Where have all the proper sports cars gone?
Discussion
I want a proper modern sports car, not a supercar, nor a sports tourer, just a proper modern sports car with some serious performance. Modern means mid-engined. It should not be heavy. Its engine should have low rotational inertia and good throttle response. For luxury options I would like just two doors and a fixed roof. So:
1. Mid-engined.
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
4. Two doors and a roof.
Am I being too demanding? It seems so. Or am I alone in a world full of undiscerning autobahn-barge lovers? Only a McLaren F1 fits the bill.
1. Mid-engined.
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
4. Two doors and a roof.
Am I being too demanding? It seems so. Or am I alone in a world full of undiscerning autobahn-barge lovers? Only a McLaren F1 fits the bill.
boxerTen said:
I want a proper modern sports car, not a supercar, nor a sports tourer, just a proper modern sports car with some serious performance. Modern means mid-engined. It should not be heavy. Its engine should have low rotational inertia and good throttle response. For luxury options I would like just two doors and a fixed roof. So:
1. Mid-engined.
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
4. Two doors and a roof.
Am I being too demanding? It seems so. Or am I alone in a world full of undiscerning autobahn-barge lovers? Only a McLaren F1 fits the bill.
You are being a bit unrealistic tbh. Also since when has mid engined been modern???1. Mid-engined.
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
4. Two doors and a roof.
Am I being too demanding? It seems so. Or am I alone in a world full of undiscerning autobahn-barge lovers? Only a McLaren F1 fits the bill.
There is the Elise V6 and Evora which would seem to tick the boxes. A Boxster/Cayman not hugely far off. And even something like a C6 Vette is not a million miles off.
How about a Morgan??
Or manybe one of the many small volume and kit car builders? Suspect there's quite a few. GKD Legend, Marlin, Murtaya.
Thanks for the suggestions but they really serve to illuminate how thin the pickings are. My criteria were very generous and were therefore *absolute*. I would hope a decent sports car would comfortably exceed all of them. Certainly it is easy to find rafts of vehicles satisfying any *subset* of them.
So:
911 GT3: too heavy, not mid-engined.
Lotus Evora: too heavy, less than 300bhp.
Lotus Evora S: too heavy, and given its supercharged its rather poor 100bhp/litre is inadequate.
Lotus Exige V6: supercharged, would I notice the difference between it and a naturally aspirated 350bhp 3.5l V6 in terms of throttle response? If yes then fail.
Boxster/Cayman: too heavy.
Corvette C6: too heavy, not mid-engined, less than 90bhp/litre.
Elise with K20 engine transplant: only 4 cylinders, 300bhp but only in supercharged form.
Ultima with BMW 6: tempting but its not a production car, fitting a BMW 6 likely a very bespoke operation (if it'll fit longitudinally), fitting a GT3's boxer 6 may be better?
So:
911 GT3: too heavy, not mid-engined.
Lotus Evora: too heavy, less than 300bhp.
Lotus Evora S: too heavy, and given its supercharged its rather poor 100bhp/litre is inadequate.
Lotus Exige V6: supercharged, would I notice the difference between it and a naturally aspirated 350bhp 3.5l V6 in terms of throttle response? If yes then fail.
Boxster/Cayman: too heavy.
Corvette C6: too heavy, not mid-engined, less than 90bhp/litre.
Elise with K20 engine transplant: only 4 cylinders, 300bhp but only in supercharged form.
Ultima with BMW 6: tempting but its not a production car, fitting a BMW 6 likely a very bespoke operation (if it'll fit longitudinally), fitting a GT3's boxer 6 may be better?
Depends what you mean by modern. Mazda RX7 FD3S kinda fits the bill, if you ignore the piston requirements and the modern bit. You could tart up the inside with some fancy RaceLogic dash stuff I suppose. "Low rotational inertia and good throttle response" as standard.
Apart from that:
And yes I'm biased, but it is one hell of a package when compared to today's crop of "sports" cars.
Apart from that:
boxerTen said:
1. Mid-engined.
They're as near as damnit 50/50, which is what it's all about really.boxerTen said:
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
0 cylinders, easily 300+bhp, technically 238bhp/litre @ 300bhp, 119bhp/litre @ 300bhp if you're being "but it's really a 2.6L engine" about it.boxerTen said:
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
No you're not. Stock RX7 is 1265kg anyway, and easily sheds a few kgs.boxerTen said:
4. Two doors and a roof.
Box: ticked. Includes a useable boot too.And yes I'm biased, but it is one hell of a package when compared to today's crop of "sports" cars.
GravelBen said:
boxerTen said:
My criteria were very generous and were therefore *absolute*.somewhat arbitrary and perhaps chosen for the lack of cars that fulfill all of them
EFA 
But seriously, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Honda ... could take a good 300-350bhp n/a six or eight, plonk it behind the seats in a simple light-weight car and I'd be happy. They don't because there's no profit in it (see Lotus) which means there's precious few of us discerning drivers. On the other hand there is no shortage of people willing to buy the 500bhp and 600bhp saloons and coupes made by every other manufacturer on the planet.
boxerTen said:
But seriously, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Honda ... could take a good 300-350bhp n/a six or eight, plonk it behind the seats in a simple light-weight car and I'd be happy.
Even Lotus don't seem able to meet your weight requirements with modern regs for safety, emissions etc.Ps no issue with that being what you want in a car, but to suggest its the definition of 'a proper sportscar' is way off.
Come to think of it, have there ever been many cars that fit that list of requirements? If the answer is no, they haven't gone anywhere.
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 13th July 01:52
Gaz. said:
I don't understand the 90bhp/litre arguement.
400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp?
This, same with the mid engined argument, does it really matter if the car is well balanced?400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp?
Gaz. said:
I don't understand the 90bhp/litre arguement.
400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp?
Exactly. Seems like people often confuse the overall size of an engine with how big the holes in it are. 400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp?
On a similar note, many of the cars mentioned are mid engined even though driver & passenger are not in front of it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff