Corvette Number Eight Pulled From National Corvette Museum Sinkhole

-
Frankie said:
It got crushed in a sink hole.

The "car guys" here appreciate the loss, of these vehicles. The are going to be restored, but they will never be originals, again.

To me the 57 was the biggest loss. These were all milestone cars.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Along with the 65 Dart convertible I'm restoring for my wife, I also own a 72 Corvette convertible, and a 67 Mustang convertible. And after the Dart is finished, I plan on looking for a 69 Firebird convertible project car. I'm a 'car guy', I really don't understand 'Chevy guys', or 'Ford guys', or 'Mopar guys', they aren't true 'car guys'. I guess that type of person, if they start watching Overhaulin, or Chasing Classic Cars, simply turns the channel if it's not their type of car? What a shame.

I do all of the work on my cars that I can, and am on multiple forums. One thing that surprised me after I joined FABO, is that I thought there would be more 'car guys' here than on the Corvette forum. It's just the opposite. On the Corvette forum it seems the majority appreciate all cool cars, on FABO is seems there are many more people who think "if it's not Mopar, it's crap". I just don't understand that type of thinking.
 
I'm with the car guys on this one. When I heard the news, and saw the video, my heart broke for the lost history. Just like every time a Warbird crashes, when a classic car, or a modern milestone car is lost, a piece of history is gone with it.

j
 
ive had almost every make out there, and any part of history whether automotive or otherwise when lost is a shame and sad. new cars i wouldnt lose sleep over, but someone will and i feel for them. it may be sentimental to someone whos family member owned it and passed on, or many other possabilitys. even now i look back at all the cars i distroyed in demolition derbys and feel a bit sad for the cars.
 
I could honestly care less, too bad no vipers or post foxbody mustangs fell in their too.
 
Back in Time said:
To each his own.... but as a Mopar fan but an overall car guy I hate to see any classic American muscle be lost for any reason.
Click to expand...

The Classic Car Club Of America says a classic car is one between 30 to 49 years old. This was my whole point. None of these was a classic car. What made them special? I bet none of you could tell the difference in any of the cars that fell in the hole to some of their sister cars runnin around everyday. They all look the same. They are all newer vehicles. IMO they are like a Hyundai. They are nothing special because there are so many made and they all look alike. Plus, they aren't even classics. Just like if they had been brand new Challengers, we would have lost nothing, because dealerships all over the country are full of cars just like them.
 
rustyratrod said:
the classic car club of america says a classic car is one between 30 to 49 years old. This was my whole point. None of these was a classic car. What made them special? I bet none of you could tell the difference in any of the cars that fell in the hole to some of their sister cars runnin around everyday. They all look the same. They are all newer vehicles. Imo they are like a hyundai. They are nothing special because there are so many made and they all look alike. Plus, they aren't even classics. Just like if they had been brand new challengers, we would have lost nothing, because dealerships all over the country are full of cars just like them.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!!:cheers:
 
There's a big difference between a 'collectible car' and a 'classic car'.

Here is a quote directly from the Classic Car Club of America website concerning what the club considers a 'classic car':

"CCCA Approved Classics

The Classic Car Club of America defines a Classic as a “Fine” or “Distinctive” automobile, American or foreign built, produced between 1925* and 1948. Generally, a Classic was high-priced when new and was built in limited quantities. Other factors, including engine displacement, custom coachwork and luxury accessories, such as power brakes, power clutch, and “one-shot” or automatic lubrication systems, help determine whether a car is considered to be a Classic."

The list of cars can be found here:

http://www.classiccarclub.org/grand_classics/approved_classics.html

FYI, there are no Dodges or Plymouths on the list, and not too many Chryslers. However, a few Fiat models made the list. lol :D

The Corvettes in the museum were 'collectible cars', not classics.

Dallas
 
Poor choice of words on my part...only one was a classic,the Black 62. Don't care what you say, losing the 1 millionth and the 1.5 millionth Corvette produced is a loss to the car culture in general no matter if you can tell it from the 100th one or not. You don't think it's a big loss so be it. I think it's a loss to the over all car culture is all I'm trying to say.
 
Back in Time said:
Don't care what you say, losing the 1 millionth and the 1.5 millionth Corvette produced is a loss to the car culture in general no matter if you can tell it from the 100th one or not. You don't think it's a big loss so be it. I think it's a loss to the over all car culture is all I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
Dallas
 
Funny you left this part out.

A classic car is an older automobile; the exact definition varies around the world. The Classic Car Club of America maintains that a car must be between 30 and 49 years old to be a classic, while cars between 50 and 99 fall into a pre-antique class, and cars 100 years and older fall into the Antique Class. In the UK, 'classic cars' range from veteran (pre–First World War), to vintage (1919–1930), to post-vintage (1930s). Post–Second World War classic cars are not so precisely defined.


MOBodyman said:
There's a big difference between a 'collectible car' and a 'classic car'.

Here is a quote directly from the Classic Car Club of America website concerning what the club considers a 'classic car':

"CCCA Approved Classics

The Classic Car Club of America defines a Classic as a “Fine” or “Distinctive” automobile, American or foreign built, produced between 1925* and 1948. Generally, a Classic was high-priced when new and was built in limited quantities. Other factors, including engine displacement, custom coachwork and luxury accessories, such as power brakes, power clutch, and “one-shot” or automatic lubrication systems, help determine whether a car is considered to be a Classic."

The list of cars can be found here:

http://www.classiccarclub.org/grand_classics/approved_classics.html

FYI, there are no Dodges or Plymouths on the list, and not too many Chryslers. However, a few Fiat models made the list. lol :D

The Corvettes in the museum were 'collectible cars', not classics.

Dallas
Click to expand...
 
RustyRatRod said:
Funny you left this part out.

A classic car is an older automobile; the exact definition varies around the world. The Classic Car Club of America maintains that a car must be between 30 and 49 years old to be a classic, while cars between 50 and 99 fall into a pre-antique class, and cars 100 years and older fall into the Antique Class. In the UK, 'classic cars' range from veteran (pre–First World War), to vintage (1919–1930), to post-vintage (1930s). Post–Second World War classic cars are not so precisely defined.
Click to expand...

I guess either I'm blind or it's too late. I went to the Classic Car Club of America website to get their definition of a 'classic car' and found the part I quoted. The reason I looked it up was I had never heard anyone define a classic as you quoted "the classic car club of america says a classic car is one between 30 to 49 years old" and I was curious about that. I also clicked on the Wikipedia link you quoted above and STILL didn't see it :banghead: I guess I'll look again later. Anyway I was agreeing with what you said that none of the Corvettes were 'classic cars'.
Dallas
 
I like the 62 and am glad it will survive. Is it just me or does it look like the ones that are worth the most got killed the worst?
 
mopar jimmie said:
Is it just me or did they look better in the hole ?
Click to expand...

Well, the pics of them in the hole didn't look to be as bad as they look now, you're right. Perhaps we couldn't see the amount of damage, perhaps the rubble was holding them together, and removing them removed the "cast", so to speak.
In any even, yeah, they look worse now than they did in the hole.
 
Or perhaps they got an extra beating on the way out for some reason to collect on insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top