Classic Cars to Purchase and Hang Onto in 2017

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Investing in the classic car market is like investing in the stock market. The biggest difference is that, when you buy a car, you actually have something to enjoy, regardless of whether you accrue wealth. However, negotiating the minefield of vintage automobiles can be treacherous and an investor can use all the help available to them — especially now that Baby Boomers don’t dictate the entirety of the marketplace.

Hagerty, an authority on classic car valuations and insurance, has offered some guidance for the best classic cars to buy next year. The list fixates on cars it believes to be strong investments in terms of value growth while remaining pleasurable to own. So, if you’re planning on placing your retirement on rolling rubber or just want to test the waters without spending a lot of money, these are cars to consider.

Used C5 Corvettes have maintained flat pricing over the last two years, meaning that deprecation has ended and the car is about to start earning you money. While you can still snag a C4 for roughly the same price, 1997-2004 Vettes are inarguably better built machines. Superior performers in every respect, the C5s come with the all-aluminum LS motor that everyone and their grandmother has tried to swap into their project car. An LS1 mated to a Borg-Warner T-56 6-speed transmission will likely appreciate better than the 4-speed automatic variants. However, the torque converter will save you roughly ten percent on the $15,000 average C5 price tag. Expect to lay down much more for higher trims and later model years.

Speaking of American supercars, Dodge Vipers are also becoming quite collectible, and third generation snakes are at the profitability tipping point. 2003 SRT-10s are available at under $40,000, while cars from only a few years earlier can easily set you back another ten to twenty grand.

Hagerty suggests that collectors take a look at some of Mopar’s other famous ilk, too. When the “financial flexibility” of Boomers took a hit in 2008, muscle car prices took one right to the groin. Still unrecovered, you can pick up some of the most sought-after vintage American iron for a lot less than before. Good condition 1971-1972 Dodge Challengers can be had for $18,300 with a mid-range 318-cubic-inch V8. 1968-1970 Dodge Chargers are also on the rise. Modest examples can be found for $26,100, with the expectation that the value should only increase over the coming years. Base models with automatic transmissions should drive that price, and overall desirability, down. Similarly, anything original with an R/T badge or the right paint scheme can dramatically raise a vehicle’s value.

However, if you have gobs of money to spend and are a Mopar loyalist, why not invest $233,000 into a 1970 Plymouth Superbird? While they can be found for less, spending more for a pristine and complete unit will save you from hunting for expensive rare parts and place you in a better position once you decide to auction it off. Classic Chryslers, Dodges, and Plymouths are all appreciating more swiftly than the other domestic badges and this is one example you might be able to flip for a colossal profit in only a few years.

While Hagerty recommended a 2003 Ferrari Enzo as a confident investment worth making, I’m going to wager you don’t have the $2.3 million required for a low-volume European hypercar. Instead, might I suggest the much more reasonable 2000-2006 BMW M3? Bavarian M cars always hold their value with a certain crowd and E46 M3 coupes are at the bottom of their pricing scale. It’s safe to assume they will only increase in value in the years to come.

Thanks to decades of hooning and its resulting fame, twin-turbo MkIV Toyota Supras are set up to become one of the most explosively valuable cars money can buy. For a certain age group, 1993-1998 Supra turbos were car culture royalty during their formative years — guaranteeing the model’s future desirability. However, the Supra’s prominent role as a tuner car also endangers its very existence. Videos featuring 800 to 1000-horsepower over-boosted Supras are common, meaning that good condition cars are not. That rarity indicates the current $40,000 asking price will only shoot upward as more cars are destroyed.

Possibly the smartest buy on Hagerty’s list is the 1966-1977 Ford Bronco. Considering that younger buyers are driving the used market for even mediocre SUVs from the 1980s, snagging a genuine classic that also appeals specifically to Millennials and Generation X isn’t a terrible idea. Bronco values have been creeping up steadily for the last few years but can still be purchased for under $20,000.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 73 comments
  • Caboose Caboose on Jan 05, 2017

    "Used C5 Corvettes ... deprecation has ended..." Does that mean I am no longer allowed to say that the C5 sucked?

  • Bultaco Bultaco on Feb 14, 2018

    Vettes have been the chariot of the Viagra set since the late C-3 era. I have literally NEVER seen anyone under about 40 driving a Vette. I'm sure younger people drove them all the time before the malaise era turned them into personal luxury cars. When the performance came back with the C4, they had become so expensive that old guys were the only people who both wanted one, and could afford one.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next