Shakari Steve has stated that every auto ever made, if it isn't already, will one day become a 'classic.' Because the only criteria is how old it is. Not how unique, not a pleasing style, not groundbreaking technology of the day, nothing but age.

So what determines a 'sportscar?' And I'm talking production vehicle not some racecar trailered to the track.

My definition, and I am of the old school persuasion, is it must possess 3 attributes:

1. Must have a soft top, or no top at all; coupes are not sportscars.

2. Must have no more than 2 seats; 2+2's are not sportscars.

3. Must have a manual gearbox; a slushbox is for those not nimble enough to work a clutch and row their own.

Let's see how many folks consider their '76 Pinto a sportscar? Perhaps some AR member owns a VW Thing and considers it a sportscar? Or will someone break the sportscar category down into subsets, like modern sportscar, and the ever present wannabe sportscar...just like the wannabe classic.

So is 'sportscar' an objective or subjective term?

So should this be the Mazda Miata forum? That's a fairly narrow definition. So, by your definition, a Porsche 911 (unless it is a ragtop) is not a sportscar? I am sure there are many Porsche owners out there who would love to know this.

I think you are taking all of this a little too much to heart.

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
Shakari Steve has stated that every auto ever made, if it isn't already, will one day become a 'classic.' Because the only criteria is how old it is. Not how unique, not a pleasing style, not groundbreaking technology of the day, nothing but age.

So what determines a 'sportscar?' And I'm talking production vehicle not some racecar trailered to the track.

My definition, and I am of the old school persuasion, is it must possess 3 attributes:

1. Must have a soft top, or no top at all; coupes are not sportscars.

2. Must have no more than 2 seats; 2+2's are not sportscars.

3. Must have a manual gearbox; a slushbox is for those not nimble enough to work a clutch and row their own.

Let's see how many folks consider their '76 Pinto a sportscar? Perhaps some AR member owns a VW Thing and considers it a sportscar? Or will someone break the sportscar category down into subsets, like modern sportscar, and the ever present wannabe sportscar...just like the wannabe classic.

So is 'sportscar' an objective or subjective term?

Actually Einstein, I quoted you the generally accepted definition of modern classic, classic & antique cars and the definitions I quoted you came from the Classic Car Club of America and the Antique Automobile Club of America.

I'd call the term sports car a subjective term but here's a couple of definitions of a sports car.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-11-2006-88657.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

So what is the real defination of a "Sports Bra" ? Have seen refernce to it many times,guess it's all in the mind of definer.

The "sports car" has to have "style" and be small or compact size.

A big mill's not required. The MGBs and SL 190s certainly didn't have that. Two seats not required. Convertible not required. Gearbox can be any type. Number of pistons optional.

It can be anything from an XKE to a GTO.

Ineligible to compete are "stock cars" made from full size family cars.

In a class by themselves are luxury cars with style - your older Caddies, Imperials, Lincolns, '60s Grand Prix, Riviera and New Yorker etc.

Btw, to help everyone get into the spirit of this new forum - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FSicQWimU. As a kid growing up in the '60s I had the pleasure of attending a frat party where that band played..

And what the hell...as long as we're just having fun here, this 'un still sends chills up my spine after all these years..the greatest car song of them all - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...tKvA&feature=related. Here's the other version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...AbJE&feature=related - I used to have that on a 45 rpm.

Very true, and above all ...
It must be FUN !!!

I'm a great fan of ragtops but for every rule there's a sports car that breaks the rule.

Manufacturers like Aston, Jensen, Lotus, Sunbeam, MG, AC and umpteen others all made sports cars but all were very different.

by this arbitrary definition, 911's and Mercedes Gullwing coupes are not sports cars.
That will come as a great revelation to the manufacturers. Oops! Neither are any of the XK-series of Jaguars. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a first year XK-E convertible on display.
Boy, are they going to be embarrassed when the Trucker King (visualize an updated Fisher King)
educates them.

Take care

Rich


Rich

I agree it has got to be fun, simple and catch your eye. Exclusivity not required but fun.

BMW Z8! 6 speed, convertible roadster, simple interior, 400 HP, reasonable handling, no back seat, sitting on the ground, impractical . Lets see that equates to a TOY = SPORTS CAR
I confess, I still enjoy toys!
Z4M qualifies as well; 8000 RPM redline! VERY IMPRACTICAL.

Is this thing still bringing tears, late night cold sweats and hysteria? Good grief. I'd agree this is getting taken a wee too hard.
Everyone's going to have their own definition in a ways. A sports car is a vehicle geared towards more fun, seeping with style, impractical but succeeds in bringing a smile. As a definition of what a sports car is not, look at the Toyota Prius. I think that's something we could all agree on, right? God I hate those cars...
A coupe doesn't clearly define a sports car. Take the Cadillac CTS-V, Lexus IS-F, Aston Martin Rapide, etc. All have four doors, and yes all fill slightly different catagories however all fulfill the goal of giving us something that we can enjoy when we mash the gas pedal.
And obviously just like firearms, everyone has their personal tastes and opinions of what clearly defines a sports car. Honestly, I view anything below 350hp as not a sports car, plus outside appearance and the way it's set up, I.E. chassis layout or suspension. Yet, I'm not going to call an old RX-7 not a sports car. It's all in the set up.
Now as a classic, that's more of a majority rules issue. Age limits yet, yet sometimes it doesn't. And, in certain circumstances exclusivity effects it. Obviously a DeLorean is going to be more of a classic than a same era Trans Am. A hummer H3 isn't going to bear the same weight in the classic age group when it hits than the new Camaros and Mustangs.
There are instant classics too. Take one of the newly manufactured Morgans, which I believe are all bespoke already. That will be a case of such. The Mercedes Sterling Moss SLR? One would be far fetched to say it's not. The BMW Z8, as mentioned, was at it's arrival a instant classic and a sports car.
Honestly I think this is getting a little ridiculous. Did you have your feelings hurt? Was there an old childhood scar we accidently poked?

A sports bra must

1 - Have a soft top and a firm chassis

2 - Must be a two seater, and not any more

3 - Must be attached to a slushbox

LOTS of Power, loads of cylinders and plenty of technology is good, but a 270bhp 2L 4cyl 5speed "Westfield" under 1200 lb car was the most fun thing I think I've ever driven. 0 to 100mph and stop in 1/8 of a mile!
And go around corners like a slot car.

A guy I worked for wanted a SERIOUSLY fast car after he'd been humiliated in one of his Ferraris by a Ford Sierra, a 750 horse Ford but still a FORD, he already had an F40, several other Ferraris, a couple of nice Porsches and few Muscle cars in his collection of over 140 cars.
So I found him the Westfield ...
But after a few days he had to admit he was scared of it, so we sold it.

working definition: goes around corners at twice the posted speed without tire squeal.

The two seat won't work. All 911's have back seats, as does my XK-8

Rich

Enzo ferrari said convertibles are for playboys, sportscars are coupes.

The reason my Ferrari is a spider.........my wife likes convertibles, I don't......that's why I bought my Aston.........but.....yes dear you are right, how could I have ever been so inconsiderate...

FMC,

you have one of the new AM One-77's ordered yet?

If memory serves me, that, considering Ferrari was in business for several years before offering one for sale, that's funny.

IIRC, weren't the SWB 250 GTO's his first real competitive coupes?


Rich
I like them, can't afford one yet, but I do like them...

Personally, the term "sportscar" is a very ambiguous term.
Just when acceptable parameters are set, there comes a car, or example of an old car, which defies the rule.
Assuming a "sportscar" had to be used in competition at some point, I will use the premier sportscar race, LeMans 24hr, as the yardstick:

Hardtop/soft top? both, of course.

Two door / four door? Well, hard to say that a Bugatti T43 or a blower Bentley arent sportscars. After all, they did race in their day.

Diesel power? Well way before it became "green" and PC - ie. Porsche and Audi LeMans cars today - there was a diesel raced at LeMans back in the 50's.

How about automatics? Ever hear of the factory Ford GT40 which had an automatic transmission?
IIRC, none other than Andretti drove the car at LeMans!

Power level and displacement? Nothing in it... you don't need high power to get high speed. The Jag D types went 170mph down the Mulsanne straight with not much more than 300hp if that!
And quite often, the smaller cars such as Abarth, OSCA, etc. made mincemeat of the bigger cars.

I don't even think power is a necessary qualification.

Take a look at the Frogeye Sprite or the MG Midget. The early versions both had engines of less than 1000 cc and yet how can they not fall into the sports car classification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_Midget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin-Healey_Sprite

At the other end of the scale of Brit cars that some might classify as sports cars is the Jensen Interceptor. (Perhaps more so with the convertible)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_Interceptor

Or maybe the Triumph Stag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Stag

At the end of the day, I think it has to be a very subjective thing and beauty and definition is in the eye of the beholder.

Ah yes, the Interceptor -- almost bought one a number of years ago -- 440 cube Chryler and all.....

Rich. Ferrari was a racer, he sold sports cars to support his race team.

Sports cars are in essence road going versions of track/race cars.

Convertibles are nice lady cars. The fact you have to stiffen up a chassis (read ADD WEIGHT) to make it a convertible, flies in the face of reason for a race car.

F1 teams spend hundreds of thousands if not millions to machine off excess metal in screws, nuts, washers and bolts just to save a few grams of weight.