie-pool spec.
I suppose it’s not really the car’s fault—it’s so pretty, and it handles and performs so much above its class that you expect the details to be as nice as a Porsche 911. They’re not, so I’ve always considered the Z to be a bit overrated.
1979 Porsche 924
If ever there was a car for which I had low expectations, this was it. I’m a multiple 911 owner, and before this car, I’d never owned any flavor of transaxle Porsche—certainly not the one deemed to be the worst of them, the original Audi-powered 924. I bought the car for $2,000 to do a “2,000 miles in a $2,000 Porsche” story for the magazine that I edit, Porsche Panorama. It was a middling road trip story at best, mostly because the car gave me zero material to work with. Nothing broke, though if it had, I think I could have solved most of it on the roadside because of the car’s inherent simplicity. Was it a little buzzy and underpowered? Yes, but the car’s beautiful balance, solid build, and sturdy honesty made up for that. As did its attention to aerodynamics, which gifted the 924 a lack of wind noise and near 30-mpg thrift on 87 octane fuel. Subjectively, I also found it quite pretty. The 924 surprised me in the best ways, and since then, I’ve considered it the essence of an underrated car.
1975 BMW 2002
My 2002 was the exact opposite of the 924. The little Bimmer was a car for which I had huge expectations, most of which went unfulfilled, particularly in light of David E. Davis Jr.’s assessment that the BMW 2002 was the best way to get somewhere sitting down. It’s not that there weren’t any positives. The 2002’s driving position and outward visibility were top notch, but I found the car to be buzzy and underpowered in a far more egregious way than I found the 924. The lack of fuel injection combined with crude emission controls made for annoying flat-spots in the power curve. The car’s ventilation is largely theoretical—no face level dash vents at all, just ancient vent and quarter windows, and a sunroof if you’re lucky. The fake wood applique on the dash reminded me of a VW Scirocco. The steering that I expected to be super-quick was somewhat heavy and a little dead on center. Truth be told, by the time my 2002 was built, it was a fairly ancient design, and the injected 2002 tii was the spec that you really wanted. That said, I found the 2002 to be a generally overrated car.
1968 MGC GT
I actually had the experience of owning an MGC and a Datsun 240Z at the same time. Odd, because the C is the car that the Z wiped off the face of the earth. The MGC is the rare, six-cylinder version of the MGB that was deemed in-period to be an utterly inferior car to the Japanese upstart. I didn’t find that to be the case. In spite of their wildly differing reputations for quality, the MG felt more expensive in every way—the seats were covered in good-smelling leather, the chrome-ringed Smiths gauges looked nicer, and the whole car just felt more solid. As a freeway cruiser, there was no contest—the MG was somehow nearly impervious to crosswinds, something I discovered when I got caught in 65 mph gale-force winds on I-5 in between Seattle and Portland. With the overdrive engaged in fourth gear, it was also much more relaxed at speed than the Z. With its independent rear suspension, the Z was a better handler, but with the proper tire pressures (this is critical for the slightly nose-heavy MG), the C was no slouch either. On the whole, I found the MGC GT to be vastly underrated.
What about you—did your time in one of these cars dissuade you from the mythology that surrounds it, or confirm its greatness? Which car have you owned that provided the biggest contrast to how it’s perceived?
***
Check out the Hagerty Media homepage so you don’t miss a single story, or better yet, bookmark it. To get our best stories delivered right to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletters.
Rob your Rivera assessment also could apply to Thunderbirds of the same era, floaty being the operative driving impression also. The 240 Z assessment is a little too harsh in my view and I would say (bring on the purists ) that the later 280 Z addressed some of deficiencies of the early 240’s and I for one am glad to trade less than prefect sound deadening for the driving experience and still timeless lines of the Z. I think I am not alone is these observations looking at the large aftermarket support for the first gen Z cars, which is way more than any other car here on you list.
Your commentary brings up something I believe looms large in car reviews, moreso lately but true even back when the Z and 2002 were new cars. Opinions were weighted towards how a car responded on track or at the limit of adhesion. Vanishingly few folks ever drive there.
I never owned or drove a Z (besides the BMW version) but I can definitely see how it would blow minds in period. It was a complete game changer. That newness and goodness might have allowed reviewers to overlook flaws such as noisiness on the highway and sensitivity to crosswinds. Neither trait matters at the track, or at the limit, anyway.
I owned a 1968 BMW 2002. It was a fabulous way to get places with people and stuff, and to have a bit of fun while doing so. Just don’t toss it around with anything hard and heavy in the trunk — there was no inner wall to speak of and you’d put an outward-facing dent in the rear fender! Voice of experience. I never loved its proclivity to lift its inside wheel like a dog at a hydrant, and so I never loved its handling. It was okay, but the handling of my 1966 Cortina GT was far more predictable and entertaining. It tended to lift a *front* wheel. The 2002 was a better daily, and it was much better made and more reliable. But when I look back I smile more when I think of that Cortina.
I never see the Capri mentioned in collectors’ circles.
I bought a new ‘72 and put almost 200,000 miles on it, including abusing it by towing another car on a trailer. It could always break 100, handled nicely, stopped on a dime, and was the prettiest cat I ever owned. But nobody has one these days. Darned shame.
Rob Sass…thank you for the article. I too have owned over 40 cars over the years and a few I wanted on your list. I never owned a BMW as I test drove them and found them overpriced. I lusted after the 2002 and the 240Z when they came out. I like the styling of the Riveria but found them large and likely gas hogs.
My best driving/memorable cars were my MGA, MGB, MG Midget and then my guards red 1983 Porsche although my current 2009 6 Spd C6 rivals it and certainly has much more performance. I also have a 1980 c3 which is a bit rattly by comparison but awesome to ride in looking out over the hood from its red leather interior. Most luxurious well mannered sporty rides MkIII Jag xj12L and then V12 VandenPLas but monthly maintenance to choke an elephant.
I found a couple of cars I owned less satisfying, they seem to lack soul although they performed well…early Honda Accord(my poor mans BMW purchase) Maxima and RX7 gen 11 6 Spd..very fast Wankel engine.
Several Volvos…best car seats prize. Thanks for the trip…keep writing.
Billy Buick. Bingo
Foothill Frank (great name)
It should be pointed out to the author of this review that when the 1963 Riviera was first designed it was supposed to be a Cadillac. But the management at Cadillac did not want it. The car, from the start, was not meant to be an “American Ferrari”. It was a LUXURY car meant for the Cadillac…”The Luxury standard of the world.”
Buick saw the possibilities and the rest is history. Also I’d like to point out that the Buick brakes, at the time, were some of the best available. Many hot rodders lusted over the large Buick brakes.
Riviera overrated! Yea, just like a blonde when first seen on the street.
They both made you look.
You missed the whole point of the 240Z. Yes it felt like you had a porsche but felt cheap inside. IT WAS 1/3 THE PRICE OF THE PORSCHE, 1/3.!! It was and is a poor mans Jag or 911. It also was a sports car, if you wanted quiet get the Riv. Many of us who owned these early Z cars understood the lack of insulation as a weight and cost(price) savings. The highway wander was easily cured with a few suspension and alignment tweaks. These were great fun cars and are certainly not overated
I never read an article where I disagreed 100%. I guess there is a first for everything.
You Forgot the Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE
I’d say every Porsche sports car with the engine at the wrong end (i.e in the front) is underrated. I’ve owned half a dozen 911’s but driven 924’s, 944’s and 928’s and liked all of them (although not enough to switch).
A couple of overrateds for me are the Acura Integra and Mazda Miata (sacrilege I know.)
I had a new ‘90 Integra GS coupe as my daily driver and ended up spending a fortune getting out of my lease because the seats were just killing my back. In those pre-internet days it wasn’t easy to learn that lots of people were getting back aches from Hondas. And it turns out I’m not a high revving torque-less guy plus the vaunted Honda shifter and clutch always felt lifeless.
My Miata was a Mazdaspeed purchased to amuse myself when there was literally nothing else to do during the pandemic. Maybe it’s unfair to compare a Mazda to air cooled Porsche’s but the Miata disappointed on steering feel and overall handling lightness. Just never really like it.
I could go on with this all day having also had 40+ cars, but one underrated/overrated duo I’d mention are the FIAT and Alfa Spider/Spyder’s. The Alfa gets all the love but I’ve owned both and the FIAT’s the far better car. Better handling, better riding, better steering, better everything (except maybe styling although I go back and forth on that one.) Plus better memories because the FIAT was my first new car and the one that featured the beautiful girlfriend in the passenger seat that I ended up marrying (that’s another 40+, except years, not cars).
I have to say, reading all these comments about interesting cars that I was never able to own (except for 34 years with an E-Type) is delightful. Its a little like vicariously driving the things, I’m learning some new respect or possibly losing some. I always respected the BMW 2002 (I’ve owned 3 BMWs) but maybe a little less so now.
Mine were Buick 63, 65, 75. Jag 68. Datsun 77 260. MGB/GT 67. All were great cars and have stories for all of them.
I think you got some bad acid. I’ve never disagreed with anyone so fully. Had we been face to face, I might have thrown a drink at you, and challenged you to a duel.
In order of indefensibility……
The Porsche 924. Maybe, had you restricted yourself to the limited run, de-contented 944 one, I might have let this by. The early Audi 924 was a cramped Aydi, with a dud engine, for which there was no cure. Only a Brit could love it. And the design and materials were everything we came to love about early Audis. The car that almost killed Porsche. Possibly the last car I would ever own. I’d be embarrassed to use one to store spare parts in my backyard.
The BMW 2002. Where pray tell, did you drive a 2002? Against it’s competition in the 70’s, it was brilliant. Against the 320i that followed it it was brilliant. Simple, stunningly styled, and easy to work on, it’s one of the few cars I’ve owned that I want back. Quick, roomy, and great handling. Impossible to dislike.
The 1963 Riviera. Nothing in 1963 drove any better, and sure as heck nothing LOOKED better. At least the Buick had those giant heat sink brakes with the aluminum fins. Hot rodders used to steal buick brakes for their builds. The problem today is that our frame of reference is different, and most Rivs you drive today either have woefully neglected brakes, haven’t been used in decades, or run cheap Chinese made linings.
MGC. An ugly MGB, powered by a tractor engine. Even the company that made it hated it. A car that deserved the swift death it suffered.
The XK-E. Clearly, one of the loveliest designs ever. There were certainly much faster cars, even in it’s day. It didn’t even drive badly. It is however the car that gave Jaguar it’s reputation for rust, and electrical gremlins, and making everything on it fiendishly complicated, and thus expensive.
The 240-Z. In it’s day, it made the sports cars of it’s day old fashioned . Cheap, pretty, fast. What more do you want? A lot were ruined with ill advised mods trying to :improve” them. I took a passenger seat ride in an A/P 240Z, and I was screaming like a little girl the entire lap. But, the rot. Lord, do they rot. That’s why we raid the West Coast for theirs. If you wanted an underated car, maybe the 1st gen Rx7 would have been a better pick? Driven well, an Rx-7 was a giant killer of the first order.
Remember that old joke, that if you remember the 60’s, you weren’t there? Well, I drove all of them, back when they were late model cars. Certainly I had very different impressions.
Today, I drive a BMW 3 series wagon. People are now chasing the wagons, but denigrate the steering. I like it. In fact, I love the whole car. Got 2 Miatas; a 93LE, and a 19 GTS RF. I still like the old one best, although the ND is still and incredible car. And an Acty Street G van from Japan. All 38 horsepower. It is painfully slow, but still likely faster than a 924.
I suspect the later Riviera GS (Gran Sport) addressed some of the legitimate points the author makes about the first year Riv.
Did the author drive the Riviera in 1963 or recently? If recently, in his mind he is comparing it to sports cars of a different era. Also the RIV is not a sports car. It is a personal luxury car just like Ford’s T Bird.
Well I never owned a 924, I did own a 944 for several years and loved the car. Fit, finish and materials were top notch. Reliable, comfortable, fun to drive and handled extremely well. The only downside I could find with the car was the uneasy feeling when trapped on the highway next to a tractor trailer. It was so low to the ground you you seemed to be looking up at those truck tires.
Shortly after I sold the Porsche, I briefly owned a 280ZX and hated the car. It was pretty to look at sitting in the driveway, but as soon as you got in you immediately felt the cheapness of whatever you touched. It was noisy and every time you closed the hood or doors you got the impression it was made out of old tin cans. One of biggest ownership disappointments.
hey gary, i assume you’re referring to the ’79-’83 zx (if any year ’70-’78 z, i agree about the interior cheapness and the following doesn’t apply). not knowing your details, i have a much different experience. i started my mechanic’s career at a local datsun dealer starting in ’80. all i ever heard from zx owners was how good their car’s build & materials quality was compared to vettes et al, how the t-tops never leaked, and how much more of a nicer & comfortable car they were than the 240/60/80z. granted, they didn’t perform as well as the z’s, but no slouch, either. a nice cruiser for what the car was. i wanted one, but ended up buying a ’83 mitsubishi starion. no regrets, a neat car. but looking back, wish i went into a little more debt for the zx. there’s a good chance i’d still own it. among other things, the ‘L’ series engine, besides exhaust manifolds, were bulletproof. needless to say, everyone has their personal experience & opinions. glad to hear you know what you like, and don’t.