Definition of a supercar
Discussion
Atomic12C said:
"Supercar" is nothing more than marketing hype - the manufacturers/dealers will add their own criteria which then leaves the individual to accept or define their own for what makes the car "super".
Everyone already knows what they would include or not in their own definition of 'supercar' and there will never be a consensus due to the vast range of individual criteria.
this Everyone already knows what they would include or not in their own definition of 'supercar' and there will never be a consensus due to the vast range of individual criteria.
av185 said:
thecook101 said:
Absolutely! Or a 911, because it's not a supercar 
Depending of course on the exact model of 911.
(It's like groundhog Day in here
)NewNameNeeded said:
av185 said:
thecook101 said:
Absolutely! Or a 911, because it's not a supercar
Depending of course on the exact model of 911.(It's like groundhog Day in here
)That's like saying the P1 McLaren can't be a supercar because it looks like a 540.
You do realise the GT2RS is a totally different car in every respect to even a Turbo S never mind a Carrera. Even though to Aunt Mabel with her restricted vision they may well look similar, both being 911s.
av185 said:
NewNameNeeded said:
av185 said:
thecook101 said:
Absolutely! Or a 911, because it's not a supercar
Depending of course on the exact model of 911.(It's like groundhog Day in here
)That's like saying the P1 McLaren can't be a supercar because it looks like a 540.
You do realise the GT2RS is a totally different car in every respect to even a Turbo S never mind a Carrera. Even though to Aunt Mabel with her restricted vision they may well look similar, both being 911s.
av185 said:
Flawed argument.
That's like saying the P1 McLaren can't be a supercar because it looks like a 540.
You do realise the GT2RS is a totally different car in every respect to even a Turbo S never mind a Carrera. Even though to Aunt Mabel with her restricted vision they may well look similar, both being 911s.
Same could be said for the C63 dear pal, one of your favesThat's like saying the P1 McLaren can't be a supercar because it looks like a 540.
You do realise the GT2RS is a totally different car in every respect to even a Turbo S never mind a Carrera. Even though to Aunt Mabel with her restricted vision they may well look similar, both being 911s.
av185 said:
That's like saying the P1 McLaren can't be a supercar because it looks like a 540.
I'd still call a 540 a supercar though, whereas an entry level 911 definitely doesn't qualify.Also a 911 GT2 RS is, according to Porsche, a different version of the same model as the 3.0 Carrera, whether it shares many parts or not. The P1 is a distinct model.
The XJ220 normally crops up in these threads when someone mentions qualifying brands not being allowed to have mass produced models in their line-up. Along with LFA, GT40 etc etc. It's so subjective it will always cause a great debate 
Depending what you've owned has a massive influence imo. Someone who's only ever had a rep-mobile may consider a R8 a Supercar. R8 owners would consider a Huracan a Supercar, Huracan owners would consider an Aventador a supercar. Then we're into Hypercars, Megacars whatever name the masses think up next. It's all boll**ks really.
Depending what you've owned has a massive influence imo. Someone who's only ever had a rep-mobile may consider a R8 a Supercar. R8 owners would consider a Huracan a Supercar, Huracan owners would consider an Aventador a supercar. Then we're into Hypercars, Megacars whatever name the masses think up next. It's all boll**ks really. 12pack said:
Good discussion, but I think we call agree the F-types and diesel Ghiblis I see in this Supercar forum sometimes are certainly not.
That’s because Maserati sits under the Supercar forum group possibly due to some supercars in the past? I wouldn’t put them as a supercar manufacturer now.
The Granturismo could be classed as a special car and ‘exotic’ due to scarcity and the 430 derived engine but I don’t think anyone would call it a supercar
I think F type gets mentioned as I saw someone on here was buying a brand new one for £130k! That does put it close or into the supercar price category hence the comparison, although again I don’t think anyone is suggesting it is one
Repetitive or not I love this thread.
Reading through it and trying to analyse the general consensus, forgive me for stating the obvious, but I’d say that overall the clue is in the name- “super”. Literally this means “to an extreme degree”, and as such a supercar must be a car where the general metrics on which cars are judged must all be “extreme”.
That means:
- Design
- Performance (at its time)
- Rarity (stand alone model)
- Expense / exclusivity
Be extreme across all these measures and there you go. Fail on one and you fall short (eg a TVR’s affordability probably holds it back from supercar status even though you could argue it passes the other tests).
Using this logic on the more contentious cars in the thread:
- All varieties of 911 fall short due to a combo of non-extreme / mature design, and the fact that they’re a range undermining rarity vibe (even if the particular model is rare). 959 on the other hand qualifies; its styling is pushed just far enough and the rarity is unquestionable.
- R8 is closer on the design front than 911, but loses out for the same “range” reason. I’d say the same for Astons too.
- Things like the Ford GT / XJ220 clearly qualify, even with the badges (they are in no way “souped up versions” of lesser cars; they stand alone)
- And finally I don’t think one can argue that all cars from certain marques are supercars. Any SUV exentensions from Lambo, Ferrari, etc aren’t extreme on styling or rarity fronts (plus let’s face it it’s gotta be a sports car). Even something like the California is edging on being too mature with its design.
This model works for me!
Reading through it and trying to analyse the general consensus, forgive me for stating the obvious, but I’d say that overall the clue is in the name- “super”. Literally this means “to an extreme degree”, and as such a supercar must be a car where the general metrics on which cars are judged must all be “extreme”.
That means:
- Design
- Performance (at its time)
- Rarity (stand alone model)
- Expense / exclusivity
Be extreme across all these measures and there you go. Fail on one and you fall short (eg a TVR’s affordability probably holds it back from supercar status even though you could argue it passes the other tests).
Using this logic on the more contentious cars in the thread:
- All varieties of 911 fall short due to a combo of non-extreme / mature design, and the fact that they’re a range undermining rarity vibe (even if the particular model is rare). 959 on the other hand qualifies; its styling is pushed just far enough and the rarity is unquestionable.
- R8 is closer on the design front than 911, but loses out for the same “range” reason. I’d say the same for Astons too.
- Things like the Ford GT / XJ220 clearly qualify, even with the badges (they are in no way “souped up versions” of lesser cars; they stand alone)
- And finally I don’t think one can argue that all cars from certain marques are supercars. Any SUV exentensions from Lambo, Ferrari, etc aren’t extreme on styling or rarity fronts (plus let’s face it it’s gotta be a sports car). Even something like the California is edging on being too mature with its design.
This model works for me!
Edited by wyldstalyns on Saturday 26th January 17:23
wyldstalyns said:
- R8 is closer on the design front than 911, but loses out for the same “range” reason. I’d say the same for Astons too.
- Things like the Ford GT / XJ220 clearly qualify, even with the badges (they are in no way “souped up versions” of lesser cars; they stand alone)
- And finally I don’t think one can argue that all cars from certain marques are supercars. Any SUV exentensions from Lambo, Ferrari, etc aren’t extreme on styling or rarity fronts (plus let’s face it it’s gotta be a sports car). Even something like the California is edging on being too mature with its design.
I love this discussion too, even though I think we all understand the definition is subjective.- Things like the Ford GT / XJ220 clearly qualify, even with the badges (they are in no way “souped up versions” of lesser cars; they stand alone)
- And finally I don’t think one can argue that all cars from certain marques are supercars. Any SUV exentensions from Lambo, Ferrari, etc aren’t extreme on styling or rarity fronts (plus let’s face it it’s gotta be a sports car). Even something like the California is edging on being too mature with its design.
Speaking of which.
R8 isn't a souped up version of a lesser car (it's not an A3 or a TT with a few styling mods) so not quite so clear cut. [Although I agree - not a supercar].
Agree with your logic on the Ford GT. At no point would I look at that and think it bore any relation to a Ka or Edge, or its status was devalued by other cars Ford make.
Agree not many marques out there where you could say every car is a supercar (or better) but I think McLaren may be one? Pagoni? Koenigsegg? What others???
I would have said Lamborghini was, till the Urus. Agree on the California.
m4tti said:
You beat me to it. Street version.
Stunning! And, hardly a 911, none of which are supercars IMO, even the most hardcore of them is a GT car. Not sure why people get so wound up about it, the NSX was labelled a supercar, I didn’t think it was amazingly rapid but there’s more to it. The construction of it, the back story of the development and just how good it was at the time defined what a supercar is for me. A Golf R would murder a 512BB, it matters not one jot, the Golf is merely a very quick evolution of a standard car, which how I view the 911.
Some criteria for me would have to be; single model, mid-engined, two seats and innovative.
Oh, and if anyone wants to disagree about the NSX, write to Gordon Murray
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff