[RPM]

New 356?



I don't really think Porsche has failed to offer a less expensive car... 356s were $4,000 when new houses were less than $30k. If you calculate inflation, the Boxster prices out right about where the 944 and 968 were in their day.



And while I can stomach joint venture SUVs that help Porsche pay for R&D and racing, a prospectof a joint venture sports car is a little disturbing. Talk about potential brand dilution.

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

[flash]

yes, but they have a history of doing that to some degree already, so it would be no surprise



as for the car i would want, no - engine on the wrong end of the car



rule number one: front engine rear drive - the way god intended a sportscar to be

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

[Anchorman]

So, I guess you never had a Corvair. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/wink.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

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

[968Syncro]

Ok, so the proposed rule of logic is:

IF a sports car THEN (front engine AND rear drive). [If P then Q].

i.e. front engine and rear drive is a precondition to being a sports car.



From this we can derive:

- IF NOT (front engine AND rear drive) THEN NOT sports car.

- for example, many cars claiming to be a sports car are in fact not: 911 (German), various mid-engined Ferraris (Italian), etc.



Of course these statements are not necessarily true:

- IF front engine AND rear drive THEN sports car. (else your Dad's Buick would be a sports car).

- IF 4WD THEN NOT sports car (need more rules to determine the truth of this one, since one could have a front engine and rear drive, but also front wheel drive).



Of course there may be many other preconditions to add to ensure it is a sports car:

- power / weight ratio.

- no more than 2 seats

- tight suspension

- fits only 1 golf bag

- leaks when it rains

- only 1 speaker for stereo.

- pedal down oversteer (911s do the opposite)

- can exceed speed limit

- Is the Miata a sports car? Honda S2000? NSX? (Personally I don't think any Japanese car can quality as a sports car).



Flash, you need a British car, can't think of British sports cars that do not have a front engine and rear drive. Come to think of it, the same holds true for American cars, of which there is only one claimed sports car the Corvette [Corvair was posthumously classified as a truck <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ]. Of course to be safe you could get the classic British/American hybird a 1964 Shelby if you have a spare $0.5M laying around.



Roland



here is a sports car, from the 1906 Targa Florio.

   

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

[flash]

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

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

[968gene]

[quote name='Anchorman' post='61234' date='Oct 6 2008, 05:41 PM']So, I guess you never had a Corvair. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/wink.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />[/quote]





Interesting question Anchorman...who amongst us has had a Corvair?



Mine was a 1965 500 Coupe with the 110HP engine.



How's this for a thread hijack?

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

[flash]

haven't owned one, but played with a couple - messed with a 65 110, a 63 4 carb, and a 65 with a 350 chevy stuffed in it

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

[rxter]

So the Elise qualifies. At least when you leave the top at home.

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

[flash]

wrong engine location and targa is not "convertible" (i suppose i should have said ragtop)



sure fits the bill when it come to the "useless" part



i'm not sure where that car falls - not quite a sports exotic and not a coupe - definitely not a GT

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

[rxter]

Oh right I forget that it's a mid engine. Targa does not qualify huh?

Missed on 2 paramters.



How about a Datsun Fairlady with a roll bar? I see one of those across the street from time to time. Has electrical tape wrapped around the bar - funny looking car.

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

[flash]

that's what i was referring to when i said the 1600 - it was indeed first a fairlady

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

[Anchorman]

To regress to the slight hijack - I had a yellow (no one would ever have called it SPEED yellow) Monza convertible. I thought it was a fun car given a terrible rap. However, the oil leaks were unbelievable.

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

[biotechee]

According to Encarta MSN:





sports car (plural sports cars)



noun



Definition:



small fast car: a small car with a low center of gravity designed for fast acceleration and for handling at high speeds



* I see no mention of engine location, roof configuration, driven axle requirement, etc.!



Just doin' some chain pullin'!

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

[RPM]

Flash - are you seriously arguing that a '57 Speedster is not a sports car?



Under sports car in the dictionary they ought to just put a picture of an 1989 Miata. As pure as Colin Chapman's original vision, plus it actually works. The Miata, particularly in its original 1.6 and 1.8 versions, is proof that Japanese car companies can make soul-stirring and important cars - as long as they crib the basic idea from someone else.



If you have not owned a Miata, I strongly suggest it. Passed by a mid-90s one in red for sale the other day for $5,000. Almost stopped. And I have already had one...



And speaking of Japanese sports cars, did everyone see this:

Is the Nissan GT-R really lord of the Nurburgring?



Seems like Nissan's 'Ring numbers might just be BS



... talk about hijacking my own thread...

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

[flash]

while saying nothing about the car, it's performance, styling, desirability or anything else, under the more strict definitions, albeit a marginal separation, no, technically it does not qualify - it is a roadster, just like the 968



although the 550 could, because it does fit every other category, most especially, useless for anything but sport driving



the primary point was to define the lines between exotics, GTs, and sportscars - they too often get blurred, and big heavy 3000 lb behemoths and hardtops get lumped in with sportscars, and they shouldn't



yes, i realize that countless organizations, advertisers, manufacturers, etc disagree - that still doesn't make it right, and i don't know why they don't just call a spade a spade



but, i digress from the original topic



i do hope they start building a new sportscar - front, rear, or whatever - a new 550 or even a 914 would be hot - better yet, a turbocharged 2 liter front engine 2 seat ragtop - something like a shrunken 924 convertible maybe

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

[biotechee]

Saturn Sky / Pontiac Solstice



Probably not light though, as 'merican cars are not known for being svelt...

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

[flash]

exactly - i am not sure if anybody is actually making a sportscar right now, and may never again due to all the insane safety regulations and such - truly sad



can anybody thing of anything under 2500lbs that even comes close to "sport"? the elise is the closest thing i can think of

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

[flash]

side note - i finally found a good AC system for the MGB, the lack thereof is why i got out of the car to begin with - while a feature by definition not associated or generally allowed in a sportscar, because that problem is now resolved, i may be doing another one of those soon - it was lighter, quicker, and handled better - got better gas mileage too after i installed the overdrive - i can build a 220hp totally reliable 2 liter monster, weighing in at under 2000 lbs for about 25k with a brand new tub



of course it will still be the tiny, rigid, noisy and uncomfortable car that the last one was, which is why i would never get rid of the 968

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

[94SilverCab]

Since you are willing to now include Elise into consideration, I would like to propose the MR-2 (Mine had T-tops).



I would consider both my 1983 Rx-7 (Coupe, Sunroof) and 1988 Rx-7 Convertible Sportscars, though arguably the 1988 would truly be a GT.



Regards,



Jay

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

[flash]

lol - i didn't say i was willing to include it - i said it was the closest think i could think of



as to the others, while i love the early 7, no roof allowed - MUST be ragtop - no practicality or insinuation thereto - in the truest sense hatchbacks and such are too practical - that one is very much a GT - the 88 was close, but falls into GT as well, for the same reason our car does

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