[71GP76TA]

IIRC. The Monte Carlo SS had 180hp and the GP 2+2 had 165hp.

[jerry455]

The 2+2 was a one year only car. It had an LG4, 305 4 barrel 165 hp SBC. It had a 200R4 and a 3.08 7 1/2" axle. The Monte SS had the L69 305 HO 4 barrel 180 hp SBC with the similar 200R4 and a 7 5/8" 3.73 axle. The Monte SS came out in 1983 and was made for Chevrolet to win in NASCAR. They later came out with the Aero version in, I think 1986 -maybe 1988. In 1981, when the restyled Regal and Cutlass came out, they had a pretty efficient front end. They were very popular in those years. The Grand Prix had a more vertical grill and probably not as aerodynamic as its sister cars. I liked the front end of the 2+2 but did not care for the back end. I even owned one for a while. The one I liked the best was a GM design car, Burgundy with the 2+2 nose and the standard rear window. It did seem to have a GTA Firebird spoiler on the back. That car has been talked about on PY before.

[Scarebird]

Originally Posted by The Champ

According to the Classic Car Club of America:

“approved Full Classics” must be from between 1915-1948 and a “fine” or “distinctive” automobile of high value or top quality at the time of manufacture.

They don't sound like people worth knowing.

Their parameters exclude such icons as 1901-03 Curved-dash Olds, 1957 T-Birds, 1964/5 Mustangs or 1966 Toronado's, etc.

Classic means a benchmark vehicle, not the most expensive barge offered for a given time.

[turbo69bird]

Anything over 20 years old is technically a classic.

Rare is how many were made a certain way (this can be boiled down way too far) and that coupled with desirability raises value.

It can be rare an undesirable and not be worth much.
It can be desirable but in great supply and not be worth a lot.
When the two of these intersect,
Think RAIV bird. - yenko 427 - real cobra , GT40 , Ferrari Daytona - etc that’s when the price sky rockets. .

These cars had a good reason for being built which helps but the drive train was kind of an anemic in street form unlike the Grand nationals. Or a turbo TA .
Still kind of a cool car though

[Ben M.]

These cars would be awesome if the rear glass had been a hatchback and the trunk been usable. As it is, the trunk is barely existent and it's got a wheezy 305. With some changes to the drivetrain (a 350P or 400P is great, the Buick turbo v6 would have been glorious) and a usable trunk\hatch area people would really like them. Buckets and console and full gauges in a cool looking car that had performance and utility to back it up? Hell yeah. As release? Eh...

[Mr_GTO]

Originally Posted by Ben M.

These cars would be awesome if the rear glass had been a hatchback and the trunk been usable. As it is, the trunk is barely existent and it's got a wheezy 305. With some changes to the drivetrain (a 350P or 400P is great, the Buick turbo v6 would have been glorious) and a usable trunk\hatch area people would really like them. Buckets and console and full gauges in a cool looking car that had performance and utility to back it up? Hell yeah. As release? Eh...

There was one with a 3.8L Turbo for sale near me recently.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by turbo69bird

Anything over 20 years old is technically a classic.

Great!

So a 2003 Ford Focus, a 2003 Chevy Cavalier and a 2003 Toyota Corolla are classics???

They may be eligible for collector plates, but they aren't classics by any common sense definition.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Scarebird

They don't sound like people worth knowing.

Their parameters exclude such icons as 1901-03 Curved-dash Olds, 1957 T-Birds, 1964/5 Mustangs or 1966 Toronado's, etc.

Classic means a benchmark vehicle, not the most expensive barge offered for a given time.

I'm not sure why the year 1915 is a basis in the definition. Maybe it's that the automobile industry was still in it's infancy prior to that.

As to excluding any TBird, Mustang or Toronado - none of them come close to my idea of a classic.

I think what you are describing is a 'Milestone Car'. Both my '64 GTO and and the '49 Cadillac Series 75 are considered Milestone Cars.

"There are 5 Criteria for acceptance of a car as a Certified Milestone Car. The model should be distinctive because of Styling, Engineering, Performance, Innovation, and/or Craftsmanship-relative to their contemporaries. A Blue Ribbon Panel reviews all cars/models nominated by a member in good standing."

Milestone Society Cars include Fords, VW's, Toyotas, AMC's and most other car brands.

http://milestonecarsociety.org/?page_id=9

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by The Champ

Great!

So a 2003 Ford Focus, a 2003 Chevy Cavalier and a 2003 Toyota Corolla are classics???

They may be eligible for collector plates, but they aren't classics by any common sense definition.

Good to know my $500.00, 2000 model Neon qualifies! It does have a larger trunk than an 86 2+2 and is probably about as quick.
"Common Sense" isn't very "common".

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by The Champ

I'm not sure why the year 1915 is a basis in the definition. Maybe it's that the automobile industry was still in it's infancy prior to that.

As to excluding any TBird, Mustang or Toronado - none of them come close to my idea of a classic.

I think what you are describing is a 'Milestone Car'. Both my '64 GTO and and the '49 Cadillac Series 75 are considered Milestone Cars.

"There are 5 Criteria for acceptance of a car as a Certified Milestone Car. The model should be distinctive because of Styling, Engineering, Performance, Innovation, and/or Craftsmanship-relative to their contemporaries. A Blue Ribbon Panel reviews all cars/models nominated by a member in good standing."

Milestone Society Cars include Fords, VW's, Toyotas, AMC's and most other car brands.

http://milestonecarsociety.org/?page_id=9

Well - except the '55, '56 and '57 Chevys are also excluded by that 1915-1948 criteria.

I think most would agree they are the epitome of classic.

It has to be a sliding scale, changing with the times. After all, there was a time when C2 Corvettes were not considered "classic".

In fact, in view of the fact that they were introduced in 1953, by this definition no Corvette would be considered "classic".

K

[Greg Reid]

All of this proves to me that the term is subjective. The Classic Car Club of America has the right to define it according to their criteria for acceptance within their group and that's fine...but it's just that and no more. Their definition for their organization.
The biggest fault with their definition in my opinion is the fixed model years rather than a fixed minimum age and higher.

[Greg Reid]

All of this proves to me that the term is subjective. The Classic Car Club of America has the right to define it according to their criteria for acceptance within their group and that's fine...but it's just that and no more. Their definition for their organization.
The biggest fault with their definition in my opinion is the fixed model years rather than a fixed minimum age and higher.

[GTOnly70]

Originally Posted by The Champ

A Blue Ribbon Panel reviews all cars/models nominated by a member in good standing.

http://milestonecarsociety.org/?page_id=9

Ooooooh!! A Blue Ribbon Panel!!!!!

How does one acquire a blue ribbon to become an undisputed arbiter of what may be considered a classic?

[will slow gto]

Originally Posted by mmarx

but the Monte Carlo SS Aerocoupe is option Z16
Mike

How deflating it would be if someone invited you over to check out their ‘Z16 Chevy’ and the garage door unveils an 80s Monte Carlo and not a 65 SS 396/375 Chevelle?!?

They sure do like to recycle those RPOs

[rolling money pits]

Classic is in the eye of the beholder. I’m sure if I revealed my utter disdain for some “classic” rock songs, I would receive interesting responses.

To the original question, IMO, I would lean towards the 2+2 being a classic. Classic in the sense it was exceptionally limited in production, it’s look, and the reason it’s ( and the Monte’s ) tires ever saw the pavement.

I cannot imagine GM, Ford, etc., today, building a car for the singular reason of making it some race sanctioning body eligible.

In full disclosure, I thought they were stupid and ugly when first produced. I have changed, drastically on that feeling. Like Ed Tom once wisely articulated…age will flatten a man.

[Lightfoot]

The Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 was a limited edition model that was only produced for the 1986 model year. It was designed as a high-performance version of the already popular Grand Prix, with a sleek, aerodynamic body and powerful engine options.

Powerful engine options my foot. The only thing "high-performance" about it were the aero mods, and maybe heavier stabilizer bars.
I remember looking at a new one in the local GM dealer lot. The window sticker had only one extra cost option; The 2+2 package itself, which was five figures.

[TAKerry]

There should be no cross between a 'classic' car and 'The Classic Car Club of America'. The CCCA has a clear definition of acceptable vehicles. Think Duesenburg, 12 cylinder cadillacs and packards, etc. Has nothing to do with other wise pedestrian vehicles.

What is a 'classic' car, I suppose its open to a lot interpretation. I guess the 2+2 could be a classic, and its rare but rarity does not always equal value. I have seen really nice examples for less than 20k. They are not for everyone but def. unique. There was a pretty nice one a few miles down the road from me for quite a few years. I was slightly interested for what it was. But was deep into a restoration. I watched as it slowly deteriorated until one day it was gone. Another example of one in my area, we stopped into a pawn shop as my son is always on the prowel for guitars. I got to talking with the owner and we ended up talking about his 2+2 that was a Richard Petty car. I figured 1. he didnt know what he was talking about, and 2. it was not a real race car. He then started showing me pics and documentation that it was indeed a legit Petty raced vehicle.