That ain't a sports car.......

[bremb0]

Right I noticed in another thread that the mx-5 was classed as a sports car.

Someone then posted a definition of sports car, which was small, seats two people and high powered, now the mx-5 is small and seats two people but is in no way high powered.

The average family car isn't far off in terms of speed, and I'd be pretty embarassed if I was going hell for leather at about 6500rpm on an nsl road and a woman in a clio diesel went crusing past in 3rd gear with all her "torque". (I know on the "twistys" she'd be in your rear view mirror )

Now I know everyone has different criteria for what they consider a sports car, but surely fast is something that would spring to mind if you asked someone to describe a sports car?

So would you consider an mx-5 a sports car and why?

p.s please note I am fully aware that the mx-5 is a decent handling car, but I would class it as more "sporty" looking as opposed to sports car.

[kambites]

No, fast isn't something that would spring to mind for me. Speed has little or nothing to do with it.

In simplest terms, I think I'd define a sports car as a car whose primary reason for existence is to be fun to drive hard.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 9th March 18:33

[bremb0]

kambites said:

No, fast isn't something that would spring to mind for me. Speed has little or nothing to do with it.

So if a car done 0-60 in 20 seconds but had two seats that could say "sports" car to you?

[kambites]

bremb0 said:

So if a car done 0-60 in 20 seconds but had two seats that could say "sports" car to you?

"Could", yes. And I'm sure there have been examples if you go back far enough.

[Sline]

kambites said:

Speed has little or nothing to do with it.

Very true, look for example at 99% of pre 1990 "sports cars" You question answered in one!

[dave9]

no you are completely wrong

lotus elan's are a sports car, so are elises

sports cars are by their definition imho not that quick but they are light, rear drive and HANDLE well

[Kiltox]

Anything without a diesel engine. And certainly not a diesel TT.

[/thread]



It's all about the handling, on a more serious note.

[kambites]

I don't think RWD is necessary, personally, although there are very few examples which aren't.

[bremb0]

So is a clio cup a sports car?

They handle great

They are fwd but so were elans

[MadmanO/T People]

Peter Griffin says the Mazda Miata (American name for the MX-5) Isn't a sports car!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73nRapBJ-Zw

[Deerfoot]

bremb0 said:

So would you consider an mx-5 a sports car

Yes, the MX-5 is a sports car.

bremb0 said:

and why?

I know, go and drive one and try and think of a reason why it isn`t a sports car.

[B.J.W]

kambites said:

bremb0 said:

So if a car done 0-60 in 20 seconds but had two seats that could say "sports" car to you?

"Could", yes.

I'm with kambites on this one.

Would you class the Ariel Atom 1 as a sports car?

(i'd say yes - fantastic handling, a proper drivers car. 0-100? 18 seconds.

Would you class the Lotus Elise S1/S2 as a sports car?

(i'd say yes - fantastic handling, a proper drivers car. 0-100? 18 seconds



I think this is what Kambites is suggesting here. A sports car is not all about speed. There is a whole lot more to consider too.

[kambites]

bremb0 said:

So is a clio cup a sports car?

They handle great

To me, no. Because being fun to drive isn't its primary purpose. It's primary purpose is to be practicable.

Actually maybe "purpose" is the wrong word, "design aim" would be closer.

[MX7]

bremb0 said:

kambites said:

No, fast isn't something that would spring to mind for me. Speed has little or nothing to do with it.

So if a car done 0-60 in 20 seconds but had two seats that could say "sports" car to you?

MG Midget had about 45hp, yet is almost the classic "sports car".

It's a bit of a useless term really.

[hornetrider]

[bremb0]

MX7 said:

MG Midget had about 45hp, yet is almost the classic "sports car".

It's a bit of a useless term really.

But how did the midget compare to cars in it's time?

It's like looking back at hot hatches, what used to be considered a hot hatch before would pale in comparison to hot hatches nowadays.

I just tend to associate sports car with superior performance to say a small family hatchback.

[kambites]

bremb0 said:

I just tend to associate sports car with superior performance to say a small family hatchback.

I think you're probably in a minority then. Obviously there are no formal definitions of these terms, they are always open to individual interpretation.

For example, I would call a Suzuki Cappuccino a sports car, but not a BMW M3.

[B.J.W]

kambites said:

bremb0 said:

So is a clio cup a sports car?

They handle great

To me, no. Because being fun to drive isn't its primary purpose. It's primary purpose is to be practicable.

Actually maybe "purpose" is the wrong word, "design aim" would be closer.

On this I will disagree with you. I would count the Clio Cup (172) as a sports car.

[davepoth]

bremb0 said:

So if a car done 0-60 in 20 seconds but had two seats that could say "sports" car to you?

No. There are several two seat cars that slow that aren't sports cars.



as an example. Sports cars are all about balance, and balance can't be added in later. It has to be there from the start.

[Classic Grad 98]

If a sports car has to be high powered, then my caterham isn't one... Rather begs the question 'what is it?' then!?