Supercars besides the usual Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches etc?
Discussion
DRVR said:
And which of my criteria doesn't the F1 match?
Its a 3-seater, your original post specifically states 2-seater.DRVR said:
By the way, can somebody post a mid-engined 2-seater supercar which doesn't follow one of these form factors:
1.Lamborghini like
2.Ferrari like
3.Porsche like
4.Le Mans like
Meaning, does somebody know of anything truly new?
If the above doesn't make sense, I will explain.
1.Lamborghini like: Vector, Cizeta, Apollo Arrow, Lykan Hypersport etc (way too many)
2.Ferrari like: Noble M600, Mazzanti Evantra, Hennessey Venom,
3.Porsche like: Isdera Commedatore, XJ220
4.Le Mans like: McLaren F1, Pagani, Koenigsegg, Ford GT40, GT etc,
Like I said earlier, it seems any supercar will follow one of the above formula. Maybe tastefully mix 2 of them. Anytime it doesn't entirely fit this it will be a style mess, like the Zender Vision.
Audi R8? You might be tempted to say Lambo-like, but considering the roots of the AWD Lambo, its more modern Lambos being R8-like then the other way around.1.Lamborghini like
2.Ferrari like
3.Porsche like
4.Le Mans like
Meaning, does somebody know of anything truly new?
If the above doesn't make sense, I will explain.
1.Lamborghini like: Vector, Cizeta, Apollo Arrow, Lykan Hypersport etc (way too many)
2.Ferrari like: Noble M600, Mazzanti Evantra, Hennessey Venom,
3.Porsche like: Isdera Commedatore, XJ220
4.Le Mans like: McLaren F1, Pagani, Koenigsegg, Ford GT40, GT etc,
Like I said earlier, it seems any supercar will follow one of the above formula. Maybe tastefully mix 2 of them. Anytime it doesn't entirely fit this it will be a style mess, like the Zender Vision.
As for the le-mans category, that seems to be based mostly on looks, as while the F1 and GT40 were bred for racing, the Pagani and GT only share a general shape with the real deal, in which case i'd say the XJ220 belongs in this class, rather then the porsche-like (in fact, i think your porsche-like group is more "Carrera-GT like" then porsche like)
And i'd struggle to put shed-built efforts like the Noble and Hennessey in the Ferrari Category, if we take the F40 as the figurehead there, that is a direct descendant of thoroughbred racing, the Noble is basically a fast go-kart built in a shed, with no racing pedigree to speak off.
jamieduff1981 said:
Your thread title says nothing about being mid engined.
It is/was exclusive.
I think a major flaw in your reasoning is branding owners of series built cars costing £200k+ "mouth breathers" as though they were knocking about in 9th hand Vectras.
You have an entirely arbitary view on what a supercar is or isn't.
If the Speed 12 isn't a supercar because TVR also made cars that still-fairly-wealthy people could afford to buy as a toy, then the Ford GT40 and later Ford GT certainly aren't because Ford are best known for making good value for money family cars.
I think people who own Ford GTs who frankly could buy and sell you would laugh in your face as your tried to explain what they should want to own based upon your fantasising about what you might want to buy were you in their position.
Same goes for any of the unworthy cars you've dismissed really.
So you read only the title and posted? Because in the thread description I specifically stated mid-engine two seater. I have actually gone back later and made it bold because it seemed many were overlooking it. I guess if you only read the title and posted, it would explain it.It is/was exclusive.
I think a major flaw in your reasoning is branding owners of series built cars costing £200k+ "mouth breathers" as though they were knocking about in 9th hand Vectras.
You have an entirely arbitary view on what a supercar is or isn't.
If the Speed 12 isn't a supercar because TVR also made cars that still-fairly-wealthy people could afford to buy as a toy, then the Ford GT40 and later Ford GT certainly aren't because Ford are best known for making good value for money family cars.
I think people who own Ford GTs who frankly could buy and sell you would laugh in your face as your tried to explain what they should want to own based upon your fantasising about what you might want to buy were you in their position.
Same goes for any of the unworthy cars you've dismissed really.
I don't really think my rules are that arbitrary. It's just high standards based on how the supercar started.
But like I said, there are exceptions. Ferrari and Lamborghini may make cheaper models today. But they kind of worked backwards. They are a high end manufacturer who decided to start offering more affordable models too. Also, they have heritage, history etc. In other words they have earned it. This is why I give it to the Ford GT40 and GT as well. Yes, read it again. I said the Ford GT and GT40 are supercars. I didn't dismiss them. The GT40 was actually a real track car with a few road going versions made. The GT is an update and tribute. Definitely supercars. So no need to convince GT owners their cars are not supercars. They are.
About TVR, they were always a kind of glorified kitcar builders to me. They are cool but...
Do you own a TVR and just want to consider your car a supercar or? Just a big fan of the brand? It makes no difference if they are fit to carry the supercar name or not. It doesn't change the cars they are. If you think they are great sports cars then they are still great.
Some Gump said:
Op,
You derided any manufacturer that didn't make their own engine. The F1 is quite famous in this regard.
Other notable casualties would include the xj220, mc12, Apollo, and Zonda.
Are people not reading?You derided any manufacturer that didn't make their own engine. The F1 is quite famous in this regard.
Other notable casualties would include the xj220, mc12, Apollo, and Zonda.
I said, IT USED TO BE THAT...
Obviously today things changed and I think it's clear I accepted this change when I said many times now that the F1, Pagani etc ARE supercars.
Vitorio said:
Audi R8? You might be tempted to say Lambo-like, but considering the roots of the AWD Lambo, its more modern Lambos being R8-like then the other way around.
As for the le-mans category, that seems to be based mostly on looks, as while the F1 and GT40 were bred for racing, the Pagani and GT only share a general shape with the real deal, in which case i'd say the XJ220 belongs in this class, rather then the porsche-like (in fact, i think your porsche-like group is more "Carrera-GT like" then porsche like)
And i'd struggle to put shed-built efforts like the Noble and Hennessey in the Ferrari Category, if we take the F40 as the figurehead there, that is a direct descendant of thoroughbred racing, the Noble is basically a fast go-kart built in a shed, with no racing pedigree to speak off.
Ah, a technicality. As for the le-mans category, that seems to be based mostly on looks, as while the F1 and GT40 were bred for racing, the Pagani and GT only share a general shape with the real deal, in which case i'd say the XJ220 belongs in this class, rather then the porsche-like (in fact, i think your porsche-like group is more "Carrera-GT like" then porsche like)
And i'd struggle to put shed-built efforts like the Noble and Hennessey in the Ferrari Category, if we take the F40 as the figurehead there, that is a direct descendant of thoroughbred racing, the Noble is basically a fast go-kart built in a shed, with no racing pedigree to speak off.
Only reason I specified 2-seats is to avoid people throwing in cars with back seats. By the ring of it here I have the impression some may consider a BMW M3 a supercar for example. But the F1 still doesn't have a back seat. It could be a single-seater too. It is still exotic. It's a supercar for sure.
Audi R8 is not a supercar in my opinion. But the style is a mix between Ferrari and Lambo for sure. So still fit my 4 categories.
And yes. The 4 categories are design categories, so of course it should be based only on looks. It's design.
Yes, the XJ220 is a mix of Porsche like and Le Mans. But I still think more Porsche like because of the very round lines.
About Noble and Hennessey in the Ferrari Category, remember is only concerning looks. Not performance or pedigree or anything. The 4 design categories are a separated thing from the 6 pre-requisites for a supercar. It's only discussing style and design of supercars. Don't confuse it.
Maybe I should start a different thread for that.By Ferrari like I mean cars like the 308, 355, 458, 488 etc. The F40 is the most unferrari of all Ferraris really. It looks more like the Ford GT in many ways than any other street Ferrari. I would put the F40 in the Le Mans design category actually.
DRVR said:
jamieduff1981 said:
The TVR Cerbera Speed 12 meets all five of your criteria, whether you have a prejudice against TVR or not
If you seriously don't think the Speed 12 is a bespoke supercar, you really shouldn't be here.For starters it doesn't even meet the criteria of the thread, which is middle engined two-seater cars. I didn't bother to look, but with that long hood I doubt it is a mid-engine? TVRs are normally front engine GTs.
And also I should add another criteria to my 5 previous ones.
6. It needs to be exclusive. Not be made by a manufacturer which also makes normal cars like 4-doors, hot hatches etc. I don't care if Toyota puts out a cool car. If I was a billionaire looking to spend a lot of money on a supercar I would not want a Toyota. It needs to be exclusive. Also not manufactures which make cheaper basic sports cars models. It's the same deal. It is still only a TVR or a Porsche etc. My Porsche supercar shares things, whatever it may be with a Boxter. Just doesn't sit well.
Matter of fact, I will edit my post and add criteria number 6.
DRVR said:
About Noble and Hennessey in the Ferrari Category, remember is only concerning looks. Not performance or pedigree or anything. The 4 design categories are a separated thing from the 6 pre-requisites for a supercar. It's only discussing style and design of supercars. Don't confuse it. Maybe I should start a different thread for that.
I just did that: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... Maybe I should start a different thread for that.DRVR said:
Dusty964 said:
What about the LM400?
First car to have carbon ceramic brakes so technologically a leader. 60 in 4 and a bit, 180 odd flat out and pretty successful racing career.
It's not about technological innovation. The Pontiac Fiero, despite what ignorant people not in the known might think of it, was revolutionary in many regards. But yet, it's not a supercar, is it?First car to have carbon ceramic brakes so technologically a leader. 60 in 4 and a bit, 180 odd flat out and pretty successful racing career.
Venturi only had one car. All their cars is a variation of the same design, with just a few body tweaks and mechanical variations here and there. LM400 is no different. As for winning races, this is only impressive when joined by the other criteria. Otherwise, Corvette and Mustangs etc win races too. Even Ford Taurus and Chevy Malibus do.
To me no Venturi is a supercar. They are a nobody manufacturer, with a run of the mill fiberglass sports car. If they were not European but American instead people would not even consider them as such.
So just like a Saleen Mustang or Callaway Corvette are not supercars just because they are a bit more special than the normal ones, neither is a Venturi, TVR etc. We have to cut it somewhere. Or even Corvettes, which are lovely and great sports cars by the way, would be considered supercars somehow. But they are not.
As per the op-
So let's see some pictures of your favorite, less usual supercars.
From any era. Doesn't matter if 1960's or current. As long as it's a middle engined two-seater. LM400
1. Be rare and produced in small numbers
LM400
2. Not be produced in series (so Audi R8, Gallardo, Huracán and even Murcielogo and Aventador and most Ferraris, Porsches etc do not qualify)
Again. Fits the somewhat strange criteria.
3.Be exotic looking
Subjective. Not dissimilar to an f40
4.Perform like a race car. I don't mean top speed. So many monster built Corvettes are very fast. Today speed is easy. It needs to be quick, to corner well, stop well etc.
LM400 is a racing car, with some very good results. Several road legal.
5.Be very expensive. Huracán prices are too cheap. Aventador prices and up.
Check.
6. It needs to be exclusive. Not be made by a manufacturer which also makes normal cars like 4-doors, hot hatches etc.
Again. Fits the criteria like a glove.
The only other suggestion is the Edonis, which will likely be rejected for being based on unused EB110 chassis, or heaven forbid...the EB110- likely to be rejected for 4wd or something similiar when you can think of a reason.
Anyway, I have to go and finish my Gin, will leave you to it.
Dusty964 said:
Im at a bit of a loss as to what 'it's' about then im afraid.
As per the op-
So let's see some pictures of your favorite, less usual supercars.
From any era. Doesn't matter if 1960's or current. As long as it's a middle engined two-seater. LM400
1. Be rare and produced in small numbers
LM400
2. Not be produced in series (so Audi R8, Gallardo, Huracán and even Murcielogo and Aventador and most Ferraris, Porsches etc do not qualify)
Again. Fits the somewhat strange criteria.
3.Be exotic looking
Subjective. Not dissimilar to an f40
4.Perform like a race car. I don't mean top speed. So many monster built Corvettes are very fast. Today speed is easy. It needs to be quick, to corner well, stop well etc.
LM400 is a racing car, with some very good results. Several road legal.
5.Be very expensive. Huracán prices are too cheap. Aventador prices and up.
Check.
6. It needs to be exclusive. Not be made by a manufacturer which also makes normal cars like 4-doors, hot hatches etc.
Again. Fits the criteria like a glove.
The only other suggestion is the Edonis, which will likely be rejected for being based on unused EB110 chassis, or heaven forbid...the EB110- likely to be rejected for 4wd or something similiar when you can think of a reason.
Anyway, I have to go and finish my Gin, will leave you to it.
You are technically right. I guess what squashes the Venturis for me is that bottom feeder type of aura around them. If I would of make 3 super cool looking sports cars, and sell them, they would be pretty exclusive but I'm not sure how many would consider them real supercars. I don't know. Venturi always came across as more of a low level sports cars brand than supercar. I never knew them to be sought after or desirable or talked much. Also the style is nothing to write home about. It's basically a French Ferrari rip off. I will give you that they are more of an exotic than TVRs for sure though. They are actually exotics for sure. TVRs aren't. I just don't see them as SUPERcars. I don't know.As per the op-
So let's see some pictures of your favorite, less usual supercars.
From any era. Doesn't matter if 1960's or current. As long as it's a middle engined two-seater. LM400
1. Be rare and produced in small numbers
LM400
2. Not be produced in series (so Audi R8, Gallardo, Huracán and even Murcielogo and Aventador and most Ferraris, Porsches etc do not qualify)
Again. Fits the somewhat strange criteria.
3.Be exotic looking
Subjective. Not dissimilar to an f40
4.Perform like a race car. I don't mean top speed. So many monster built Corvettes are very fast. Today speed is easy. It needs to be quick, to corner well, stop well etc.
LM400 is a racing car, with some very good results. Several road legal.
5.Be very expensive. Huracán prices are too cheap. Aventador prices and up.
Check.
6. It needs to be exclusive. Not be made by a manufacturer which also makes normal cars like 4-doors, hot hatches etc.
Again. Fits the criteria like a glove.
The only other suggestion is the Edonis, which will likely be rejected for being based on unused EB110 chassis, or heaven forbid...the EB110- likely to be rejected for 4wd or something similiar when you can think of a reason.
Anyway, I have to go and finish my Gin, will leave you to it.
The EB110 is definitely a supercar though. Never said they can't be all-wheel-drive.
By the way, I tried changing the title of the thread to Hypercars to end all the lamentation. But it' not possible.
It seems the supercar of yesteryear is the hypercar of today and supercars today are any sports-cars which costs a little more.
But not even sure if it would help to change the tile to Hypercars when I specifically asked mid-engined and people still posted front engined.
Next will be somebody posting a front-midle-engined model just to be "funy" even though everybody knows mid-engined normally means rear-midle-engined, unless specified.
It seems the supercar of yesteryear is the hypercar of today and supercars today are any sports-cars which costs a little more.
But not even sure if it would help to change the tile to Hypercars when I specifically asked mid-engined and people still posted front engined.
Next will be somebody posting a front-midle-engined model just to be "funy" even though everybody knows mid-engined normally means rear-midle-engined, unless specified.
DRVR said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Your thread title says nothing about being mid engined.
It is/was exclusive.
I think a major flaw in your reasoning is branding owners of series built cars costing £200k+ "mouth breathers" as though they were knocking about in 9th hand Vectras.
You have an entirely arbitary view on what a supercar is or isn't.
If the Speed 12 isn't a supercar because TVR also made cars that still-fairly-wealthy people could afford to buy as a toy, then the Ford GT40 and later Ford GT certainly aren't because Ford are best known for making good value for money family cars.
I think people who own Ford GTs who frankly could buy and sell you would laugh in your face as your tried to explain what they should want to own based upon your fantasising about what you might want to buy were you in their position.
Same goes for any of the unworthy cars you've dismissed really.
So you read only the title and posted? Because in the thread description I specifically stated mid-engine two seater. I have actually gone back later and made it bold because it seemed many were overlooking it. I guess if you only read the title and posted, it would explain it.It is/was exclusive.
I think a major flaw in your reasoning is branding owners of series built cars costing £200k+ "mouth breathers" as though they were knocking about in 9th hand Vectras.
You have an entirely arbitary view on what a supercar is or isn't.
If the Speed 12 isn't a supercar because TVR also made cars that still-fairly-wealthy people could afford to buy as a toy, then the Ford GT40 and later Ford GT certainly aren't because Ford are best known for making good value for money family cars.
I think people who own Ford GTs who frankly could buy and sell you would laugh in your face as your tried to explain what they should want to own based upon your fantasising about what you might want to buy were you in their position.
Same goes for any of the unworthy cars you've dismissed really.
I don't really think my rules are that arbitrary. It's just high standards based on how the supercar started.
But like I said, there are exceptions. Ferrari and Lamborghini may make cheaper models today. But they kind of worked backwards. They are a high end manufacturer who decided to start offering more affordable models too. Also, they have heritage, history etc. In other words they have earned it. This is why I give it to the Ford GT40 and GT as well. Yes, read it again. I said the Ford GT and GT40 are supercars. I didn't dismiss them. The GT40 was actually a real track car with a few road going versions made. The GT is an update and tribute. Definitely supercars. So no need to convince GT owners their cars are not supercars. They are.
About TVR, they were always a kind of glorified kitcar builders to me. They are cool but...
Do you own a TVR and just want to consider your car a supercar or? Just a big fan of the brand? It makes no difference if they are fit to carry the supercar name or not. It doesn't change the cars they are. If you think they are great sports cars then they are still great.
I am a TVR fan, and own a normal production Cerbera. Unlike you, my cars are listed on my profile so people can see what I base my views on.
TVR built a bespoke 7.7litre V12 engine to go GT1 racing with in their bespoke racecar called the Speed 12. GT1 kinda died a death so TVR decided to build a road car. It was called the Cerbera Speed 12 but it wasn't a Cerbera at all. It needed a bespoke chassis which was wider and stiffer, and a bespoke body to fit it in. It was a b
h of a road car with a sequential gearbox and a huge amount of power.It was in no way just another engine placed in a normal production sports car. To liken it to a Shelby Mustang just highlights how much you don't know about cars IMHO.
DRVR said:
This is why I give it to the Ford GT40 and GT as well. Yes, read it again. I said the Ford GT and GT40 are supercars. I didn't dismiss them. The GT40 was actually a real track car with a few road going versions made. The GT is an update and tribute. Definitely supercars. So no need to convince GT owners their cars are not supercars. They are.
Err, condition 6 VF7 said:
Does anybody now Monteverdi? A swiss manufacturer in the 70s/80s. They invented (and built) the 5 door Range Rover and this is their middle engined two seater supercar:
The Monteverdi Hai 450:
Lovely looking car. One of my favourites, alongside the maserati bora, and detomaso Mangusta.The Monteverdi Hai 450:
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff