Why you can trust Jerry
Jerry partners with some of the companies we write about. However, our content is written and reviewed by an independent team of editors and licensed insurance agents, and never influenced by our partnerships. Learn more baout how we make money, review our editorial standards, reference out data methodology, or view a list of our partners
When you think of a classic car, it's typically a model with a unique design that defined the era. Several classic cars were also heavily featured in films, which contributes to each car's growing popularity even today.
Cheaper classic cars are still a thing, and most of them are still in great condition. However, if you see a deal that's too good to be true, it might be an infamous classic clunker, fit with quickly-rusting parts or disappointingly low horsepower. HotCars provided us with a list of some of the worst classic cars available.
How can a classic car be bad?
Some classic cars were built to be innovators, such as the Pontiac Fiero. It was one of the first responses to consumers desperate for sportier models. It still has a very distinctive design, and its sub-$6,000 price point is definitely a steal on today's used car market.
However, contrary to its athletic design, the Pontiac Fiero only made 92 horsepower. GT models were peppier with 140 horsepower on tap, but both of them were plagued with build quality issues. The Fiero is also famous for having a leaking engine, causing it to catch fire on more than one occasion.
Some classic cars started out strong, but eventually were replaced with worse versions. For example, the old-school Chevy Camaro muscle car definitely has a big fanbase. It generally has an ample amount of horsepower and attractive designs, especially in later generations.
Unfortunately, the 1982 Chevy Camaro got downgraded with the Iron Duke engine. Working up to 60 mph takes a grueling 20 seconds because the engine only produces 90 horsepower. In contrast, the outgoing generation of Camaros could produce up to 175 horsepower.
Do people still buy the worst classic cars?
Some of the most disappointing classic cars are still relevant because they're relatively easy to obtain. Take the Triumph Spitfire, which has an incredibly appealing retro design and only costs $6,800. Unfortunately, it's just as slow as a 1982 Camaro and generates even less horsepower.
Other models, like the Aston Martin DB7, allow drivers to enter the world of luxury cars on a budget. Despite having such a low price tag, the DB7 produces a satisfying 414 horsepower from its capable V12 engine.
Unfortunately, this definitely isn't the kind of Aston Martin you'd find in a Bond movie. The Aston Martin DB7 is cheaply made, so it'll probably break down sooner rather than later. It's also still a luxury car, so repairs and maintenance are typically quite costly.
At some point, every car had its day
Despite its exotic appeal and $3,400 average price, you probably want to avoid a Maserati BiTurbo. It's filled with problems, including electrical issues and extensive corrosion. Even so, it sold many units upon release because it was the first production car with a twin-turbo engine.
Likewise, the MG MGB was one of the most popular British cars of its day because of its sporty handling and stylish exterior. Ultimately, rust and a disappointing engine held it back from any sort of impressive legacy.
Do the "worst" classic cars have higher insurance premiums?
Some classic cars simply have bad reputations simply because of ugly designs and subpar driving performance. However, these aren't the factors that cause them to have lower insurance premiums. Older cars, especially discontinued models, tend to have cheaper coverage options.
If you think you're paying too much for classic car insurance, try signing up with Jerry. A licensed broker that offers end-to-end support, the Jerry app gathers affordable quotes, helps you switch plans, and will even help you cancel your old policy.