Supercars besides the usual Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches etc?

[DRVR]

What are your favorite supercars? Something more exotic besides just Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches and the like.

Anytime the subject of supercars come up it's normally about Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches. If it gets a little more involved it may reach McLaren, Bugatti, Pagani and königsegg. It gets quite boring really. But I know there is more out there. 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. Even concept cars and prototypes are fine.

Edited by DRVR on Saturday 27th August 15:56 to emphasize it should be a middle engined two-seater car as it seems it was not clear enough

Edited by DRVR on Monday 29th August 11:59

[DRVR]

This is what I was looking for. Exotics supercars. I didn't know the first two you posted. Very nice. Thanks!

Although I would have to ask if the Lexus is indeed considered a Supercar? I don't think it's mid-engined either right?

[DRVR]

Isn't the Ultima a kitcar?

[DRVR]

component IIRC is just a fancy name for kitcar, no? I thought the Ultima was a kitcar for the Corvette drive train and costs like 30K or so.

[DRVR]

delta0 said:

Porsche as a super car is only really applicable to the very top end of their cars.

I agree. Which is why I don't consider cars like the Viper or any TVR to be a supercar. Specially not the Ultima, which is a kit car. If any of these are supercars then any Porsche and even Corvettes are supercars. Those are just sports cars I think.

[DRVR]

caelite said:

I know you said not the 'usual' Ferrari's which I would define as the 488 or Enzo. This monster... if I had infinite money. So retardedly fast yet so practical at the same time, its like a hot hatch on crack.

I meant not any Ferraris at all. So cliche.

But oh well, so many are posting just sports cars instead of real supercars. Even Lexus has gotten in. So might as well post Ferraris too.

[DRVR]

simonr100 said:

I am lucky enough to own 2 very nice cars
1) McLaren 12C Spider
2) Aston Martin DB9

But the supercars that I dream of owning are

Ferrari F40
Porsche 959
Lamborghini countach
Lamborghini miura
Ferrari 250 gt calafornia spider

But maybe that says more about my age than anything....

Or your good taste.

[DRVR]

Name of user said:

Your set of standards which qualify a car as a supercar may not be shared by (m)any others here.
Since there is nobody who's job it is to identify what cars are supercars and what are not, it is all down to your induvidual interpretation.

True.

It used to be that to make your own car you had to make your own engine. But ever since companies like De Tomaso and Iso started using other companies' engines and making only bodies, sports cars and supercars have become a dime a dozen.

It used to be that supercars also had to win something. Le Mans etc before they would start being hyped.

But now anybody can design a cool looking car and drop a Ford, Chevy, BMW or Mercedes V8 in it, slap a ridiculously expensive price tag on it and self-baptize it a supercar. I'm not sure if De Tomaso and Iso were the first ones, probably not. But that is as far as I can think of since the term supercar was only coined in the 70's.

There are so many "supercars" today that it's hard to keep track. And everyday a new "supercar" prototype is announced and ends up in nothing.

To me to be a true supercar it needs at least these:

1. Be rare and produced in small numbers
2. Not be produced in series (so Audi R8, Gallardo, Huracán and even Murcielogo and Aventador and most Ferraris, Porsches etc do not qualify)
3.Be exotic looking
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.
5.Be very expensive. Huracán prices are too cheap. Aventador prices and up.

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.

I had hesitated including criteria 6 because there would be a few exceptions. Such as Ferrari. They make cheaper models like the 488 and anything not Laferrari at the moment. But the Laferrari IS a supercar. It's Ferrari after all. Same thing with Lamborghini and the Veneno. Supercar! Even the Ford GT is a supercar, because it has heritage. So there are a few exceptions in criteria 6. It's just there to exclude cheap fiberglass sports cars or put together sports cars manufactures which may release a souped up version of their cheaper cars trying to call it a supercar

At least these 5 prerequisites for me. Otherwise it's just an expensive sports car.

Edited by DRVR on Monday 29th August 12:22

[DRVR]

Name of user said:

I see your point, but that list may be verging onto "hypercar" territory, which is a whole other ball game!

See, I think hypercar is a BS term. I think it was created by real supercars manufacturers to differentiate themselves from all the mouth-breathers calling their shoddy cars supercars for marketing reasons. Or maybe it was created by the press and real supercar fans to differentiate real supercars because people started calling any sports cars with a stronger engine a supercars just because it is their favorite car.

The hypercar IS the real supercar.

But soon the mouth-breathers will catch on and start calling the low stuff hypercars too and then another term will need to be coined again to set apart real supercars. Probably ubercar or something.

The truth is we don't need the term hypercar. They are either sports cars or supercars. Two is enough.

[DRVR]

Esceptico said:

Looks like a slightly less attractive 355. Similar performance but fibreglass, French and has a turbo engine rather than a lovely high revving (and glorious sounding) NA V8. Not sure I see the attraction except that it isn't a Ferrari and you are unlikely to see another one when you are driving it.

Yes, I don't think any of the Venturis are supercars. They are just sports cars, like the F355. If Venturi is a supercar so is any Aston Martin too. Yet they are not.

[DRVR]

k-ink said:

I am honestly not interested in super cars or hyper cars. I'd prefer to have some ultra light machine and learn how to extract the most from it on track.

So I'd like a Ginetta G40 for the retro looks and amazing track ability. Although with enough budget I'd have it upgraded massively: racing spec dampers, brakes, cage, maybe even one of those tiny £25k V8 engines made from bike components. Essentially it would be a super car in terms of track performance, but with down to earth running costs and simple mechanics.

Yeah, but the thread is about middle engined two-seater SUPERCARS

[DRVR]

jamieduff1981 said:

The TVR Cerbera Speed 12 meets all five of your criteria, whether you have a prejudice against TVR or not

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]

The reason I started this thread was to get a better idea of what's out there currently in the supercar market. I've been out of the loop for the last decade or so. It has changed a lot in the mean time. There are many more than before it seems.

But it seems the design ques haven't really changed much if at all. To me, the supercar designs could always be divided in 4 categories:

1.Lamborghini like (probably the widest range. So may Lambo wannabe designs out there)
2.Ferrari like
3.Porsche like
4.Le Mans like

You could add a 5th category, which is the kitchy design. Those who mix and copy and come up with something that doesn't match or it's just plain ugly or messed up. Too out of this world. Too hey look at me trying way too hard. No balance. But this is not really a category. It's a mistake.

So things still have not changed it seems. Any cars designed by a good designer still seem to fit in one of the 4 categories above. In rare instances a clear mix of two 2 of them. I wanted to see if a new form factor had come along in the mean time. Reason I started the thread. But I guess no new form factors came along yet.

[DRVR]

Vitorio said:

This is getting rather silly with the requirements IMHO

I think you are down to McLaren, Noble, Zenvo, perhaps Pagani and Koenigsegg. And im not sure Noble really qualifies as exotic, being built in a shed in Leicester, which goes for McLaren to some degree as well (ducks). Imho that rules out most of those smaller supercar builders out as well, Pagani might be flash and all that, but in the end its just another Merc engined small batch specialty built in a shed, the shed just happens to be in Italy rather then Birmingham, and the bloke hammering it is called Guiseppe instead of Garry.

ok, probably a bit over the top on the pagani bit, but yeah, its hard to do exotic, "we dont build no practical cars", without getting into built in a shed territory

Truth is, if i were a billionaire i would just get a Ferrari and dont care that people might consider it cliche or "the obvious predictable boring choice".

The reason I excluded Ferrari, Lambos etc has nothing too do with them being cliche as in not qualifying. It was because I'm well familiar with their cars, because well, they are cliche. I wanted to see what else is out there. If I didn't exclude the usual suspects the thread would be full of them. But I know them already. I want new stuff.

Even excluding them some are still posting.

And I have nothing against cars built on a shed. This is actually the definition of a true exotic. Hand made! Nothing wrong with that, so I don't know what gave you the impression I had a problem with that. If I came across as I did, I apologize.

But McLarens, Paganis and Koenigseggs are definitely supercars.

Edited by DRVR on Monday 29th August 12:49

Edited by DRVR on Monday 29th August 12:50

[DRVR]

Some Gump said:

Op,

Whilst this is technically"your" thread, I'm calling custard on your rules of what is and what isn't a supercar.

Your definition says that the McLaren f1 isn't a true supercar. Good luck with that one.


Since I've not seen them so far in the thread, what about adding the nutters like the cizetta v16 (the design was later tweeted to be the Diablo). Truly nutty, 80's brilliance. It's like the designers remit was to be twice as mad as everything - so 2 v8's bolted together, 4 pop up headlights "just Coz" and just generally silly




Also shouts for Bugatti eb110, panoz Esperante, Mosler raptor, Venturi atlantique, dauer 962, and very tenuous Lcc rocket, caterham levante and caparo t1

Like I said, there will be a few exceptions to my criteria. I think the exceptions would be pretty clear too.

And I already explicitly said the McLaren is a supercar. The McLaren F1 is right up there with the Countach and F40 and the definition of a supercar.

And which of my criteria doesn't the F1 match?

Cizeta Moroder V16, definitely a supercar!

[DRVR]

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?

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.

[DRVR]

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.

[DRVR]

Trexthedinosaur said:

Pagini Zonda

Lexus LFA

Aston Martin Zagato

A super car, needs to be just that a super-car, the performance of Classic Supercars could only just rival normal hot hatches today ... doesn't mean they are no longer super

Once you get the crown you never lose it. Once a supercar always a supercar. Ali was not less of a chanpion in the era Tyson. Because past supercars performace are not as strong today doesn't matter. They were true supercars in their day.

Pagani, definitely supercar,

The Aston Zagato is just a special edition Aston.

I will not comment on the Toyota again.

[DRVR]

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.

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.

[DRVR]

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?

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.