Discussion
kambites said:
They're fine for small children. I remember travelling in the back of a 911 when I was in my early teens - not the most comfortable but perfectly possible.
I'd certainly never buy a 911 if I didn't need four seats (if nothing else because the Cayman/Boxster is a better car to drive) but there's not much which can compete with it as a driver's car with rear seats which are usable for children (the Evora's are hopeless).
I agree. I do wonder whether there could be a middle ground - more than a 911 but less than a saloon. But I haven't been able to find anything bigger than a 911 in the back but that isn't a big lump of a car. I'd certainly never buy a 911 if I didn't need four seats (if nothing else because the Cayman/Boxster is a better car to drive) but there's not much which can compete with it as a driver's car with rear seats which are usable for children (the Evora's are hopeless).
ORD said:
I agree. I do wonder whether there could be a middle ground - more than a 911 but less than a saloon. But I haven't been able to find anything bigger than a 911 in the back but that isn't a big lump of a car.
The RX8 managed it, but it certainly had other flaws. The Maserati 3/4200GT has good back seats, too. I suppose the next step after that would be something like the M4 or M2 when it comes out.
ORD said:
Safer? Simple point is that 2+2s are easier to sell to the majority of people. 2-seaters are seen as being impractical, I think, although the tiny seats in the 911 really aren't for actual use as seats!
Not sure about 'less focussed' - the R8 is hardly a Lotus. I imagine it weighs more than a 911.
That was my point. The 911 rear seats are only fit for children, or jockeys Not sure about 'less focussed' - the R8 is hardly a Lotus. I imagine it weighs more than a 911.
1525 vs 1560kgs? They are very similar by the look of it but the R8 just shades it. T1berious said:
Daft question, so what is actually "super car" levels of performance?
<3.0s to 62 Mph?
>200 mph top speed?
and a sub 7:10.00 of a certain track in Germany with a driving God at the helm?
just curious as in my crazy mind I had an R8 as more than a "mere" sports car.
Me too. I am amazed that a 12.5 1/4 mile aluminium bodied mid engined car is defined as anything else?<3.0s to 62 Mph?
>200 mph top speed?
and a sub 7:10.00 of a certain track in Germany with a driving God at the helm?
just curious as in my crazy mind I had an R8 as more than a "mere" sports car.
For me, "supercar" means "in the top echelon of performance of its era". So right now that would be something like 0-300kph in <20 seconds; or if you prefer track times, under seven minutes around the ring?
I suppose it depends on whether you accept the term "hypercar". Personally I don't think a definition above supercar is necessary and only really exists for marketing reasons.
I suppose it depends on whether you accept the term "hypercar". Personally I don't think a definition above supercar is necessary and only really exists for marketing reasons.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 28th July 13:33
ORD said:
If there are plenty of standard cars that could make it look like it was going backwards in a straightline race, it isn't a supercar.
On that basis, a GT3 isn't a supercar either, but I don't think that's surprising.
Therefore the new Tesla saloon by your definition (strictly performance) is a supercar?On that basis, a GT3 isn't a supercar either, but I don't think that's surprising.
yonex said:
Therefore the new Tesla saloon by your definition (strictly performance) is a supercar?
Good point. Although that performance is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition. I say that because I see the phrase 'supercar performance' used a fair bit - i.e. supercar pace is not enough to qualify.KFC said:
I definitely wouldn't say the faster version of an entry level BMW looks cooler than an R8.
All depends on the type of cool you are aiming for. R8s look great but have a bizarre reputation for being driven by non-enthusiast try-Garda. I doubt that's true of the R8 more than a Porsche or Aston, but it makes the car less cool to some people.The 1M is cool in a sleeper way but very ordinary!
Digitalize said:
I very rarely think that an R8 is being driven by someone because they appreciate it as a car, more because it's the top tier of a premium brand, flashy, obvious, people know what it is.
I usually just think poor guy, shame he couldn't afford the Gallardo that he really wanted.Yes... before anyone clicks my garage and comments on it I'm only driving a Gallardo as I can't afford an Aventador
I'm perfectly comfortable with that and working hard to rectify the situation ORD said:
If there are plenty of standard cars that could make it look like it was going backwards in a straightline race, it isn't a supercar.
On that basis, a GT3 isn't a supercar either, but I don't think that's surprising.
Name a 'standard car' that makes the R8 look like it's going backwards?On that basis, a GT3 isn't a supercar either, but I don't think that's surprising.
The GT3 is hardly slow either is it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oeTMuqNQvw
JockySteer said:
Name a 'standard car' that makes the R8 look like it's going backwards?
The GT3 is hardly slow either is it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oeTMuqNQvw
918 The GT3 is hardly slow either is it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oeTMuqNQvw
La Ferrari
458S
Veyron
GT3
991 Turbo S
GTR
V10 Plus R8
Etc etc etc
Dozens, at a guess!
ORD said:
'Standard' as opposed to modified. Factory power, etc.
The 991 Turbo S is very much an everyday, daily driver kinda car, to be fair. It's just also beyond stupidly fast
You need to explain yourself better. Are you therefore saying those cars you listed aren't supercars either as they're not modified just like the R8? Struggling to work out your logic, or lack of.The 991 Turbo S is very much an everyday, daily driver kinda car, to be fair. It's just also beyond stupidly fast
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff