Where have all the proper sports cars gone?

[xRIEx]

boxerTen said:

Finally this picture says it all really. On the left a 'proper' sports car...

This (latter) sentence says it all: who the hell are you to say what is a 'proper' sports car? You're not short of arrogance, are you? Is a 458 not a proper sportscar because it's 300Kg too heavy for your liking? An Ultima GTR is not a proper sportscar (OK, bordering on supercar depending on the engine) because it's a kit? A Noble is not a proper sportscar because it's got turbos? A Caterham Levante isn't a proper sportscar because it's got the engine up front? In fact, I'd like to see how well you could handle that latter non-sportscar.

Still waiting for you to tell us what is a proper sportscar.

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 13th July 22:07

[mx5tom]

This argument crops up here so often, and it really is a bit pointless really. Everyone has their own opinion and general idea (or very specific idea in this case...) of what a sports car is, what a super car is, etc...

There's no rules about it, it's just opinion so surely no one can say with any authority whether something is or isn't a sports car... That said, the oddest one I've heard is someone describing their C Class diesel as a sports car. Even I draw the line at that one.

[Chilliman]

xRIEx said:

boxerTen said:

Finally this picture says it all really. On the left a 'proper' sports car...

This (latter) sentence says it all: who the hell are you to say what is a 'proper' sports car? You're not short of arrogance, are you? Is a 458 not a proper sportscar because it's 300Kg too heavy for your liking? An Ultima GTR is not a proper sportscar (OK, bordering on supercar depending on the engine) because it's a kit? A Noble is not a proper sportscar because it's got turbos? A Caterham Levante isn't a proper sportscar because it's got the engine up front? In fact, I'd like to see how well you could handle that latter non-sportscar.

Still waiting for you to tell us what is a proper sportscar.

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 13th July 22:07

Good post. Bit personal but still good It always intrigues me when people post with strong views where their experience comes from????? It's easy to sprout views based on stuff you've only read, basically just repeating what other people have written. IMHO, if you haven't driven the cars that give you the experience to make a qualified judgement then you're just talking bocks.......... No offence intended,

Chilli

[gmasterfunk]

Slightly down on power, but a clio V6?

Edit and a bit fat too at 1475Kg

Edited by gmasterfunk on Friday 13th July 22:27

Edited by gmasterfunk on Friday 13th July 22:28

[interloper]

I would just like to know were, when and who built all these sub 1200kg, mid engined, multi cylinder'ed naturally aspirated sports cars that the OP must be referring to given the thread title?

[Randy Winkman]

Chilliman said:

Randy Winkman said:

kambites said:

Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people.

I agree.

Maybe thats because the 'vast majority' don't understand what 'mid engined' actually means

Are you referring to marketing claptrap that some companies come out with to try to convince us that their front engined car is better than some else's front engined car because the engine is a few centimetres further back?

Is an E-Type Jag "mid engined"?

[Chilliman]

Randy Winkman said:

Chilliman said:

Randy Winkman said:

kambites said:

Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people.

I agree.

Maybe thats because the 'vast majority' don't understand what 'mid engined' actually means

Are you referring to marketing claptrap that some companies come out with to try to convince us that their front engined car is better than some else's front engined car because the engine is a few centimetres further back?

Is an E-Type Jag "mid engined"?

I'm not referring to anything, and if you read my post again you'll see it was a simple statement with no reference or innuedo at all. I simply said that alot (the vast majority) of people don't understand what mid engined means... chill out

[interloper]

Randy Winkman said:

Is an E-Type Jag "mid engined"?

Technically yes, E types, TVRs, Caterhams Corvettes etc have the engine as far back from the front wheels as possible for better balance (technically known as front/mid). Some front engine cars have the block much further forward, a really good example is the old Audi quattro set up, front engine entirely ahead of the front axle, understeer ahoy!

[anonymous-user]

boxerTen said:

So:

911 GT3: too heavy, not mid-engined.

No, you're right, the Gt3 is a terrible car, really not a sports car at all, and wow, what a tubby thing it is too, so heavy i'm suprised it can even move.........

here's one trying to move it's fat ar*e along a flat bit of road and failing:




;-)


(i suspect the OP has a) never driven a GT3, and b) can't afford one either )

[Randy Winkman]

Chilliman said:

I'm not referring to anything, and if you read my post again you'll see it was a simple statement with no reference or innuedo at all. I simply said that alot (the vast majority) of people don't understand what mid engined means... chill out

Apologies - I clearly (still) don't understand your post.

[boxerTen]

Oh dear.

I'm not trying to define what a proper modern sports car is - merely using that phrase as shorthand for a lightweight, mid-engined, throttle responsive car.

Can manufacturers build light-weight cars? Lotus, TVR, Noble, McLaren, even Ferrari if it puts its mind to it.
Can they build brilliant n/a engines? Porsche, BMW, Honda, Ferrari.
Can they build mid-engined cars? Porsche, Audi, Lotus, etc.

Can they do all three. Yes. But none bother - which was my original point.

For what its worth I think a Lotus Exige V6 is perhaps the best fit. If one were to build one's own then a GT3-engined Ultima perhaps but I lack the expertise for such a project, particularly the complications of reversing the direction of rotation of the drivetrain.

[McHaggis]

Still trying to work out the obsession with mid-engined to be honest.

Its a reasonable option, but rear or even, dare I say it, front engined, RWD has made some fine, responsive cars... I just don't think (and judging by the manufacturers, nor do they) think mid-engined is a way to go, even in niche.

Possibly because of packaging / platform standardisation, but also because a rear engined car (eg. 911) isn't trying to kill you all of the time these days. Just some of the time.

[boxerTen]

xRIEx said:

This (latter) sentence says it all: who the hell are you to say what is a 'proper' sports car? You're not short of arrogance, are you? Is a 458 not a proper sportscar because it's 300Kg too heavy for your liking? An Ultima GTR is not a proper sportscar (OK, bordering on supercar depending on the engine) because it's a kit? A Noble is not a proper sportscar because it's got turbos? A Caterham Levante isn't a proper sportscar because it's got the engine up front? In fact, I'd like to see how well you could handle that latter non-sportscar.

Still waiting for you to tell us what is a proper sportscar.

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 13th July 22:07

The 458 is a GT. The Ultima is a proper sports car but one that I don't have the expertise to build with a suitable high-revving engine. The Noble is compromised by its turbos but likely brilliant otherwise. The Caterham is compromised (a little) by its engine position. As are 911s. They both inherit their design from pre-mid-engined thinking days. Hence Ariel's Atom more modern choice of engine position - but it lacks a roof. I want a roof (and a cage), not to keep the rain out, but to keep the ground out in the unlikely event of an off-road excursion of the inverted variety.

[interloper]

boxerTen said:

Hence Ariel's Atom more modern choice of engine position - but it lacks a roof. I want a roof (and a cage), not to keep the rain out, but to keep the ground out in the unlikely event of an off-road excursion of the inverted variety.

The Aerial is slightly flawed as it is mid layout but the engine sit transversely. Its a good set up by if you are going to discount the Caterham and 911 on engine location then you have to realise Aerials, Elises, Exiges etc are slightly too rear biased and flawed as well!

[Dusty964]

I can only suggest that having discounted virtually every brand that makes a likely candidate for one ridiculous reason or another, that you get sit down this morning with your crayons and design your own.



I wish you luck.

[Wadeski]

OP is a bit of a tit, isn't he?

[Scuffers]

interloper said:

boxerTen said:

Hence Ariel's Atom more modern choice of engine position - but it lacks a roof. I want a roof (and a cage), not to keep the rain out, but to keep the ground out in the unlikely event of an off-road excursion of the inverted variety.

The Aerial is slightly flawed as it is mid layout but the engine sit transversely. Its a good set up by if you are going to discount the Caterham and 911 on engine location then you have to realise Aerials, Elises, Exiges etc are slightly too rear biased and flawed as well!

careful...

just because a Caterham is front engined, it's wrong?

please then explain why it can run rings round an Atom in just about every respect?

And before you tar Lotus's with your huge brush, what's wrong with ~60/40% distribution? (and anybody that thinks 50/50 is ideal please take yourselves outside and shoot yourself).

other point that is vastly important but mostly ignored is how high up the engine is (and it's effect on COG), this is one of the reasons the Atom is so crap.

And whilst I am here, the OP has clearly not driven a decent supercharged car, apart from not being 'overly complex' as he put it, they also offer similar throttle response as NA engines.

[hunt_the_fox]

I don't understand the OPs obsession with labelling everything that is over a certain weight as a GT. Also in common with a lot of others I'd like a list of non modern cars that fulfill the criteria from the good old days that never existed.

[xRIEx]

boxerTen said:

I'm not trying to define what a proper modern sports car is - merely using that phrase as shorthand for a lightweight, mid-engined, throttle responsive car.

That statement is amazing! fk me, this is some funny st.



I was already to counter the OP's latest comments, when it hit me: OP, you're not a driver (or rather, a driving enthusiast). Quite simply, a driver will know it's how a car feels to drive that is important, not the specific power, nor if a car is 1199kg as opposed to 1201kg.

The MX-5 is often touted on here as the ultimate all-round driver's car, a 4-cylinder, front-engined, sub-300bhp, under 90bhp/litre roadster without a real* roof.

You're obsessed with what is written on the spec sheet. Serious question, are you of driving age and if so, what cars have you driven to bring you to the conclusion in this thread?

 *

[anonymous-user]

boxerTen said:

The Caterham is compromised by its engine position.

Never before, in the history of the universe have these words been uttered! The Caterham is brilliant BECAUSE of its engine position!


Here's a Caterham being massively compromised by its awful engine position earlier:




;-)