Foo - sport car drivers

what is the definition of a sports car to you

Fun to drive.

Excellent handling and braking, good power to weigh ratio.

Excellent handling and braking, good power to weigh ratio.

And two seats, more and the car risks being a sports sedan.

valid point

Manual transmission. Automatic just doesn't count.

or the back seats have to be really inconvenient
my stealth and 240sx had back seats. in theory

what is the definition of a sports car to you

Any two seater made before 1980, Austin Healey 3000, Jensen Healey, MGB, TR6, MG TD, Morgan, TR4, Austin Sprite, 240Z, Cobra, Mercedes 190SL, Mercedes Gullwing, Sunbeam Tiger......

I've got a a Jeep XJ Sport. Does that count? :p

I've got a a Jeep XJ Sport. Does that count? :p

I don't know, can you autocross it? :D

And two seats, more and the car risks being a sports sedan.

Real sports cars don't have cup holders. So I have been told.

Sports car? No such thing. Driving isn't a sport. :rolleyes:

Real sports cars don't have cup holders. So I have been told.

2 seater, no cup holders...
http://images.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/112_news060628_01z+daimler_chrysler_smart_car+passenger_side_view.jpg

Sports car? No such thing. Driving isn't a sport. :rolleyes:

It is the way I do it. :D

2 seater, no cup holders...
http://images.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/112_news060628_01z+daimler_chrysler_smart_car+passenger_side_view.jpg

Winner, we have a "Real Sports Car" :D

2 seater, no cup holders...
http://images.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/112_news060628_01z+daimler_chrysler_smart_car+passenger_side_view.jpg

Sports not Sporty

We have a brand new Smart car dealer in my town. Their quite cute.

Mercedes S class, with long wheelbase.

something sleek, sexy and plush that sits nice and low with a manual transmission and more than enough horses under the hood to get me there faster than what I want.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/top10/05.least.expensive.convertibles/05.honda.s2000.500.jpg

1. rear wheel drive.

important for specific handling tendencies. as wonderful as the Honda ITR and Subaru WRX are, they're not sports cars. sorry.

2. two seats.

more for aesthetic and philosophical reasons, really. a four seater doesn't have the frivolity a sports car really needs. occasional seating can be o.k., though - i.e., a 2+2 where the rear seats are suitable only for small children and amputees. but even that's pushing it most times.

3. better-than-average handling, braking, and acceleration.

this is for the time of the vehicle's production, mind: an Austin-Healey BN2 is a nigh-perfect example of a sports car (particularly in 100M or 100S guise), but would be laughable if introduced today. also notice no mention of top speed - while a high top speed may be a plus, handling and braking are much more important, with acceleration a close third.

4. light weight.

again, this is relative. a modern sports car will often weigh more than a sedan from the fifties; there's lots of reasons for this. but it's still lighter than the current crop of sedans. for example (though i really don't think the Corvette is a sports car anymore), the 2008 Corvette only weighs 100 pounds less than a 1955 Chevy Bel Air V8. the 1956 Corvette (which definitely was a sports car) weighs almost 600 pounds less than a 1955 Bel Air (which is also about how much less the 2008 'vette weighs than a 2008 Impala).

this light weight helps a sports car have the better handling, braking and acceleration that is expected of the type.

5. attractive styling.

this is highly subjective, and there have been ugly sports cars, but ideally a sports car should be pleasing to the eye. the seating rule affects this as well, leading to the usual sports car body styles. most common are coupes and drop head coupes, though convertibles and shooting brakes may be acceptable. bonus points for roadsters.

6. performance doesn't make it a sports car.

pony cars, sport sedans, super cars, muscle cars, sport compacts, GT's, hot hatches: these are not sports cars. while they may be (and often are) excellent vehicles, they embody compromises in almost every case that removes them from the sports car category.

so, some examples:

1936-1939 MG TA
1953-1955 Triumph TR2
1955-1969 Mercedes-Benz 300SL
1956-1959 BMW 507
1957-1972 Lotus 7
1966-1969 Alfa Romeo Duetto Spider
1970-1973 Nissan/Datsun 240Z
1989-1997 Mazda Miata
2000-current Honda S2000

some cars that are not sports cars:

Bugatti Veyron (super car)
McLaren F1 (super car)
Ford Mustang (pony car)
Chevrolet Camaro (pony car)
Mazda 323 GTX (hot hatch)
Peugeot 205 GTi (hot hatch)
Pontiac GTO (muscle car)
Dodge Charger (muscle car)

Manual transmission. Automatic just doesn't count.

A stick with a clutch. Gotta be specific. None of that sequential manual crap (BMW SMG, Ferrari F1, etc.).

3. better-than-average handling, braking, and acceleration.
6. performance doesn't make it a sports car.


I think you mean "absolute performance doesn't make it a sports car." It's not about having the greatest acceleration or top speed.

Edit: Oh sorry, that wasn't exactly your point, but this is an addendum relating to supercars.

I think a good modern example you left out is the Lotus Elise/Exige.

1: 300 hp or better.
2: Ability to go down curvy roads like RR 2222 at 55-60 mph without ramming the cliff face or flying off the embankment.
3: Ability to get past the redneck in the pickup beside you and gunning it when lanes abruptly end due to construction.
4: Ability to stop quickly enough to handle a drunk who just hit a guard rail on one side of the highway, bounced across the median, and is now in oncoming traffic.
5: Ability to avoid various pieces of equipment dropping off of construction vehicles, be it ladders, or spools of random wiring.
6: Crashworthiness to be able to survive a collision with the above 2-5 if the driver's timing is off.

Where do these fall?

Porsche 911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porche_911)
XKE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xke)
BMW 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_2002)
RX-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8)
Karmann Ghia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Karmann_Ghia)
Carver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6vx98DjcVc&feature=related)

2 seater, built to handle and go fast, manual transmission, RWD, Positraction,

Where do these fall?

Porsche 911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porche_911)
XKE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xke)
BMW 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_2002)
RX-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8)
Karmann Ghia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Karmann_Ghia)
Carver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6vx98DjcVc&feature=related)

depends on one's point of view.

i think until the 964, most 911s were sports cars, with some sliding into GT territory. but with the 964, the faster cars were true super cars and the slower were solid GTs.

the 6-cylinder XKE was a sports car, except for the 2+2. that was an abomination. the V12s are GTs.

the 2002 is tricky. i'd call it a sports sedan, particularly in tii or turbo guise. similar in concept to the Lotus Cortina, i think.

the RX-8 is a sport sedan.

the Karmann Ghia is a sports car, if barely. though underpowered and with uninspiring handling, it's not that dissimilar in concept (or execution, really) from a lot of the British classics. take well-developed sedan mechanicals and wrap a pretty body around it. that's the MGA and MGB to a "t."

like Hamster said on Top Gear, the Carver is "a sort of a bike thing." the performance is kind of pitiful, i think. though i've not been lucky enough to have driven one (i think they only came to market last year). i guess it could be a sports car, but it strikes me more as a modern Isetta or Messerschmidt KR175/200.

A stick with a clutch. Gotta be specific. None of that sequential manual crap (BMW SMG, Ferrari F1, etc.).

+1, those are actually worse than full automatic IMO.

To me:
- Sports cars: 911, Corvette, Viper, Lotus, perhaps the discontinued Supra turbo, etc.
- Not quite there: RX-8, S2k, Camero, Mustangs, etc.
- More of a sports sedan or sports luxury car: BMW M, Skyline, MB SL
- Supercars: Porsche GT, MB SLR, Lamborghini's and higher-end Ferrari's

Any rental car.


OK, so they just get driven like a sports car... :p

Any rental car.


OK, so they just get driven like a sports car... :p

LOL, my "economy" rental car in Germany one time was an Audi A4 diesel that I maxed out on the Autobahn. :D

LOL, my "economy" rental car in Germany one time was an Audi A4 diesel that I maxed out on the Autobahn. :D

My economy rental one time was a chevette that I maxed out just getting out of the parking lot :eek: :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/wethepeople101/102_2318.jpg

Not the bike.

- RWD or a well executed AWD, with minimal (or dynamic) torque allocation to the front
- Manual
- Tuned (stiffer) suspension, preferably adjustable
- Either larger than average displacement or highly tuned engine

The way I see it, there are three main categories of high performance cars

-sports cars (production cars, comfort amenities sometimes sacrificed)
-grand tourers (production cars, comfort not sacrificed)
-supercars (limited production, often luxurious)

what is the definition of a sports car to you

fast and sexy

fast and sexy

like a fun date. :D

depends on one's point of view.

i think until the 964, most 911s were sports cars, with some sliding into GT territory. but with the 964, the faster cars were true super cars and the slower were solid GTs.

the 6-cylinder XKE was a sports car, except for the 2+2. that was an abomination. the V12s are GTs.

the 2002 is tricky. i'd call it a sports sedan, particularly in tii or turbo guise. similar in concept to the Lotus Cortina, i think.

the RX-8 is a sport sedan.

the Karmann Ghia is a sports car, if barely. though underpowered and with uninspiring handling, it's not that dissimilar in concept (or execution, really) from a lot of the British classics. take well-developed sedan mechanicals and wrap a pretty body around it. that's the MGA and MGB to a "t."

like Hamster said on Top Gear, the Carver is "a sort of a bike thing." the performance is kind of pitiful, i think. though i've not been lucky enough to have driven one (i think they only came to market last year). i guess it could be a sports car, but it strikes me more as a modern Isetta or Messerschmidt KR175/200.

I agree with you right down the line, 'cept the 2002. It and the original Mini Cooper I think of as sports cars. They are among a small subset that are the exception to my ideals.

like a fun date. :D

I wouldn't know.

:p

I think for me, I have a couple models I consider sports cars, and remotely within reach of what I'd afford.

RX-8
Camaro (2009)
Mustang
Corvette
Maxima SE
BMW 1 series

Most likely, it would be the Mustang or Camaro, if I couldn't afford a Corvette -- I grew up around American sports cars.

There are vehicles I miss from childhood though, for example a '66 Grand Prix which could leave a 20 foot swath of hard black rubber you can feel when you could walk on afterwards. There is something about those old 6mpg battleships.

I agree with you right down the line, 'cept the 2002. It and the original Mini Cooper I think of as sports cars. They are among a small subset that are the exception to my ideals.

and that's the problem with the 2002. unlike most classic sports cars, it's "just" the coupe variant of the New Class car. so it misses some of the styling points. the very upright greenhouse doesn't help much here.

i could go either way on the Beemer, really. it's just it screams "sedan" to me when i look at it. like i said, Lotus Cortina.

and i can't call the Mini Coop a sports car either - progenitor of the hot hatch and modern sport compact, definitely. it's still a sedan, however tiny. and the FWD layout's a downer.

fun, fun, fun though. we've got several in the customer base at the shop, everything from 60's vintage Mk Is to late 90's Mk VIIs. the Mk VIIs are strange. it's still recogniseably a Mini, but they fire on the first crank and run without a stutter, hot or cold.

my favourite is the Mk II Cooper that's been fully race prepped (full cage, fixed buckets, six-point harnesses, suspension kit, DCOE carb, hot cam, etc.) that the owner drives daily. it's also got a full-length Webasto top, which makes it even more bonkers...

I've been lucky to have several cars that meet at least a loose definition of sports car:

Toyota MR2 (1st generation) - great handling, wonderful car on the race track - as long as the front straight wasn't too long. Underpowered, but it handles so well that you didn't care. Just don't lift in a corner - it will spin like a top! Not quite as hairy as an early 911, it still took some skill to drive it to its limits.

Alfa GTV6 - great engine in search of a great car. For some reason, the front end of the US spec ones was at least an inch higher than the Euro ones - the US spec cars understeered like a Buick. Once the front end was returned to where it should have been all along, it handled as well as any car I've driven from the 1980's. The interior looked like a poorly assembled kit car's, even with leather Recaros.

1965 MG Midget - my current project. Has the larger, 1967 spec 1275cc engine, wire wheels (PITA), lowered all around. After a lot of work and a fair amount of $ (at least compared to what the car is worth), it might actually keep up with an early Miata now. Still, a huge amount of fun - as long as you don't get stuck in traffic amongst the Hummers and Suburbans. It's so small, you can carve a racing line through the corners without coming close to leaving your lane. I'm setting it up so it will be legal for vintage racing - not sure if I'll ever take it racing though.

Plus, I was lucky enough to drive some others' cars in anger:

late 1980's 300zx - ordinarily this is like an anti-sportcar - supersoft suspension, mostly concerned about the image. However the V6 is a very robust engine - and a friend race-prepped one for the ITS class in SCCA. Unbelievably fast, it held track records across the northeast for several years. The factory may not have chosen to tune it for speed, but the basic car underneath had a world of potential.

1992 Mazda Miata - speed wise, it was matched very well with the 1st gen MR2. Great handling, could have used more power. Great steering, shifter - they nailed the basics. I was a bit surprised by one difference in feel from the MR2 - you sit kind of down and much further back in the Miata (the MR2 is midengined).

1985 911 - one of the british car magazines summarized this car perfectly - just the right size, with just enough power. Other than a shifter that seemed to get lost sometimes, I really really liked this car.

All of those with the exception of the 300zx meet my definition of sports car, despite being very different to drive. With a bit (not a lot) of work, all do very well on a race track and can surprise some very expensive cars when well driven. To me, that's the crux of it - how much more fun is it than the average car you could buy for the same kind of $? And yes, that's completely subjective. And yes, on the basis current Porsches probably fail.

JB

1: 300 hp or better.So the Lotus Elise isn't a sports car? :)

You can't really put a horsepower floor on calculations like this. Power-to-weight ratio is much more important, as is handling and braking, as has been mentioned.

I agree with a lot of other posters in the thread. A sports car generally has:

Two seats (Even if four seats are present, there cannot be four doors. That's a sports/sporty sedan).
A low-slung chassis.
No-frills interior that fits like a glove.
Manual (clutch-n-stick) transmission.
Rear- or all-wheel drive.
Engine in the middle, front, or rear, in that order of preference. (Porsche aside, as they've got the rear-engine thing down pat.)
Exterior in red, yellow, or black. ;)


Also, in my opinion, a sports car should be fairly rough, raw, and unrefined. Not a "luxury car that can go fast."

So completely NOT a sports car:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:PDXadkS7OgmZ8M:http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1950-1959/1958-BMW-Isetta-300-Coupe-Green-PO.jpg


So very definitely a sports car:
http://www.mgcars.org.uk/pics/MGA-MKII.JPG

2 doors, back seat is alright if they are small and generally undesirable to use. Manual transmision which consists over "Hi", "Low", and "Reverse". 900 pound Li-Ion battery pack. 248HP peak 3ph AC motor.
Lastly, full torque at the lowest speeds.

My first car was a '72 MGB. dual carbs, two-seater, rag-top. When it ran, it was a sports car (I learned why the British drink their beer warm---Lukas Electric manufactured the starters, and the alternators for th MG's. It also had tow 6-volt batteries in tandem. But yep, it was a sprts car. hell, I would invent reasons to put the top down when I drove. British Racing Green with tan interior...AM radio, too.

Tim C.

This is a Sports Car....
http://www.pignetwork.com/ford%20gt.jpg

Low,Fast,Black,Loud.

Alfa GTV6 - great engine in search of a great car. For some reason, the front end of the US spec ones was at least an inch higher than the Euro ones - the US spec cars understeered like a Buick. Once the front end was returned to where it should have been all along, it handled as well as any car I've driven from the 1980's. The interior looked like a poorly assembled kit car's, even with leather Recaros.

you'd like one of our long-term project cars at the shop. we're doing an engine swap in a GTV6 - the owner ran the original 2.5 low on oil and burned it up, so we're transplanting a 24v 3.0 from a 164 QV. 270 hp vs. 160 hp - i can't wait to test drive it when done.

i'm a fan of the first generation MR2 as well - and while the standard version wasn't particularly powerful, the SC was nicely nippy. the stiffer body shell of the SC model made a rather large difference in handling, too.

.. anything that is tossable in the turns, an able to power out of the turns..
beemers feel dead when driven all out .. an there is so many electronic gizmos.. that make idiot drivers into feel like pro drivers...
i pefer mr2 turbo sw20 or mk1 .. s2000 ..
or the street legal Lotus Exige S... feels like a go Kart

http://www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/top10/05.least.expensive.convertibles/05.honda.s2000.500.jpg

It's grandmothers. (Proof that many a fine tune can still be played on an old fiddle) ;)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y214/giantcfr1/CARS%20etc%20in%20Japan/Cars/honda500a.jpg

So the Lotus Elise isn't a sports car? :)

The Elise is most defenitely a sports car-it's just not very fast.

A bone-stock STi will run away from an Elise all day.

The Elise is most definitely a sports car-it's just not very fast.

A bone-stock STi will run away from an Elise all day.

Hmm, are you just talkin' out of your ass here? http://media.scout.com/media/forums/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Some quick research says:

From Car & Driver website:

2007 Lotus Elise

0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds
1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds

Subaru WRX STI (previous model)

0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds
1/4 mile in 13.4 seconds

Anecdotal info says:

http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49093

Hey, what's a good lap time for a stock Elise at Laguna Seca, anyway?

Manly has managed a 1:44.xx on street tires. I did a 1:46.xx my first time there on RA1s. Both otherwise stock. Thats all I know of in terms of lotus times there. It is a great track though, glad you had a good time. Sad to hear of all the carnage.

http://www.tremek.com/forum/subaru-videos/6034-subaru-wrx-sti-laguna-seca.html

Subaru WRX STI @ Laguna Seca

Best Lap: No timing & scoring (video lap times 1:45-1:46)

http://www.corsimusica.com/video/qwLDZ-am0dM/Laguna-Seca-in-the-2008-WRX-STI.html

Laguna Seca in the 2008 WRX STI

With my 06' A4 quattro, I could do a lap around Laguna Seca in 1:56. The STI should be able to do it in 1:45.


Looks like they are in the same ballpark to me.

More stats from Car & Driver:

Elise: 1984 lbs, 190 HP = 10.4 lbs per HP

WRX: 3351 lbs, 293 HP = 11.4 lbs per HP

I suspect that on a tight mountain road, the Elise would rule. Just gotta keep the engine wound up.