This (latter) sentence says it all: who the hell are you to say what is a 'proper' sports car? You're not short of arrogance, are you? Is a 458 not a proper sportscar because it's 300Kg too heavy for your liking? An Ultima GTR is not a proper sportscar (OK, bordering on supercar depending on the engine) because it's a kit? A Noble is not a proper sportscar because it's got turbos? A Caterham Levante isn't a proper sportscar because it's got the engine up front? In fact, I'd like to see how well you could handle that latter non-sportscar.

Still waiting for you to tell us what is a proper sportscar.

Good post. Bit personal but still good It always intrigues me when people post with strong views where their experience comes from????? It's easy to sprout views based on stuff you've only read, basically just repeating what other people have written. IMHO, if you haven't driven the cars that give you the experience to make a qualified judgement then you're just talking bocks.......... No offence intended,

Chilli

I would just like to know were, when and who built all these sub 1200kg, mid engined, multi cylinder'ed naturally aspirated sports cars that the OP must be referring to given the thread title?

I'm not referring to anything, and if you read my post again you'll see it was a simple statement with no reference or innuedo at all. I simply said that alot (the vast majority) of people don't understand what mid engined means... chill out

No, you're right, the Gt3 is a terrible car, really not a sports car at all, and wow, what a tubby thing it is too, so heavy i'm suprised it can even move.........

here's one trying to move it's fat ar*e along a flat bit of road and failing:




;-)


(i suspect the OP has a) never driven a GT3, and b) can't afford one either )

Oh dear.

I'm not trying to define what a proper modern sports car is - merely using that phrase as shorthand for a lightweight, mid-engined, throttle responsive car.

Can manufacturers build light-weight cars? Lotus, TVR, Noble, McLaren, even Ferrari if it puts its mind to it.
Can they build brilliant n/a engines? Porsche, BMW, Honda, Ferrari.
Can they build mid-engined cars? Porsche, Audi, Lotus, etc.

Can they do all three. Yes. But none bother - which was my original point.

For what its worth I think a Lotus Exige V6 is perhaps the best fit. If one were to build one's own then a GT3-engined Ultima perhaps but I lack the expertise for such a project, particularly the complications of reversing the direction of rotation of the drivetrain.

The 458 is a GT. The Ultima is a proper sports car but one that I don't have the expertise to build with a suitable high-revving engine. The Noble is compromised by its turbos but likely brilliant otherwise. The Caterham is compromised (a little) by its engine position. As are 911s. They both inherit their design from pre-mid-engined thinking days. Hence Ariel's Atom more modern choice of engine position - but it lacks a roof. I want a roof (and a cage), not to keep the rain out, but to keep the ground out in the unlikely event of an off-road excursion of the inverted variety.

I can only suggest that having discounted virtually every brand that makes a likely candidate for one ridiculous reason or another, that you get sit down this morning with your crayons and design your own.



I wish you luck.

careful...

just because a Caterham is front engined, it's wrong?

please then explain why it can run rings round an Atom in just about every respect?

And before you tar Lotus's with your huge brush, what's wrong with ~60/40% distribution? (and anybody that thinks 50/50 is ideal please take yourselves outside and shoot yourself).

other point that is vastly important but mostly ignored is how high up the engine is (and it's effect on COG), this is one of the reasons the Atom is so crap.

And whilst I am here, the OP has clearly not driven a decent supercharged car, apart from not being 'overly complex' as he put it, they also offer similar throttle response as NA engines.

That statement is amazing! fk me, this is some funny st.



I was already to counter the OP's latest comments, when it hit me: OP, you're not a driver (or rather, a driving enthusiast). Quite simply, a driver will know it's how a car feels to drive that is important, not the specific power, nor if a car is 1199kg as opposed to 1201kg.

The MX-5 is often touted on here as the ultimate all-round driver's car, a 4-cylinder, front-engined, sub-300bhp, under 90bhp/litre roadster without a real* roof.

You're obsessed with what is written on the spec sheet. Serious question, are you of driving age and if so, what cars have you driven to bring you to the conclusion in this thread?

 *