|
CraigVmax
12,107 posts
151 months
|
sorry, thought we talking v10 but I did skim the thread
|
|
|
Wills2
5,345 posts
44 months
|
Doesn't mention which engine just the R8 in general.
|
|
|
kbf1981
1,562 posts
69 months
|
Isn't a supercar about attainability? The term is now used more to describe rarity and how much of an icon it is rather than pure performance.
|
|
|
jdw1234
4,301 posts
84 months
|
An R8 isn't a supercar and neither is a V8 Ferrari or Gallardo.
|
|
|
jamal
16 posts
104 months
|
whats is a supercar these days you cannot base it on just performce and looks or badge.
GTR's and R8 V8 & v10 are great cars, I have owned all 3... but no they are not.
But as stated by the last guy,nor is a 430, gallardo, Aston,911 etc..
Zonda,enzo.veyron etc.. yes
who really cares its how your car makes you feel, and my R8 v10 spyder makes me feel special !
Jamal
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Bo_apex
263 posts
87 months
|
no. but so what. really doesn't matter
|
|
|
Kingelvis
3 posts
12 months
|
I'm trying to clear up one matter. LJK Setright did not 'coin' the term supercar. The word was used originally to describe a Pontiac GTO type of car. It was first systematically defined in the May '65 issue of CAR LIFE magazine.  I'm not sure how it got to be such a piece of 'conventional wisdom' but the logic, timeline and facts of this canard are all totally spurious. Great Britain's "CAR" magazine has fanned the flames of this myth by consistently maintaining that it 'coined' the term or sometimes that LJK Setright coined the term "in the 'mid sixties." The problem is that a car that debuted in March of 1966 was not really available until mid to late 1967. I have the Brooklands Books reprint of the original "1000 miles in the Miura" story - it was published in Dec '67 and Jan '68 and described events that unfolded in Sept '67 - and even then Setright describes the Mirua he was delivering to one of the first British buyers as mostly still a prototype. He does NOT use the word 'supercar' in that article either.
|
|
|
Kingelvis
3 posts
12 months
|
http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_ar...The above link is a blog post where I delve deeply into the intersection of the words 'musclecar' and 'supercar.' I'm not denying that the meaning morphed away from the original US meaning. From my combing through Googlebooks archives, it appears that the Porsche 959 of the mid 1980's flipped the meaning toward something more expensive. Some might be familiar with the Australian "V8 Supercars" racing league. Australia had a long published enthusiast magazine named simply "Supercar" that emphasized the widely available non-exotic V8 performance cars popular down under as well. This page of the '65 CAR LIFE is something of a 'smoking gun' in that it shows an systematic attempt to define a class of car. 
|
|
|
heebeegeetee
19,534 posts
117 months
|
The question of pedigree, Lamborghini v Audi. One is a tractor producer with little motorsport heritage. T'other isn't a tractor producer but does have quite a history and also a rather impeccable motor sporting heritage. So which has the pedigree? 
|
|
|
TomN94
2,379 posts
27 months
|
I'm going back onto topic, I'm very much in agreement with a lot of people on this thread, the V10 is most certainly a "supercar" the V8 isn't to me.
I have experienced both an R8 V10, and the first gen Gallardo, and the R8, IMO, was a far better car, the Lambo was all about the badge, the Audi felt a bit more special for some reason. I'm not saying the Gallardo isn't a supercar, but to me, it wasn't as spectacular as the R8
|
|
|
LukeyLikey
431 posts
16 months
|
Kingelvis said: I'm trying to clear up one matter. LJK Setright did not 'coin' the term supercar. The word was used originally to describe a Pontiac GTO type of car. It was first systematically defined in the May '65 issue of CAR LIFE magazine. I'm not sure how it got to be such a piece of 'conventional wisdom' but the logic, timeline and facts of this canard are all totally spurious. Great Britain's "CAR" magazine has fanned the flames of this myth by consistently maintaining that it 'coined' the term or sometimes that LJK Setright coined the term "in the 'mid sixties." The problem is that a car that debuted in March of 1966 was not really available until mid to late 1967. I have the Brooklands Books reprint of the original "1000 miles in the Miura" story - it was published in Dec '67 and Jan '68 and described events that unfolded in Sept '67 - and even then Setright describes the Mirua he was delivering to one of the first British buyers as mostly still a prototype. He does NOT use the word 'supercar' in that article either. To me, this is a great post. I had always assumed CAR's claim about Setright to be true.
|
|
|
Camlet
304 posts
18 months
|
heebeegeetee said: The question of pedigree, Lamborghini v Audi. One is a tractor producer with little motorsport heritage. T'other isn't a tractor producer but does have quite a history and also a rather impeccable motor sporting heritage. So which has the pedigree? VAG owns the Audi and Lambo brands. Pedigree is a romantic notion for us punters to dwell on driven by professional marketers. Revenue and EBIT is the actual order of the day and VAG are among the best. Because they use their platforms across brands. Like the R8 and Gallardo. Neither are Supercars. Excellent modern sports cars yes but built for financial return. That's not to say VAG (or other majors) can't build Supercars. The Veyron is a perfect example. But it was built because VAG wanted to make a statement about its capability far beyond financial return and everything about it is extreme and unique. I don't personally like it but there's no denying the Veyron is remarkable. It and its peer group are the only cars IMO that can be classified Supercars.
|
|
|
AndyBrew
1,117 posts
88 months
|
How can it not be a "supercar" just because it has a V8 I don't understand that.
|
|
|
Wills2
5,345 posts
44 months
|
AndyBrew said: How can it not be a "supercar" just because it has a V8 I don't understand that. Because its performance is no better than a cooking 911, looks like a super car goes like a sports car.
|
|
|
RDMcG
7,048 posts
76 months
|
For me,rarity counts, as well as an unshared platform. Thus the Carrera GT is a supercar,but the GT3 RS is not. Same with the Audi.
Given than handling is a must, then its:
Cost
Rarity
Uniqueness
Availability of personalization
GT-R is the one that befuddles me, but I will mark it down on cost .
|
|
|
AndyBrew
1,117 posts
88 months
|
Wills2 said: Because its performance is no better than a cooking 911, looks like a super car goes like a sports car. Not sure that stacks up: Audi R8 Ferrari 360 CS 424hp 425hp 187mph 186mph 0-60 4.6 secs 0-60 4.1 secs
|
|
|
WCZ
1,472 posts
63 months
|
R8 isn't a super car imo, neither is the TT RS which it looks too similar to imo
|
|
|
Wills2
5,345 posts
44 months
|
AndyBrew said: Wills2 said: Because its performance is no better than a cooking 911, looks like a super car goes like a sports car. Not sure that stacks up: Audi R8 Ferrari 360 CS 424hp 425hp 187mph 186mph 0-60 4.6 secs 0-60 4.1 secs The 360CS has a power to weight ratio of around 320hp/tonne vs the R8 at 260/tonne, I wouldn't put too much store by 0-60 figures esp when comparing 4WD to RWD. My 911 has a top speed of 189mph but that doesn't make it a super car either. The CS was also based on a car that came out in 1999, hardly apples with apples.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
27 months
|
You're all wrong...
A 'supercar' isn't any type of motorcar as such.
It's a reaction, that is why the Lamborghini Miura remains a 'supercar' yet can be trounced by any modern 2ltr Hot-hatch worthy of the name.
This fact also explains why the well-heeled in central London spend countless millions trying to out-do each other.
A single delicate Lily in a green pasture is something that catches the eye and is admired for its sudden beauty, put the same Lily in a field of Lilies and it becomes nothing special at all and goes unnoticed.
The status of supercar can also be one of personal circumstance and a view taken from there, not everyone in this World or in this Country is wealthy and for a friend of mine this is very true, he has worked hard for little reward all his 20+ years and when the R8 came out he was 'taken' by the car, to many the R8 isn't a supercar at all, for him on very limited means it was, after a few years he has bought one, second-hand with a few miles on it. It is, without doubt, a supercar. Having lived on a bland diet of Cavaliers and Escorts that R8 is for him a more super supercar than the 458 or Aventador is to someone who may have bought either with a debit card with the wave of a hand and the pressing of a few little keys.
The very people who can do such a thing needed the new phrase 'Hyper-car', a term coined solely to distinguish the very very well-heeled from the just plain well-heeled.
For some people even this isn't enough to distinguish them and satisfy their internal psyche, they are the ones that feel the need 'To gild refined gold, to paint the lily' (Shakespeare) There is no irony that in modern English we have shortened this to 'Gilding the Lily', as I have said even the term Hyper-car isn't enough for some and the self-agrandised and self-congratulatory will need more and it is these people that can be seen driving around in awful abominations of what was once a well considered and beautiful car.
There is no single definition of what is a supercar, it's as variable as as we all are and subject to vagaries of human nature and circumstance.
Just my opinion, Gene.
|
|
|
Dave Hedgehog
5,320 posts
73 months
|
j3gme said:  This is my R8.....I think it looks supercar..ish looks like one goes like one the production line is like any other supercar if it quacks like a duck problem is there are so many hypercars now its all got rather silly
|
|
