So Ferrari , Lambo and MacLaren are supercars and Astons ...

[jonby]

vankypanky said:

it used to be old benchmark of sub 5 seconds AND 150mph+ and that was in the nineties
i think with inflation we are now looking at sub 4 and 200mph+

would make the 177 , Lambo , Mclaren all supercars.

pretty much makes sense.

Having seen this kind of thread umpteen times over the last few years, the only two things we can be certain of are firstly that there will never be a consensus and secondly, that performance stats cannot be used alone as the benchmark

Apart from anything else, there are loads of fast audis & mercs that would meet those stats if the speed restrictors were lifted and 0-60 times have become meaningless - it's all about 0-100mph or 0-200kph now. The problem with 0-60 times is they are all so close together and the 4wd and/or auto cars have a huge advantage that is sometimes reversed over 0-100

The fact is that in order to get amazing performance stats and handling, it used to be that you had to compromise and buys something exotic & impractical. You no longer need to do that. Almost all cars that met the old criteria were incredibly rare, highly desirable, very expensive and by niche brands

But now you can buy top performance cars by Toyota (Lexus LFA), Ford (GT), RS Audis, etc it gives some people a problem because they have never associated supercars with mainstream brands. Equally now you can buy a car with the performance of an RS6 avant, it gives a problem to the old definitions because supercar and estate don't sit comfortably in the same sentence for many people

The result is that you end up with many people using subjective criteria or overlaying conditions, so for instance it has to be a certain price, or mid engine, or only have 2 doors, or be a certain way up the range. A car that meets those criteria by say Audi might be judged differently to the same car by Lambo (R8 & Huracan), despite being almost identical under the skin

For some, supercar is still about vehicles that make you look twice with a double take. For others, it has to be intimidating to drive. But we have moved on a long way since my childhood poster car, the countach, which was almost more magical because of the awkward driving position and the poor visibility.

It's an interesting argument but it won't ever lead to anything conclusive - times have simply changed too much for that

[mikey k]

Surely production numbers should figure on the "equation" ?

[DB9VolanteDriver]

mikey k said:

Surely production numbers should figure on the "equation" ?

So, someone should just go ahead and create a multivariate equation that allows one to determine if a car is a supercar or not. In this way you could define many weighted input variables to account for all sorts of factors.

[tonyhall38]

my car is 'super'....
so its a super car....fk what anybody else thinks....

[jonby]

mikey k said:

Surely production numbers should figure on the "equation" ?

They would in mine, hence my reference to rarity, but not necessarily definitively

One of the problems is that many of us on here are in our 30s/40s/50s (I'm in the middle group) - I suspect it's really more for a younger crowd in some ways to determine what is a supercar, bearing in mind the subjectivity involved

We come from an era (80s) where supercar was the top of the tree. Countach, F40, etc. Did Testarossa count as a supercar in those days ? I suspect so. What about 328 ? I'm fairy sure 911 turbo did ? Most of these cars were made in much smaller numbers than the equivalents today

But we now have a whole new criteria - hypercar. That term effectively didn't used to exist. Now even hypercar has some argument - Paganis (particularly Zondas) and especially ONE77 are not that quick compared to some supercars and compared to most hypercars, but most people accept they are hypercars, as a result of price, incredible rarity, construction methods, details, etc

We now look back at F40 and say that should probably be a hypercar, but it wasn't a term bandied around at the time

So we then look at the 'base' models where the perverse stats show that on one hand, a Ferrari 458 is more expensive in real terms than a 355 was, yet on the other, will be made in far greater numbers.

Now if we discount F12 because it's a GT despite stats that put almost any car to shame, including some hypercars and most accepted supercars, where do you put the incredibly rare Noble M600 which is surely a supercar by any definition, but would be beaten in many circumstances by the similarly priced, also 2 door, Ferrari F12 ?

And if supercar definitions are agreed to only be the really rare, really exotic stuff, say like the Lambo Aventador, then that also brings problems because the Aventador SV is supposedly almost as quick as a 918 and the Hurcan is arguably not a supercar just because of the existence of the Aventador - to some, supercar needs to be the ultimate car in a marque's model line-up

So whilst still flawed, if we go down a route with at least some of the factors above, pretty much no Aston makes it. But then again, many other cars don't make it which also probably should. Especially as if Astons are not supercars, they are sports cars. But so is a GT86 and an Audi TT - is a DBS really in the same category as a TT ? Keep coming back to the beginning - it's a futile exercise......

[mikey k]

Yeah why not
Its the only true way to get a "definitive" equation
I look forward to the motoring equivalent of E=MC2

[ian365]

Surely most have come across this before. It was written in stone on Mount Sinai to help categorise cars:

skip
shed
why do I bother with this heap
crap car
Vauxhall
car
good car
great car
excellent car
wow that's nice
very fast sporty and very expensive
supercar
hypercar
ultrahypercar
fkingstupidultrahypercar
USS Enterprise

[mikey k]

Seems scientific enough for me

[Phil74891]

ian365 said:

Surely most have come across this before. It was written in stone on Mount Sinai to help categorise cars:

skip
shed
why do I bother with this heap
crap car
Vauxhall
car
good car
great car
excellent car
wow that's nice
very fast sporty and very expensive
supercar
hypercar
ultrahypercar
fkingstupidultrahypercar
USS Enterprise

In my mind, I've owned the first twelve of those. Except a Vauxhall.

[williamp]

To put a car in the supercar category based on performance is ppintless, as somd nug will always say his corsa 1.2 beat a DB5 away from the lights, and my tdi audi is quicker against the clock then an old v8 etc..

So lets just say, to answer the ops question...

....and Astons...

..are a class above the rest, so desrve their own category

[Jon39]

Phil74891 said:

In my mind, I've owned the first twelve of those. Except a Vauxhall.

If you want one years DD travel, for less than the cost of just one return train ticket, try a pre-owned Vauxhall. Provided you are not worried about image, how about purchase cost £800, six years travel, 60,000 miles and not a single fault. You would at least expect bubbly paintwork around the door handles, but no.

Talk about understated. Do not spoil the 'dress-down' image though, with any stickers stating; 'My other car's an Aston Martin'.



PS. Does Mr Warren Buffett still use his old Chevrolet?
Multi, multi billionaire, but "if it keeps going, why change it".

Edited by Jon39 on Wednesday 3rd June 21:49

[Nickbrapp]

Supercars are for men that either have a tiny willy or are so eye watering boring they have to have one to look mildly intresting .
Astons are for gents and men who like to shoot pheasants and gt across Europe. No one looks at someone in a aston and thinks wow what a wker like they do someone in a Ferrari

Edited by Nickbrapp on Wednesday 3rd June 22:29

[davek_964]

Nickbrapp said:

Supercars are for men that either have a tiny willy or are so eye watering boring they have to have one to look mildly intresting .
Astons are for gents and men who like to shoot pheasants and gt across Europe. No one looks at someone in a aston and thinks wow what a wker like they do someone in a Ferrari

Edited by Nickbrapp on Wednesday 3rd June 22:29

So if one owns an Aston and a Ferrari, they are schizophrenic?

[Phil74891]

One person's idle rambling:

Ferrari - class but a bit showy offy
Lambo - trust fund
Maserati - not quite a ferrari
Bentley - old
McClaren - getting there
Alfa - afection
Porsche - nah
Merc - nah
Audi - nah - apart from a V8 RS4 estate for shopping purposes
Aston - pure class

[Jon39]

Phil74891 said:

Audi - nah - apart from a V8 RS4 estate for shopping purposes

Aston - pure class

I can understand why you recommend an RS4 Estate for shopping.

Put the vegetable shopping in the back and when you arrive at home, the vegetables are mixed, sliced, diced, all ready for heating. Easy, a tasty RS4 soup.

[renmure]

davek_964 said:

Nickbrapp said:

Supercars are for men that either have a tiny willy or are so eye watering boring they have to have one to look mildly intresting .
Astons are for gents and men who like to shoot pheasants and gt across Europe.

So if one owns an Aston and a Ferrari, they are schizophrenic?

Yes and no.

Nickbrapp said:

No one looks at someone in a aston and thinks wow what a wker like they do someone in a Ferrari

... or someone making a dick of themselves by sharing their muppety thoughts in public.

[CPBRI]

Being a superb driver, anything I drive becomes a super car.