Why weren't some vehicles made more/longer and are now collectors items?

[BLND1]

You're avoiding the conversation topic and sidestepping a direct question.

In the modern era, the "supercars" and HP wars have the Camaros, Mustangs, Chargers, Challengers, Vettes, etc. selling faster than they can produce them. Wildly popular. People paying far more adjusted for inflation today, than for the Vettes and few other "performance cars" of the 1980s.

For the equivalent of $70k today, in 1987 you'd get a car that had few peers in the price range, and a car that would perform by today's standards like a mid-level Mustang or Challenger. In my experience, taking the GN, they were sold before being assembled and there was a waiting list. When you have waiting lists, you don't stop making them! You make 10x as many.

We aren't talking about mini-vans and F150s. Different markets. We're talking about special vehicles for which it was OBVIOUS at the time, and now even more so in hindsight that they were special and it is nuts when production ended. Another example is the legendary Toyota Supra, and production ended late 1990s. Nuts.

Look at today and the resurgence of these muscle/super cars. People and needs did not change. There was/is clearly a pent up demand for excellent powerful cars.

I’m not sidestepping anything. You advocated for manufacturers ceasing production of other vehicles in favor of sports cars. Its laughable.

That isn’t how the world works (then or now). If you can’t understand that or fundamental concepts of supply/demand and associated pricing, I can’t help you.

If a manufacturer can make fewer cars (and thus keeping demand high) they can sell them for a premium price per unit (likely harvesting more profit as a result). If they increase production it’s likely that price will need to adjust accordingly (supply/demand) and then manufacturers are making less per car. There is a very important balance point with many of these cars where supply/demand and profit are worth it for the manufacturer. An NSX or Supra may not be profitable for a manufacturer.

Put down the rose colored glasses, friend. 1987 was a long time ago.

 

[B1974]

It sounds like the Camaro is going to be discontinued again because they are not selling like they did in 2012 anymore. These cars don't have a big enough market demand to keep in production.

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/2021-chevy-camaro-production-halted-immediately-is-this-the-end/

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Toyota had the Supra which was a gold mine of a car, and same story as the GN. Toyota should have made 10x as many. Honda Preludes are a similar story. They made far too few of them. Honda should have made 10x as many. It was a sporty and relatively cool Accord. Everyone I knew wanted a Prelude but they were hard to locate at the time.

The Mk4 Supra sold poorly and was largely panned in the mid 90s when it was new; the magazines giving it negative reviews. They only got popular a few years after they stopped making them, when Fast and the Furious came out.

 

[drtyler]

The passage of time sometimes warps how we perceive things. That's why your first car wasn't as fast or cool and probably not collectible, we were probably not as good at things as we once thought and your high school sweetie not as hot as she seemed back then.

View attachment 66981

Was your first car a 426 Hemi Road Runner?

 

[Passport1]

If I could go back in time as you say, one car that I would have like to purchase would have been 1966 Corvair Corsa with the turbo 180HP engine. This was the second generation Corvair body style and offered a lot of value for the purchase price. Unfortunately GM and some other automakers too, have a nasty habit of killing off a model just when it reaches it's prime.

I had a '65 180 turbo. Looked just like this one. Fantastic car. Turbo models had a different badge on the engine lid and the stern was painted silver like this one. The instrument cluster included a pyrometer engine head temp gauge. Way ahead of its time.

 

[eljefino]

As EV platforms continue to proliferate, I am afraid automakers are going to adhere even more into the "cookie cutter" practice of using a single platform to produce various models and configurations with little drive train differences between them, and this will make many everyday car choices become less exciting.

I bet the opposite will happen. Takes a LOT of money to certify a gasoline powertrain. IDK what an electric one takes but emissions under 1000 different scenarios aren't a problem anymore. So you'd just worry about horsepower, economy, and battery/warranty life.

They'd still have to shape bodies to be crash safe, for occupants and pedestrians, and they'd want to be aerodynamic. So there'd be a lot of blobs. But not needing radiators or conventional transmissions will change the shape and position of what we now consider engine compartments. Once they make a powertrain, I bet they won't hold still for decades making the same power, either. Annual tweaks and improvements because they don't have to re-do the certification process.

 

[PeterGreen]

Sometimes you just don't appreciate the water until the well runs dry.

 

[Skippy722]

It's sometimes difficult to parse nostalgia from actual events or in this case, was it nostalgia or just the fact that some vehicles were just that good and head-and-shoulders above peers. And sometimes, it's a look-backward to see that a new design was high quality and durable. So that's another angle. The Broncos, for instance, gained a reputation over a long period of ownership that their owners fell in love with them.

But I suspect in most cases, people MUST have known that they have a real winner on their hands. I'll go back to the Grand National. That car was an INSTANT legend. Everyone wanted one. GM killing that car was probably one of that companies biggest blunders. They could have sold as many as they could produce, dropping all other product lines to pump out GNs. The GNX has performance numbers that would make modern cars blush, pretty darn close to a modern mid-level Mustang, Camaro, etc. But in the mid-1980s and for about $70k in todays dollars.

Toyota had the Supra which was a gold mine of a car, and same story as the GN. Toyota should have made 10x as many. Honda Preludes are a similar story. They made far too few of them. Honda should have made 10x as many. It was a sporty and relatively cool Accord. Everyone I knew wanted a Prelude but they were hard to locate at the time.

So for many of these it's not nostalgia but the fact these were gold mines and it's puzzling why they didn't produce more or production ended prematurely before the end of the demand. In business there's a principle to continue producing until there is no more demand, or demand wanes. I find it unlikely demand waned for the Bronco, Integra, Supra, Prelude, GN, and many other examples killed too soon. And that's partly why people pay huge money for these classics.

Honda Prelude sales tanked after 1986. Bronco did decent but nothing earth shattering. The Integra at best sold 83,599, and then never broke 68,000 a year again, by 2000 they only sold 25,975. The Supra everyone wants now, 1993-1998, never broke 3,500 vehicles a year in the US. The fact that more of them didn’t survive to clearly shows the mindset that people had of them back then…. Yes they were cool, but ultimately just another car. It’s only now that they’re rare, expensive, and hard to get that they’re more popular. You don’t know what you have till it’s gone.

Automakers, short of making limited production runs (Like the Dodge Demon for example) are going to make as many cars as they can. FCA/Stellantis will sell you a Hellcat today in pretty much any flavor you want…. 2 row crossover, 3 row crossover, a coupe, a sedan, and a pick up truck. Their volume sellers still continue to be “boring” V6 models and the slightly more fun 5.7 v8 models.

 

[Passport1]

Sherman’s way back machine

Peabody, I think if I could borrow Sherman's Way Back Machine once it wouldn't have anything to do with reuniting with a car!

 

[Cujet]

Today's cars are somewhat numb, heavy and often devoid of that raucous-fun personality.

I grew up with 1960's Mustangs. Rust-buckets, unreliable, flexible chassis and cheap. However, they were light, and very easy to modify to a performance standard that holds up well today. There is no nostalgia about it, once properly prepped, the power to weight was quite good, as was the the throttle response. And, that gave them the personality we still love.

We turned good lap times at Lime Rock track, hit nearly 130 mph down the straight, ran 12's in the traction limited 1/4 mile and did it cheaply. Using objective criteria, what's not to love?

You might be tempted to say that a new Mustang GT right off the showroom floor can do all that. Well, not quite. The power to weight is not there, and the new cars make up for that with more gears and more efficient use of the power they have. A modern GT will make about 360-370HP at the wheels @ 3800 pounds. We made about 345HP at 2400 pounds.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I think it's less nostalgia and more of the fact that at the time, since it was available folks either took it for granted or for whatever reason didn't appreciate it or grab onto it. In a sense it's sort of like great relationships folks don't put enough effort/time/investment in thereby taking for granted things that came easy at the time but later are very rare and special.

There's a few dozen cars that would sell like hotcakes today at market price if made new and available. I think we could come up with a good list. Like a Ferrari 308. Several of the old muscle cars from the 60s and 70s. Several of the old pickup trucks that folks lust after due to their simplicity. And so forth. They were great then and even today, and more should have been made.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I’m not sidestepping anything. You advocated for manufacturers ceasing production of other vehicles in favor of sports cars. Its laughable.

That isn’t how the world works (then or now). If you can’t understand that or fundamental concepts of supply/demand and associated pricing, I can’t help you.

If a manufacturer can make fewer cars (and thus keeping demand high) they can sell them for a premium price per unit (likely harvesting more profit as a result). If they increase production it’s likely that price will need to adjust accordingly (supply/demand) and then manufacturers are making less per car. There is a very important balance point with many of these cars where supply/demand and profit are worth it for the manufacturer. An NSX or Supra may not be profitable for a manufacturer.

Put down the rose colored glasses, friend. 1987 was a long time ago.

Sorry but I have a business degree so I'm plenty dialed in on economics. Some of the issue was the cost per unit, which had they made more could have brought down costs given economies of scale. They could have also incorporated more like-parts for simple things, which would further reduce costs to make them more mass-affordable. One problem car companies have is the pointless redesigns of functional parts for unknown reasons, and that drives up costs. For instance, why redesign the reservoir for wiper fluid? Or interior knobs or door handles or foot pedals, or a million other parts nobody cares about? Then you have to have two lines for different manufacturing designs. It's pointlessly wasteful of money/resources. The more you make, the cheaper per-unit each part is.

It seems you're purposefully being obtuse to miss the points being made. Car makers would not literally need to stop producing something else profitable so as to turn out more Grand Nationals, or Vipers, or Supras, for instance. They could drop something else that's junk. Both companies made junk vehicles of their respective eras. Or just build another production line entirely to produce the hot cars.

In the mid-1980s, GM produced a lot of unmemorable junk cars including the Chevette, Grand Prix, the Diesel Cutlass, and yes the 80s Corvette was unremarkable. Dodge had plenty of cars they could have scrapped making room for more Vipers. Toyota didn't produce much junk, but they absolutely should have poured out more Supras.

 

[jhs914]

Sorry but I have a business degree so I'm plenty dialed in on economics. Some of the issue was the cost per unit, which had they made more could have brought down costs given economies of scale. They could have also incorporated more like-parts for simple things, which would further reduce costs to make them more mass-affordable. One problem car companies have is the pointless redesigns of functional parts for unknown reasons, and that drives up costs. For instance, why redesign the reservoir for wiper fluid? Or interior knobs or door handles or foot pedals, or a million other parts nobody cares about? Then you have to have two lines for different manufacturing designs. It's pointlessly wasteful of money/resources. The more you make, the cheaper per-unit each part is.

It seems you're purposefully being obtuse to miss the points being made. Car makers would not literally need to stop producing something else profitable so as to turn out more Grand Nationals, or Vipers, or Supras, for instance. They could drop something else that's junk. Both companies made junk vehicles of their respective eras. Or just build another production line entirely to produce the hot cars.

In the mid-1980s, GM produced a lot of unmemorable junk cars including the Chevette, Grand Prix, the Diesel Cutlass, and yes the 80s Corvette was unremarkable. Dodge had plenty of cars they could have scrapped making room for more Vipers. Toyota didn't produce much junk, but they absolutely should have poured out more Supras.

I have a business degree also and graduated from college in 1970 so I lived through and remember the era the cars you mentioned were built. Do you really think that if a business had a product that was profitable and demand was outstripping supply that they would deliberately kill the product rather than produce more of it? I don't know what you learned in business school but what I learned it mine makes the answer obvious. What actually happened was that there was a limited demand for those performance oriented cars plus they were more expensive to build. When the limited demand (at the time they were built, not 30 years later) was met sales fell off and production was stopped. As others have said, you are looking at the past through rose colored glasses.

 

[y_p_w]

Honda Prelude sales tanked after 1986. Bronco did decent but nothing earth shattering. The Integra at best sold 83,599, and then never broke 68,000 a year again, by 2000 they only sold 25,975. The Supra everyone wants now, 1993-1998, never broke 3,500 vehicles a year in the US. The fact that more of them didn’t survive to clearly shows the mindset that people had of them back then…. Yes they were cool, but ultimately just another car. It’s only now that they’re rare, expensive, and hard to get that they’re more popular. You don’t know what you have till it’s gone.

Integras were always fairly reasonably priced though. I think part of the deal is that the Integra and Prelude were made in Japan and they didn't need to justify solely based on sales in the United States and Canada. I still see a few of them around here, but I suppose it's a regional thing.

Before I got my 1995 Integra GS-R, I looked up some of the reviews on it. I think it was on the Car & Driver top 10 list, but I think it was one where they has a combined listing with the Prelude Si. I believe the writeup said that they were extremely similar in performance, but the nod went to the Integra because it was cheaper.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I have a business degree also and graduated from college in 1970 so I lived through and remember the era the cars you mentioned were built. Do you really think that if a business had a product that was profitable and demand was outstripping supply that they would deliberately kill the product rather than produce more of it? I don't know what you learned in business school but what I learned it mine makes the answer obvious. What actually happened was that there was a limited demand for those performance oriented cars plus they were more expensive to build. When the limited demand (at the time they were built, not 30 years later) was met sales fell off and production was stopped. As others have said, you are looking at the past through rose colored glasses.

Yes. It's called a blunder, a mistake, a big colossal error. Companies make them. I can list 20 major companies that failed due to blunders, including Blockbuster, Kodak, Circuit City, Pan Am, and others.

As it pertains to killing products that were profitable, many did. It's widely known/believed that GM killed the GN b/c it was harming Corvette sales. The GN and ultimately GNX was a sexy beast, better than any Mustang or Camaro of the era and faster than the Porsche or Ferrari in the 1/4 mile, and for $30,000. *** would they stop producing this highly desirable car?!?!?!

GM did not like what they perceived as catabolizing Vette sales. Really stupid move. There was so much demand for the GNX they could have literally made and sold every one if they made 10x as many.

 

[FADEC]

I wanted a Grand National so bad back in 1987. Making $3.60 an hour washing dishes wasn't going to cut it though.

I did too. But being an E3 in the USAF wouldn't cut it either.

 

[Skippy722]

As it pertains to killing products that were profitable, many did. It's widely known/believed that GM killed the GN b/c it was harming Corvette sales. The GN and ultimately GNX was a sexy beast, better than any Mustang or Camaro of the era and faster than the Porsche or Ferrari in the 1/4 mile, and for $30,000. *** would they stop producing this highly desirable car?!?!?!

Perception is huge… tell people you have a 1987 Buick and they won’t really care, but tell them you have a 1987 Porsche and they’re immediately interested. While the Grand National was cool, you were still ultimately buying a Buick from GM, and in the 80’s $30,000 was a ton of money, ~$72,000 today. For about the same price, you could get a Porsche 911. Concours quality Grand Nationals are valued around $53,000 per Hagerty… one did sell for over $200,000 but it had 262 miles and still has the factory plastic wrap on the seats. Similar year Porsche 911’s go for $40,000-$140,000+.

 

[PimTac]

I think it's less nostalgia and more of the fact that at the time, since it was available folks either took it for granted or for whatever reason didn't appreciate it or grab onto it. In a sense it's sort of like great relationships folks don't put enough effort/time/investment in thereby taking for granted things that came easy at the time but later are very rare and special.

The vast majority of people buy a automobile to take them from point A to point B and that’s that. They look for reliability, safety, and a vehicle that meets their needs. Very very few buy a car to hold onto for appreciation, whether financial or sentimental.

 

[Dinoburner]

Try to find a Syclone now. GM has for a long time had myopic vision.

 

[JHZR2]

Id buy as many 12v Cummins and Mercedes w123/126 cars as I could, with a few E30 BMWs sprinkled in. I like what I like.

I probably would have scoped out a Toyota Supra from the late 90s, and maybe a 3000GT vr-4 Or dodge stealth. Always liked those.