Grand Prix 2+2 - Does Rarity Make It Classic?
 

Thought this was an interesting article to pose a question to you all, fellow Pontiac enthusiasts! If this is the wrong place, please move :)

Do you think the Grand Prix 2+2 is a classic car? Does rarity alone make a car a classic?

Looks like a Monte Carlo to me with slightly different nose -tail.
Weird looking vehicle IMO.
"Classic" has more to do with sales volume IMO.
With the anemic Pontiac 301./
To each his own.
https://static1.hotcarsimages.com/wo...&w=750&dpr=1.5
https://static1.hotcarsimages.com/wo...&w=750&dpr=1.5

Thanks for the correction.

Didn't like it at the time it came out, but not too bad looking today :)

I thought that the term Classic had more to do with age than rarity... Otherwise, many electric cars are 'Classics' as soon as they roll off the production line.

Not a classic. Pontiac really dropped the ball here

Just tink, the 301s are more muscle than the 4.6L in the big Towncars. G-body 301 cars seem to make HP....

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/s...ound%7C875:492
Weird

I keep seeing the term Aerocoupe what is an Aerocoupe? I see it now on various sites in connection with just about any year coupe early 60s to the present.

"Classic" is in the eye of the beholder. Everything is a classic. Saw a yellow Gremlin with a Levi's interior advertised as a "classic " recently. Also a Yugo GV cabriolet advertised as a "classic collectible" in Hemmings. You get the picture.

It's the slanted/bubble rear window. I'm not sure about the 2+2 but the Monte Carlo SS Aerocoupe is option Z16 and shows up as a N/C item on the window sticker. Years ago I had an '87 Aerocoupe, I probably should have kept it. lol

The rare one is the '86 SS Aerocoupe as they only built 200 and all were white with Burgandy interiors.

Mike

It will never be in the same class as a 1969 Trans Am, Judge or early Super Duty but I can see where it has value to some collectors and good ones will increase in value. Restoring one will probably be difficult, the aftermarket companies probably won't be interested in reproducing parts for them (if you find one with a broken rear window, probably better forget about it.)

The Pontiac GP 2+2, and Chevy Monte Carlo Aerocoupe were GM's response to Ford's Thunderbird, which was kicking ass on the tracks of NASCAR. Especially the #9 Coors Thunderbird driven by Bill Elliott. Richard Petty raced a 2+2, and Dale Earnhardt Sr raced a MC Aerocoupe.

Back in the day my sister and her husband owned a succession of economy cars - a Pinto, followed by a Levis Gremlin and then two Yugos. :) The Yugos turned out to be surprisingly good cars; they were very cheaply built but they were reliable for them at least. One time my niece managed to put one of them in the ditch and rolled it, they flipped it back on its wheels, drove it home and used it for a couple more years. I actually liked the Gremlin, it had a blue exterior along with the Levis interior and had a three speed on the floor. it was fun to drive, I could see owning one today. Swap in an AMC 390 or 401 engine and it would be even more fun.

I remember when the Gremlin first came out I was 12 or 13.. I wanted one.. I somehow thought it was the right size for me.....lol
Actually I still like them with the Rally wheels.
The Pacer was a different story, although on that rare occasion when I see a clean one today there is a cool factor for me.
Classics?.... Yeah, I would say so based on a combination of age first and rarity second.

Of course you did, I mean YOU wrote that article.

There isn't anything really wrong with sharing it,
but first impressions are important, Jim. Sneaky.

The 2+2/Aero Coupe Monte Carlo were the same idea as the Torino Talladega, Plymouth Super Bird Road Runner, Dodge Daytona Charger, Mercury Cyclone spoiler in the 69/70 model years. These cars were all cosidered ugly when built, sold very poorly. They had a sloped front end, and some type of rear aero spoiler to be an advanage on NASCAR superspeedways where aero was just as important as HP.

NASCAR said any of these body styles had to be available for sale to the general public as street cars, as well as they had to build a minimum of 500 copies. Therein lies the reason that these cars were limited production numbers. As has been said limited production, doesn't automatically make a car desireable.

The Daytona Chargers/ Plymouth Superbirds sat on dealer lots for sometimes a year, or more, before they sold finally. The factory alloted them to major dealers, and they had to take their allotment, like it or not. Back in the day they were sold at around cost, because most customers disliked the looks of them, plus with all the limited production parts they used, they were priced higher than the conventional street cars.

In the case of the 2+2 they did at least use a V8 engine, but it was the low HP base engine, not even an H/O engine.

Evidentially at the time GM was willing to build these cars to satify their NASCAR engineers, in an effort to keep GM competitive.

Before Petty Jumped ship to GM, chrysler threw the 78-79 Magnum out to try to keep Petty cars up front in a chrysler car. The Magnum was mediocre, and Petty went over to GM.

:2cents:

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.

My 1949 Cadillac Series 75 factory limo is too 'new' to be a classic. It meets the 'fine or distinctive', 'high value' and 'top quality" at the time of manufacture portions, but it's 1 year too new.

The term 'classic' is so misused today when people consider almost anything over 20 years old to be a 'classic'.

As to the GP 2+2 - to me it's a very desirable car, a collectible car, but not a classic.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.