Definition of a supercar
Discussion
av185 said:
And how can the latest £212k GT2 RS not be a supercar....700bhp 2 wd carbon fibre, magnesium, ground breaking aero similar Ring time to the 918 Spyder La F etc. And only 30 for the UK so very rare too. Anticipated premium £850k+.otr cost.
I think the issue that "911s" have with achieving supercar status is that to most people, a supercar should look and sound outrageous. To a lot of people a GT2 RS is a breathed on Carrera, much in the same way that an M3 is a tarted up 3 series. You even hear such comments on PH, so the average punter who has only a passing interest in cars is unlikely to appreciate the fact that no components are carried over from the base model and that bespoke lightweight parts were made to resemble the base model. Those same people probably think that their Fiesta is somehow similar to the WRC car.The term supercar, to me at least, refers to the body shape and the performance is largely unimportant. No amount of tuning will make an Impreza a supercar, despite time attack cars providing better performance than most, if not all "supercars".
A Muira is still a supercar, despite being slower than a Golf R. If people need that explaining then they won't understand the explanation.
InductionRoar said:
to most people, a supercar should look and sound outrageous.
There is no disputing the McLaren super series are supercars.. ..and yet as with most forced induction engines and McLarens in general....they basically sound crap.. ..as does the turbo 488 Ferrari compared to the n.a. 458.....You also think looks are more important than performance..........good luck with that!
av185 said:
Disagree with your criteria of a supercar being mid engined.
GT4?
Have you driven/owned an F12? It is a supercar.
You need to qualify which 911s too. Carrera.. ..GT3 RS?
And how can the latest £212k GT2 RS not be a supercar....700bhp 2 wd carbon fibre, magnesium, ground breaking aero similar Ring time to the 918 Spyder La F etc. And only 30 for the UK so very rare too. Anticipated premium £850k+.otr cost.
The 911 GT's are... lets call them super-sports as they're so track focused, but I wouldn't class the 2+2 911's as supercars and I own one, love it, just to me it doesnt have the aura of 'super', also the F12 would be a Super GT in my mind, as would the DB11, FF, GTC4...GT4?
Have you driven/owned an F12? It is a supercar.
You need to qualify which 911s too. Carrera.. ..GT3 RS?
And how can the latest £212k GT2 RS not be a supercar....700bhp 2 wd carbon fibre, magnesium, ground breaking aero similar Ring time to the 918 Spyder La F etc. And only 30 for the UK so very rare too. Anticipated premium £850k+.otr cost.
Again, this is all subjective, and I'm not like goose stepping around demanding everyone agree with me
av185 said:
There is no disputing the McLaren super series are supercars.. ..and yet as with most forced induction engines and McLarens in general....they basically sound crap.. ..as does the turbo 488 Ferrari compared to the n.a. 458.....
You also think looks are more important than performance..........good luck with that!
YOU think they sound crap, but that doesn't constitute fact does it? Sound is subjective and opinions on the subject provide nothing more than fuel for further debate. There is no right or wrong.You also think looks are more important than performance..........good luck with that!
Yes, I do believe that looks are more important than performance. Do you think that a modern day M5 is more of a supercar than a Countach? The performance is vastly superior in the M5, but it is a saloon and no matter if it had 2000 BHP and could perform 0-100 in 4 seconds, it would still be a saloon - albeit a supersaloon (opens up a fresh can of worms).
Whilst I think that most would agree that a supercar must offer performance superior to that of other contemporaneous vehicles on the road, the ravages of time have seen the performance of supercars from yesteryear being surpassed by relatively mundane vehicles. A Muira was and always will be a supercar, irrespective of whether the new Kia can outperform it in every respect.
PantsFire said:
The 911 GT's are... lets call them super-sports as they're so track focused,
Problem is even a track focused latter day GT3 RS are eminantly usable on the road as a daily.....not many cars of this performance are similar. This causes a degree of dilution of 911s. Imagine trying to do several track laps in an Aventador...lolYou would cook the tyres brakes and transmission and probably void the warranty too so in this sense cars like this are NOT for driving enjoyment and involvement but merely posing on the Kings road....sad but true! So if driving pleasure comes into the equation in defining a supercar, cars like the Aventador fall well short as confirmed by Ecoty 2013 when the GT3 won and 2014 when the humble GT4 won despite a very expensive Maclaren LT being in the running.
The whole point of the Gt3 and RS is you can drive to a track day via the public road, do a race meet and drive back home again. And have great fun and driving involvement in the process.
Performance...0 to 100 in 7.2 secs fast enough?and 9000rpm rev limit 911 series cup car engine with drilled crankshaft...... and sounds fantastic too.
InductionRoar said:
YOU think they sound crap, but that doesn't constitute fact does it? Sound is subjective and opinions on the subject provide nothing more than fuel for further debate. There is no right or wrong.
Forced induction is the issue here.Give me one turbo car which sounds better and drives better from an enthusiasts and driving involvement point of view compared to the normally aspirated equivalent. Basically there aren't any and this is confirmed by the latest trends for many manufacturers, high end or mainstream, to provide hideously artificial and farty fake sounds piped into the cabin of turbo cars to fool customers into thinking they are driving a car with a na engine.
Unfortunately this ridiculous synthetic sound is no substitute.
The turbo 488 is a remarkable car.
But the fact remains whilst it is faster than the na 458 in many areas of performance, it neither sounds as good not drives as well....yes even Ferrari has difficulties perfecting the linear power delivery of their turbo engines to replicate na power delivery....as do Porsche. And if a supercar is about driving involvement and pleasure, this seriously undermines it's credentials as a supercar.
Edited by av185 on Tuesday 12th December 22:29
av185 said:
Forced induction is the issue here.
Give me one turbo car which sounds better and drives better from an enthusiasts and driving involvement point of view compared to the normally aspirated equivalent.
The turbo 488 is a remarkable car.
But the fact remains whilst it is faster than the na 458 in many areas of performance, it neither sounds as good not drives as well....yes even Ferrari has difficulties perfecting the linear power delivery of their turbo engines to replicate na power delivery....as do Porsche. And if a supercar is about driving involvement and pleasure, this seriously undermines it's credentials as a supercar.
The engine in the 458 is entirely different to that of the 488, so the difference in sound cannot be entirely attributed to the addition of FI. I can't think of a supercar which was offered (in road going format) with both a N/A and FI version of the same engine as standard, however, there a few FI supercars such as the 288 GTO, F40, EB110 or any offering from Koenigsegg, which stand out as high points in the noise stakes.Give me one turbo car which sounds better and drives better from an enthusiasts and driving involvement point of view compared to the normally aspirated equivalent.
The turbo 488 is a remarkable car.
But the fact remains whilst it is faster than the na 458 in many areas of performance, it neither sounds as good not drives as well....yes even Ferrari has difficulties perfecting the linear power delivery of their turbo engines to replicate na power delivery....as do Porsche. And if a supercar is about driving involvement and pleasure, this seriously undermines it's credentials as a supercar.
As a rule, my favourite sounding engines are also N/A, but I also think that the V10 M5 sounds better than most modern supercars, so clearly sound doesn't paint the full picture.
I have no experience of how 488s drive so I cannot comment, but equally, I don't think driveability is a prerequisite of a supercar. Lamborghinis of old are reportedly terrible to drive, but a Diablo is undoubtedly a supercar.
Supercar is a state of mind.
av185 said:
Forced induction is the issue here.
Give me one turbo car which sounds better and drives better from an enthusiasts and driving involvement point of view compared to the normally aspirated equivalent. Basically there aren't any and this is confirmed by the latest trends for many manufacturers, high end or mainstream, to provide hideously artificial and farty fake sounds piped into the cabin of turbo cars to fool customers into thinking they are driving a car with a na engine.
Unfortunately this ridiculous synthetic sound is no substitute.
Well forced induction allows for lighter cars with a much more exciting power to weight ratio. When I was little I had a mildly tweaked FD Rx7 that ran rings around the 348s and 355s of the day at Willow Springs.Give me one turbo car which sounds better and drives better from an enthusiasts and driving involvement point of view compared to the normally aspirated equivalent. Basically there aren't any and this is confirmed by the latest trends for many manufacturers, high end or mainstream, to provide hideously artificial and farty fake sounds piped into the cabin of turbo cars to fool customers into thinking they are driving a car with a na engine.
Unfortunately this ridiculous synthetic sound is no substitute.
These days I’ve got used to the accleration of a monster EV daily driver, and I needed to move to a turbo to feel any excitement. What you call a purist experience is to me is just dull in slow, twitchy, unwieldy cars. Give me the pace of a lighter turbo charged car any day. And speaking of farty, no matter how nice the high speed wail, the Europeans sure sound that way around town.
Nano2nd said:
Durzel said:
Also it's not a supercar.
it definitely is a supercar.Perhaps we should have some kind of national vote on the issue, so people can decide if a top level 911 is a supercar or not. I'm pretty sure that every other time that we've had a national vote on a contentious issue it has resolved it once and for all and everyone has stopped arguing.
IMHO it's certainly an amazing car in every way, but no supercar can just be the top spec of a model that starts lower down. Supercars have to stand head and shoulders above lesser cars to qualify. They can fit it with a hyperdrive and vertical take off, but as long as they sell the non-supercar 911s it won't fit the definition for me (and yes I know it barely shares any parts beyond switchgear, but it's still the same model range). That doesn't make it any less of a car though, it's just a label.
hunter 66 said:
I use my 991.2 GT3 RS as a daily driver , thus feel it is not a supercar , which needs to be more of an event. .
Every time this topic comes up my answer is the same. A supercar is about more than just speed. A supercar needs to have something undefinable. The brand is vital, Ford can never make a supercar (sorry R8 boys, neither can Audi) because the brand is diluted by the shopping hatch back. Chuck a set of Audi keys on the bar and nobody will give a second glance, chuck Lamborghini keys on the bar and it's completely different. In this way, IMO, Porsche also rule themselves out, Great Aunt Mable wouldn't be able to tell at a glance that the 911 GT3 RS parked across the street was any different to the Carrera parked on her neighbours drive, however, she would, in all probability, be able to tell that a Huracan was out of the ordinary and not something she saw every day. The same with primary school kids, park a Countach outside and they would notice, park an R8 there and chances are they wouldn't be as impressed. The R8 is perfectly capable of running rings around the Countach and I know which would be better to be sat in for a long journey, plus Audi throw in every day usability and reliability and other such friparies. But I would pick the Countach over the R8 every day if given a choice to drive.
MKnight702 said:
Every time this topic comes up my answer is the same. A supercar is about more than just speed. A supercar needs to have something undefinable. The brand is vital, Ford can never make a supercar (sorry R8 boys, neither can Audi) because the brand is diluted by the shopping hatch back. Chuck a set of Audi keys on the bar and nobody will give a second glance, chuck Lamborghini keys on the bar and it's completely different.
In this way, IMO, Porsche also rule themselves out, Great Aunt Mable wouldn't be able to tell at a glance that the 911 GT3 RS parked across the street was any different to the Carrera parked on her neighbours drive, however, she would, in all probability, be able to tell that a Huracan was out of the ordinary and not something she saw every day. The same with primary school kids, park a Countach outside and they would notice, park an R8 there and chances are they wouldn't be as impressed. The R8 is perfectly capable of running rings around the Countach and I know which would be better to be sat in for a long journey, plus Audi throw in every day usability and reliability and other such friparies. But I would pick the Countach over the R8 every day if given a choice to drive.
Next you will be saying an LFA isn't a supercar because Lexus make IS200s.In this way, IMO, Porsche also rule themselves out, Great Aunt Mable wouldn't be able to tell at a glance that the 911 GT3 RS parked across the street was any different to the Carrera parked on her neighbours drive, however, she would, in all probability, be able to tell that a Huracan was out of the ordinary and not something she saw every day. The same with primary school kids, park a Countach outside and they would notice, park an R8 there and chances are they wouldn't be as impressed. The R8 is perfectly capable of running rings around the Countach and I know which would be better to be sat in for a long journey, plus Audi throw in every day usability and reliability and other such friparies. But I would pick the Countach over the R8 every day if given a choice to drive.
InductionRoar said:
MKnight702 said:
Every time this topic comes up my answer is the same. A supercar is about more than just speed. A supercar needs to have something undefinable. The brand is vital, Ford can never make a supercar (sorry R8 boys, neither can Audi) because the brand is diluted by the shopping hatch back. Chuck a set of Audi keys on the bar and nobody will give a second glance, chuck Lamborghini keys on the bar and it's completely different.
In this way, IMO, Porsche also rule themselves out, Great Aunt Mable wouldn't be able to tell at a glance that the 911 GT3 RS parked across the street was any different to the Carrera parked on her neighbours drive, however, she would, in all probability, be able to tell that a Huracan was out of the ordinary and not something she saw every day. The same with primary school kids, park a Countach outside and they would notice, park an R8 there and chances are they wouldn't be as impressed. The R8 is perfectly capable of running rings around the Countach and I know which would be better to be sat in for a long journey, plus Audi throw in every day usability and reliability and other such friparies. But I would pick the Countach over the R8 every day if given a choice to drive.
Next you will be saying an LFA isn't a supercar because Lexus make IS200s.In this way, IMO, Porsche also rule themselves out, Great Aunt Mable wouldn't be able to tell at a glance that the 911 GT3 RS parked across the street was any different to the Carrera parked on her neighbours drive, however, she would, in all probability, be able to tell that a Huracan was out of the ordinary and not something she saw every day. The same with primary school kids, park a Countach outside and they would notice, park an R8 there and chances are they wouldn't be as impressed. The R8 is perfectly capable of running rings around the Countach and I know which would be better to be sat in for a long journey, plus Audi throw in every day usability and reliability and other such friparies. But I would pick the Countach over the R8 every day if given a choice to drive.
wouldn't that rule out a Lambo as its a VAG product? or a Ferrari because its really just a big Fiat?
what i'd like to know is what happens if you throw your Lambo keys on the bar attached to a Ford key ring? (apart from the obvious kicking you deserve for trying to look cool by throwing your fancy VAG keys on a bar lol)
12pack said:
Well then Lamborghini make SUVs and hence can certainly not be a supercar marque.
Lambo do offer an SUV but, for the time being, it is a minor model in their range. If you see a Lambo on the road chances are it's one of their 200 MPH performance cars. Porsche on the other hand seem to sell roughly as many 4x4s as they do performance cars, you're certainly much more likely to see a Cayenne or Macan on the road than a 911. And you're ten thousand times as likely to see an IS200 than you are an LFA.Not saying I agree with the logic; I think a mass market manufacturer can make a supercar (I'd call the R8, LFA and 918 all supercars), but arguing against it by comparing Lexus to Lambo is a false equivalency.
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff