Supercars besides the usual Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches etc?

[DRVR]

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.

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]

Roscco said:

If you seriously don't think the Speed 12 is a bespoke supercar, you really shouldn't be here.

Yes, I seriously think it is not. But I will still hang around in my thread.


So to you a Shelby GT500 or Corvette Callaway are both bespoke supercars then?

[DRVR]

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...

[DRVR]

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.

The EB110 is definitely a supercar though. Never said they can't be all-wheel-drive.

[DRVR]

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.

[DRVR]

k-ink said:

Your original thread was edited after I posted. So deal with it

Under the new rules I'd choose:

Ultima
Noble M600
Radical turbo nutter b'stard

No. It was there from the beginning. I edited only to make it BOLD as I stated in my editing footnote.

[DRVR]

Kendrik said:

Err, condition 6

Err, exception granted to those who have earned it, as already explained. GT40 is a real track car with more merit than any new fancy start up carbon fiber wrapped, high-tech modern fancy toy.

[DRVR]

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:

Oh yes, beautiful indeed and exclusive for sure.

[DRVR]

Vitorio said:

The F40... the pinacle of Ferrari evolution starting with the 308... unferrari..

I dont even

Roll all you want. But which road going Ferrari looked like the F40 before it? Now there were a boat load which looked like the 308 or the front engine GT ones.

This was one of the points of the F40 actually. It was different. When the F40 came out, many magazines commented on the influence of the GT40 and other Le Mans cars, including racing Ferrari models. But no road going Ferrari looked like it before it. I was in love with the F40 when it came out. I had everything there was to have on it. From posters to magazines to scale models. It was my hero and dream car.

[DRVR]

Erudite geezer said:

I proffer this Datsun below:

That's a Datsun? Wow. Would never think.

[DRVR]

Mave said:

It looks pretty much like an evolution of the 280 GTO which itself looks like an evolution of the 328. Much more "in family" with the 80s pininfarina cars than some of the later Ferraris you've allowed in the list...

I'm sorry but if you think the F40 looks like an evolution of the 288 GTO (which I think is what you meant instead of 280) then I'm at a loss. And the 288 came before the 328 so it can't be an evolution of it by the way.

But besides the round tail lights, there is almost nothing 288 GTO in the F40. Different cockpit style, different side facias, different profile, different everything really.

[DRVR]

Mave said:

If you think an MR2 is Ferrari like but an F40 isn't then these posts are utterly, utterly pointless. I'm out.

Way to avoid admitting the mistakes you made in the prior post with the 280(probably 288) being an evolution of the 328, which came after it. Just bale out and sweep it under the carpet. Well done. This is the proper way to have an intelligible conversation for sure.

The MR2 looks like many Ferraris. It was inspired by the V8 3 series. So it resembles the 308, 328, 348 and even the 355, because that resembles the prior ones. Like I said the F40 resembles no road Ferrari before it. This was the point of the F40. It was a racing Ferrari for the streets. It didn't resemble the 328 or the Testarossa which where it's contemporaries or any road going model which came before.

[DRVR]

Mave said:

Sheesh. Ya got me there. I hit 328 instead of 308. 2 pininfarina cars clearly part of the same family, but obviously different enough in your mindl to be pivotal to the discussion.

I bow down to your clearly superior knowledge that an MR2 is more Ferrari like than an F40. Even though it has a straight 4 rather than a V8. Trademark pininfarina straight edges everywhere. Completely different c pillar buttresses. But hey, if YOU say it looks like so many Ferraris then who am I to disagree? :-P

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 30th August 08:26

Stop being dense for the sake of supporting your points. You know very well I was talking style of the MR2 and not performance! What does it matter what engine it has?

As for having got you, I just got into the ridiculous party mood going on here. People are picking even on grammar mistakes and bringing up all sorts of things which has nothing to do with the topic, just to mess it up.

I wonder how many posting have actually driven a powerful middle-engine sports car let alone owned one. There seems to be a lot of "my favorite car is a supercar" going on here. But yet it doesn't seem people are speaking from actual experience of having these types of car. Not every middle-engine car is a supercar. Not every cool car is a supercar. If somebody has never driven them, then I can see why they might all be the same for them.

When I said the F40 was unferrari, I meant it was the most different of all Ferraris STYLE WISE when it came out. Obviously since then there are others which took styling ques from it. I thought I would not have to point out the obvious.

The F40 didn't follow any molds of road going Ferraris. And the tackled on aberration which was the Evoluzione was designed that way as a design exercise for the F40. They were already working on the F40. It's basically like they made a body kit for the 288 GTO to look like the F40. It was basically a proof of concept. They could as well have called it F38. They were already working towards that goal. It is more a prototype of the F40 using the 288 as a mule than a version of the 288 itself. This is why it was never really produced. They only made 5 of them. But the final design of the F40, again looked nothing like any road going Ferrari before it. The Evoluzione was basically a concept car.And the final F40 design is still different. It has flatter lines than the Evoluzione, because the Evoluzione, again, was a tackled on flatter lines body kit put on a more curved car. It looked awful. But considering the Evoluzione anything else other than a F40 prototype is not knowing the history of the car. It was the F40 fetus. Not really a 288 in itself. The 288 was just the mule.

[DRVR]

generationx said:

Tell you what DRVR, why don´t you tell us exactly which cars we should all be mentioning. Then we can all agree with you (there seems to be no alternative), close this deeply confusing thread and all get on with our lives.

To me it is closed. No point really.