[RPM]

To move closer to a working definition that applies to new models (as trying to fashion a rule that applies equally to old Triumphs and new Porsches seems rather impossible) allow me to start:



A sports car has:



1. Rear wheel drive. No further discussion necessary. An Audi TT can never be a sports car.



2. A curbweight of less than 3,100 pounds. Trying to go much lower and you cannot meet any current safety regs - a base 2008 Boxster is 3,009lbs, a 2008 Miata weighs 3,078 lbs (surprised? I was) - so this seems like a good cut off. A weight rule below this would only allow the inclusion of older cars and stripped rockets like the current Lotus cars. But when you look at a classic MGB or TR6, they did not lack for period comfort except in the area of hiproom. I would not want a modern car without power windows, ABS, airbags, or stereo/navigation system options. And in most cases, a manufacturer would not offer such a car due to the small market it would attract (from what I can tell, Lotus dealerships sell more used BMWs than they do Elises and Exiges!).



3. A removable/foldable/roof... or no roof. On this I agree completely with Flash. Sports cars are convertibles - for both style, weight, driving experience, and center of balance reasons.



4. Some power to weight equation that I don't want to bother with the math to determine. Necessary to eliminate cars that fit the other rules, but are slow. Clearly not an option! This rule will also have to apply strictly to the manufacturer's original power number, as the addition of aftermarket equipment should not move a car into the sports car category.



I am going to avoid a rule on engine location, as I think Boxsters, Elises, and '57 Speedsters are all clearly sports cars. A Corvair Monza convertible was/is probably a sports car. I will concur that a 911 has probably always been a GT car, along with the 944/968 series - even cabrios, though under these proposed rules 968 and 911 cabs do qualify. Perhaps rule #4 needs a fairly careful power/weight equation.



And by the way, under these suggested rules a Carrera GT is a sports car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i agree with almost everything



while hard to find, the weight is still a no-go for me - screw the safety stuff - it isn't a legal requirement for limited production vehicles, so leave it on the shelf - same for power anything like seats, windows, and steering (i'll give in on brakes) - it can be done and is being done - it just isn't common anymore



the carrera is clearly an exotic, like a ferrari - way too much technology and engineering that makes stand in a league of its own away from the ideal of a sportscar, which is simplicity



i want to qualify the other cars listed, but when you think of driving them, and then try to compare them to an early british sportscar, truly the benchmark for such a definition, they just don't seem to quite fit - the elise is awfully close though - i want to put the speedster there, but it is too close to the GT model - calling it a sportscar would be the same as calling a stripped out mclaren mustang a sportscar



i think the thing missing here is the "primitive" nature that true sportscar should embody - when you get out after a 3 hour romp, you should be beat to death and exhausted, but with an ear to ear grin - i sure can't see that in a boxster - it's just too plush and cushy



am i explaining this at all well?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RPM]

Except that a '65 MGB was not primitive - for the time. It had leather, wood, a stereo, glovebox, heater, etc., etc.. There really is not much in terms of appointments between it and, say a '65 Pontiac. Except of course that it is much smaller and lighter. MG and Triumph were not going for bare-bones, just small.



I also think anything we discuss must pass safety regs... otherwise it is not actually a car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

leather bits, yes, but mostly vinyl - the wood was only the wheel - it was mono radio, with the speaker in the center - the glovebox required a key to open - the heater was about as effective as a mouse breathing on your foot - it leaked like a sieve............need i go on?



a 65 pontiac had a power top, power windows available, air conditioning, power seats, aluminum wheels, posi, power steering, power brakes, and a ton of other stuff



i completely disagree about the safety regs - i hate that nonsense - if you are worried about your kids, leave them at home - i'll take harnesses over all those air bags and bumpers any day of the week and twice on sunday - there are cars being sold new today that do not require the safety gear - they are just limited production - the beck is a good example



but again, this is the difference between a true sports car (which is really a race car with street tires and a radio) and a GT or roadster - that was the beauty of how they used to build cars



i long for stock car races to be actually STOCK CARS, like when petty flew the big dodges around - that was actually a car you could go and buy



but those danged marketing guys.................

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Interesting discussion - Flash has done a rermarkably good job of defining the nearly undefiinable. My only quibbles with his criteria are the engine location, and to a lesser extent, the soft top. I'd be hard pressed to not include the Fiat X-19, Lancia Scrpion (anyone remember those? - Wait, silly me, Flash has probably owned three of them <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ), Porsche 914, and of course the Elise, as true sports cars.



But sticking to the listed criteria, how about a vote for the car that best embodies the virtues of a true sports car? I'll go first. I vote for the Lotus Elan. When I was in college in the late '70's and early 80's, I lusted after one of those, preferably a '72, but being the pre-internet era, I simply couldn't find one, so I ended up with a '74 911S. I remember looking up the term "sports car" in the dictionary, and there was a picture of an Elan - a sports car "by definition."

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

blew up an X1/9 once



ah yes - the elan - the prototype for the miata?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968Syncro]

[quote name='Cloud9...68' post='61350' date='Oct 8 2008, 04:35 PM']how about a vote for the car that best embodies the virtues of a true sports car?[/quote]

It's gotta be the Austin Healey 100-4 BN1 (maybe the 3000s also), and then secondly: TR3, TR4s, and MGA/MGB, maybe Jag XKE.



Roland

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RPM]

Heresy perhaps, but the original Miata ('89-'96) is as pure a sports car as it gets.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i agree - not heresy at all - i almost bought that car - then of course, i looked at the price tag, looked at the performance, and then looked at my MGB - realizing that i could build another 2 of them for the price of the miata, and that they would outperform the miata in every aspect, i passed on it

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Duckman]

I had a '90 Miata and IMHO it's a true sports car and a good one. I've also owned a '61 TR3, a '71 240Z, a '71 914, a '77 280Z, a '79 RX7, and now my '93 968 Coupe. IMHO they were/are all sports cars.



I also have now a Mustang GT and it's not a sports car. It's a GT car, even though it's a convertible.



I like Wikipedia's explanation:



A sports car is a term used to describe a class of automobile. The exact definition varies, [1] but generally it is used to refer to a low to ground, light weight vehicle with a powerful engine. Most vehicles referred to as sports cars are rear-wheel drive, have two seats, two doors, and are designed for more precise handling, acceleration, and aesthetics. A sports car's dominant considerations can be superior road handling, braking, maneuverability, low weight, and high power, rather than passenger space, comfort, and fuel economy.



Sports cars can be either luxurious[2] or spartan, but driving mechanical performance is the key attraction. Many drivers regard brand name and the subsequent racing reputation and history as important indications of sporting quality (for example, Ferrari, Porsche, Lotus), but some brands, such as Lamborghini, which do not race or build racing cars, are also highly regarded.



A car may be a sporting automobile without being a sports car. Performance modifications of regular, production cars, such as sport compacts, sports sedans, muscle cars, hot hatches and the like, generally are not considered sports cars, yet share traits common to sports cars. They are sometimes called "sports cars" for marketing purposes for increased advertising and promotional purposes.[3] Performance cars of all configurations are grouped as Sports and Grand tourer cars, or, occasionally, as performance cars.



A sports car does not require a large, powerful engine, though many do have them. Many classic British sports cars lacked powerful engines, but were known for exceptional handling due to light weight, a well-engineered, balanced chassis, and modern suspension (for example, Lotus Seven, Austin 7 Speedy). On tight, twisting roads, such a sports car may perform more effectively than a heavier, more powerful car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Ryan]

Early 911s were sports cars and not GTs. I had a 66 911 with 6 Solex carbs and it was a no frills sports car. It even had the offset 1st gear just like the race-cars of the era. The 914 was a sports car as well. I had a 72 that was underpowered but fun nontheless. No frill there.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the back seat and hardtop make the 911 a GT by definition, if for no other reasons - the fact that it had no frills does not qualify it any more than a VW bug does



i'm not sure why people are so quick to call something a sportscar - is it a testosterone thing? - it's not like calling something a GT makes it less - it's just different - frankly i like that our car is a GT - that's what i bought it for - GRAND TOURING - i wanted to take long road trips in comfort, while enjoying the performance features of the car - i had a sportscar - it would not have been fun for a weekend wine country road trip

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

[quote name='flash' post='61360' date='Oct 8 2008, 09:58 PM']blew up an X1/9 once[/quote]

What?! No Scorpion ownership to admit to? <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



My brother had an X-1/9 - neat car. Not much power, but a blast to drive. I always loved the looks of that car, too. I've love to see someone create a modent incarnation of it - wait, I guess the Toyota Spyder comes pretty close already. I thought the X-1/9 was much prettier, though.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

[quote name='RPM' post='61368' date='Oct 9 2008, 07:34 AM']Heresy perhaps, but the original Miata ('89-'96) is as pure a sports car as it gets.[/quote]

I also agree. The Miata has become an icon - like the Corvette and the 911; truly exclusive territory. I also strongly feel the Honda S2000 embodies the same spirit. It's weight goes slightly above the 2500 lb cutoff, but that's largely because of federally mandated safety requirements. The early Boxsters are in the same vein; whoops, too many cylinders...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rxter]

[quote name='flash' post='61240' date='Oct 6 2008, 05:33 PM']lol - i HAD british cars - loved them - about to start a restoration on a TR-4 for that very reason



sports car has been blurred over the years by marketing guys to encompass anything they though t was "sporty" - it really is a niche term, that should not be confused with sports exotic, sport sedan, GT, sport coupe, and exotic - while cars share a lot of the traits and features of a sportscar, there are some basic things required to be a sportscar that make it stand aside from the "buick"



to be a sports car it must:



be a 2 seater - no back seats, no jump seats, nada

be convertible - other wise it's a coupe, hatchback, station wagon, GT, etc

front engine

rear drive

generally a 4 cyl - there are certain exceptions to this (cobra, tiger, some 6 cylinders)

no intrinsic value whatsoever beyond pure sport - useless for going to the grocery store

lightweight (generally under 2500 lbs)



today's ferraris are exotics or sports exotics

911s are GT cars (certain models reaching up into sports exotic)

968s are GT cars, whether in cab or hatchback form



there have been a number of japanese sports cars - a few are the datsun 1600 and 2000, toyota 2000 roadster, yes, the miata qualifies, the S2000 too but it's a bit heavy



i would love another sportscar, but right now i'm pretty happy with the GT[/quote]





Sorry to drag this old thread back up, but I was thinking about it as I was building up muscle fiber in my left leg clutching all the way home through rush hour traffic last week in my decidedly non-sports car RX-8 (back seats, roof, 2800 lbs of excessive comfort) even though Probst put it above the 911 in a handling test <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/wink.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />)



Anyway the one thing we all missed in this discussion is that a sports car must have a row box. No manuals, no DSG auto manuals, no paddle shifters, it must have a stick coming out of the floor connected to a gear box and it must require the driver to move it around to make the car go - period.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - he said it - he said it (running for cover)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968Z]

Try this on for size. I had a Black one back in '80-'81. Not exactly the right car for a struggling college student. The upkeep was horrendous!





Jensen Healey

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

always like those - the danged things never ran though, and i was used to british car issues

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

BMW Z1?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

[quote name='968Z' post='62014' date='Oct 22 2008, 10:20 AM']Try this on for size. I had a Black one back in '80-'81. Not exactly the right car for a struggling college student. The upkeep was horrendous!





Jensen Healey[/quote]



I always liked those as well. I was surprised that considering it was a "clean slate" design, with a sophisticated (for its day) engine, they put a live rear axle on the car. Otherwise, a cool car. Really embodies the spirit of a true sports car (the Elan is still my pick for the most perfect example of the breed, though).

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.