Vehicular Geekery Thread

[Burninator]

I agree with Table. A sports car isn't just about horsepower and 0-60 speeds. A lot of North American cars put up good numbers for both of those but can't take a turn (last generation Mustang for one, not sure about the current). Not fair to put something in a category of sports car when it handles poorly and leave out something like a Miata that is lower in the power spectrum but out handles the other.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I beg to differ. The Miata has all the traits of a great sports car....RWD, light weight, two seater, 50/50 weight distribution. While I love it, the GTI really has none of that. Personally, I think handling, and the feeling it gives you while driving it, is the most important characteristics of a sports car, even if a Camry could beat you off the line.

By no mean official, but I guess for me it sort of goes like this....

1. Sporty - cars that have some appropriate aesthetics, but not much performance (ie, the Veloster, or Civic Si). Might just be something with racing stripes and a spoiler.

2. Sports - Typically RWD or AWD cars that are built from the ground up to be able to drive spiritedly. Can vary vastly in performance of course. (Miata, M3, Cayman, Boxter, Mustang, Corvette etc).

It's hard to say where a GTI would fit in....probably Sporty or Sports depending on the generation and your setup. For most I would lean towards Sporty....

I agree with your definitions of Supercar, Hypercar and Racecar.

I would split category 1 & 2 (Sporty & Sports) into three categories...Peppy, Sporty and Sports.

The cars you listed in your Sporty category (Veloster, Civic SI) would go in my Peppy Category.

I know why you put Miata in with those other cars (M3, Cayman, Boxter, Mustang...) because it is apparently very fun to drive and the automotive press does it all the time. I think that puts it at the top of my Sporty category (along with the GTI), but in my view it's not a Sports car. Being fun/exhilarating shouldn't bump you up a category, it can just make you do well within your category.

I mean seriously, a moped is fun to drive to, but that doesn't make it a motorcycle. The Miata, while fun to drive, does not belong in the same category as an M3, and while I know you love the twisties, 0-60 is an excellent measure of performance. Not the only one, but it c'mon, you can't call a car that runs to 100 km/h at the same rate as an F-150 a sports car.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I know why you put Miata in with those other cars (M3, Cayman, Boxter, Mustang...) because it is apparently very fun to drive and the automotive press does it all the time. I think that puts it at the top of my Sporty category (along with the GTI), but in my view it's not a Sports car. Being fun/exhilarating shouldn't bump you up a category, it can just make you do well within your category.

I mean seriously, a moped is fun to drive to, but that doesn't make it a motorcycle. The Miata, while fun to drive, does not belong in the same category as an M3, and while I know you love the twisties, 0-60 is an excellent measure of performance. Not the only one, but it c'mon, you can't call a car that runs to 100 km/h at the same rate as an F-150 a sports car.

In that case, there are a lot of 70s/80s Ferraris that aren't sports cars.

I think the "sports" category is a very wide one...which is why it's a little hard to classify sometimes. I can see why some wouldn't call it that, but to me it has almost all the characteristics of a great one. And considering it's been around for 2 decades now without much changes shows how popular it's been with enthusiasts. Sporty or Peppy cars tend not to have that kind of following.

[woob]

2010 Mazda Miata: 0-60 - 6.6
2010 Porsche Boxster: 0-60 5.8
2010 Porsche Cayman: 0-60 5.9

2010 Ford F-150: 0-60 - 7.9

Pretty respectable, if you ask me.

[You Need a Thneed]

Sooo, does my Rondo fit it the supercar or Hypercar category?

[woob]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Sooo, does my Rondo fit it the supercar or Hypercar category?

I believe that's the paperbag category:

[burn_this_city]

The myth that American cars can't corner isn't true, most of the modern muscle cars will pull 0.9gs on the skid pad.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Table 5

In that case, there are a lot of 70s/80s Ferraris that aren't sports cars.

I think the "sports" category is a very wide one...which is why it's a little hard to classify sometimes. I can see why some wouldn't call it that, but to me it has almost all the characteristics of a great one. And considering it's been around for 2 decades now without much changes shows how popular it's been with enthusiasts. Sporty or Peppy cars tend not to have that kind of following.

By today's standards, no, 70s/80s Ferraris aren't sports cars.

VW Bugs are really popular too...that doesn't make them sports cars.

[woob]

Originally Posted by sliver

by my standards, no, 70s/80s ferraris aren't sports cars.

fyp.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by woob

2010 Mazda Miata: 0-60 - 6.6
2010 Porsche Boxster: 0-60 5.8
2010 Porsche Cayman: 0-60 5.9

2010 Ford F-150: 0-60 - 7.9

Pretty respectable, if you ask me.

That's respectable for sure. I don't think it's a sports car, but it's certainly peppy.

Depends on the F-150 you pick for your comparison. Here's one that does 0-60 in 6.3.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Sliver

By today's standards, no, 70s/80s Ferraris aren't sports cars.

VW Bugs are really popular too...that doesn't make them sports cars.

Originally Posted by woob

fyp.

I think I should rephrase my point on that. 70s/80s Ferraris were sports cars in the 70s/80s. To ask, "are 70s/80s Ferraris sports cars" isn't easy to answer without changing the question. I think a better answer than the one I previously gave is they certainly were at the time, but compared to today's sports cars they fall short in every possible way.

EDIT: Okay, I may not have rephrased my answer at all, but I'm glad to have had this opportunity to say what I wanted twice.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think I should rephrase my point on that. 70s/80s Ferraris were sports cars in the 70s/80s. To ask, "are 70s/80s Ferraris sports cars" isn't easy to answer without changing the question. I think a better answer than the one I previously gave is they certainly were at the time, but compared to today's sports cars they fall short in every possible way.

EDIT: Okay, I may not have rephrased my answer at all, but I'm glad to have had this opportunity to say what I wanted twice.

A car doesn't cease to be a sports car just because technology, speeds, etc change. Sure, they cannot compare to today's sports cars, but they are still sports cars regardless. To say that because they can't compare to today's standards that they are not sports cars is a bit silly.

According to Wikipedia:

A sports car (or sportscar or sport car) is a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for high speed driving and maneuverability.[1] Sports cars have been either spartan or luxurious, but good handling, minimum weight, and high performance are requisite.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by woob

A car doesn't cease to be a sports car just because technology, speeds, etc change. Sure, they cannot compare to today's sports cars, but they are still sports cars regardless. To say that because they can't compare to today's standards that they are not sports cars is a bit silly.

According to Wikipedia:

high performance are requisite

Ferraris from the 70s/80s aren't high performance using today's standards. It seems to me your Wiki quote validated my point more than yours.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Ferraris from the 70s/80s aren't high performance using today's standards. It seems to me your Wiki quote validated my point more than yours.

Curious, how do you define 'today's standards' with respects to sports cars?

Edit - Just for reference a Ferrari Daytona with a DOHC V12 will do 174mph and 0-60 in 5.4sec. Is that not high performance?

[Sliver]

Fast?

[woob]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fast?

Oh sorry. Didn't realize 174 mph wasn't fast, nor 0-60 in 5.4. Faster than a Cayman or Boxster. Or are those just 'peppy'?
Another one for you:

Ferrari 288 GTO (loved this car when I was growing up)
The GTO was an impressive performer with 0-60 mph times in the upper 4 second range. Top speed was 189 mph (304 km/h), making it the first street-legal production car to reach 300 km/h (186 mph).

[Sliver]

Dude, you're picking the most insane examples every time. Of course that's fast. (not to mention you edited that example in after my post to make it look like I was saying that wasn't fast)

Look at a 1976 Corvette with a 0-60 of 8.8 seconds and compare it to a modern Corvette. Is this honestly news to you that modern cars are faster and handle better than their 1970s/80s equivalents barring very few exceptions?

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dude, you're picking the most insane examples every time. Of course that's fast. (not to mention you edited that example in after my post to make it look like I was saying that wasn't fast)

You said 70s/80s Ferraris, by today's standards, are not high performance/sports cars. I provided you with two 70s/80s Ferraris.

[Sliver]

Seriously I'm not going to keep arguing this with you if you keep editing your posts so it makes my subsequent posts look idiotic.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by woob

You said 70s/80s Ferraris, by today's standards, are not high performance/sports cars. I provided you with two 70s/80s Ferraris.

Yes, it was very helpful of you to edit in two examples after I posted.