Wednesday 10th July 2013

What is a supercar? PH Blog

Is it time to redefine 'supercar'? Alfa Romeo wants to

---

What exactly do we think of when we talk about supercars? Accepted wisdom has it the term was coined by LJK Setright in response to the Lamborghini Muira and few would argue with that definition. And it's kind of stuck ever since, even if the exact parameters have never truly been nailed down.

Few would argue with this as a benchmark

Now, this isn't a springboard for another 'rules' rant like my recent ones about exhausts and steering wheels. But what do you think makes a supercar? You can't go by performance, given that the traditional boundaries of 400hp-plus and sub five seconds to 60 are now regularly nailed by everything from limos to SUVs. So what? A minimum cylinder count? A mid-mounted engine? 200mph-plus performance? A relative price compared with regular cars? Power to weight?

Now we've got hypercars too, the million-quid brigade currently represented by the Paganis, Bugattis, Koenigseggs and others and shortly to be joined by a new generation of hybrid-enhanced 'next-gen' monsters from Ferrari, McLaren and Porsche. What are the entry criteria here? A seven-figure pricetag? Production run of fewer than 500? Likelihood of being spotted in a chrome wrap, parked on a double yellow in Mayfair?

Still got funny headlights mind

I digress. Bringing it back to that original, Setright prescribed definition you've got Italian, lightweight, mid-mounted transverse engine and ... weird, overly decorative headlights. Yes, it seems Alfa Romeo's wish that its new mid-engined two-seater runabout (sorry, someone else's definition there...) be considered a true supercar may well be true. To be specific, it wants the 4C to be an "affordable supercar". But isn't that an oxymoron? Surely one of the key attributes of any true supercar is that it be outlandishly expensive compared with regular cars?

Sitting in the 4C it certainly ticks a lot of supercar boxes. It feels as small as those 70s pin-up wedges many of us had on our bedroom walls, which is a good start. The tiny, non-assisted steering wheel has the kind of low-speed heft you'd expect of such a car too while the exposed carbon fibre tub and aluminium kick plates are all very new-age supercar, likewise the TFT instrument cluster and paddleshifter gearbox. It's got the romance and heritage, including the made in Modena provenance.

Super enough to count as a supercar?

Can a real supercar get away with just four cylinders though? Alfa Romeo certainly deserves credit for daring to say it can, perhaps sensing that 'true' supercars are descending into bloated self parody. Which brings us neatly to Clarkson pondering on prime-time telly whether or not the F12 is actually too powerful, a potentially significant indication the pendulum has begun to swing back from simple-minded faster, better, more willy waggling.

Certainly the 4C appears to reassert the driving experience as core, those looking for the kind of creature comforts 'full fat' supercars like a 458, R8 or SLS deliver likely to be distinctly nonplussed about the pared back feel. Or on-paper bragging rights. But as the performance of 'proper' supercars gets increasingly irrelevant to the kind of driving - road or track - that most owners can or want to do maybe it's time for the drivers among us to reclaim it, defined by our own terms. Are four cylinders enough though? Or can we embrace another measure like power to weight instead? Discuss...

Dan

[ab80]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 10 July 2013 at 11:40

[myhandle]

Ok how about this:

A supercar does not need to have a particular number of cylinders and can be front, mid or rear engined.

It must have extreme performance for its era - EG an NSX is not that quick nowadays, but it was by 1991 standards. So the four cylinder Esprit Turbo can be included as a supercar, as it had extreme performance for its day and was pitched against the likes of Ferrari. The Alfa 4C is certainly not a supercar.

A supercar can come from any manufacturer including non-premium ones (EG Ford GT).

Track specials are not supercars even if they have extreme performance (Atom, X-Bow, R600).

Generally they should have two seats but this is not a requirement (McLaren F1, Lamborghini Egoista, Tramontana single seat version).

Some four seaters can be supercars. Others are clearly GTs. The original Aston Martin Vanquish, available with rear seats, was a supercar. The Bentley Continental GT is a GT.

Some models within a range are supercars whereas others in the same range are not - 997 GT2 RS vs 997 Carrera for example.

There is a spectrum of supercars running from the most hardcore GTs on one end (original Vanquish, 599GTB) through to extreme sports cars on the other end (Porsche 911 GT1 , Hennessey Venom GT).

Several model in a range can be supercars - the 458, F12 and LaFerrari are all supercars, sold at three different price points.

Cars on the dividing line between supercar and GT include the Ferraris 456GT , 612 Scaglietti and FF. These certainly have some characteristics of a supercar, principally the engines, though they are all aimed at the GT market.

As for the TVR question, the TVR Typhon and Speed 12 are supercars, and the Tamora and Chimaera are not. The others are in the middle and I will let others decide on this!

[DonkeyApple]

At the end of the day the word 'SuperCar' has as much value as the word 'Executive' or 'Exclusive'. Due to excessive use by media, marketing and piss poor punters in nylon these words are valueless, and if anything are now indicaters of the exact opposite of what they once meant. Just like a 'SuperModel' can be any old bit of jibbering clunge that graces the front page of a colon tickler's publication.

A super car has to, by it's most elemental definition, be 'super'. If it's affordable, common, can be outdragged by a family car then it is not 'super' by any means. Just a sports car.

What the media have chosen to now term 'HyperCars' due to the total devaluing of the 'SuperCar' term are at the end of the day 'SuperCars'.

[HeMightBeBanned]

I'm not sure Power-to-Weight really cuts it as a measure of 'Supercarness'. A Caterham R500 has an awesome Power-to-Weight ratio, as do many track-focussed lightweights. Whilst they are super cars, I don't think they tip the emotional balance towards being Supercars. The latter is a bit intangible, involving a certain element of theatre that transcends the numbers. Price also forms part of the entry criteria, IMO. £120k as the starting point, perhaps?

[Skater12]

Random Criteria...

• Must cost more than the average UK house price
• Must have a waiting list in excess of 12 months
• Must be capable of 200mph+ and 0-62 in under 3.8 sec
• Must be totally impractical
• Must be named after a mythical beast, dangerous animal or sound like a military weapon

[TheRacingSnake]

easy, anything that would make you stop and stare in the street. Super is in the eye of the beholder.

[George29]

Supercar is far too over used. I don't like the word 'hypercar' as it seems to have been invented just to allow marketing people to brand their non-supercar as a supercar, making it sound better than it is. Audi R8s, 911s, Nissan GTRs, Astons, AMG Mercs etc etc are not supercars imo. The McLaren P1 is a supercar.

[Zumbruk]

Is this not one of those terms, like "art" or "pornography" which one cannot define, but you know it when you see it. "A supercar is what I am pointing at when I say 'This is a supercar'".

[AdamLoewy]

A supercar must have a special exhaust note for me and I struggle to believe that a 4 cylinder turbo unit will sound special.

A fruity 3.2 V6 version on the other hand...

[DJRC]

I always figure the XKSS as the first supercar.

A supercar to me is simply a car for whom the sheer drama of it is sufficient.

[Jonnyhas84]

In my opinion I would class the new Alfa as a sports car. To me a Supercar is something that is loud, expensive (to buy and too run,) impractical and makes you stop a stare (in a positive way) and must tick all those boxes. I think the Alfa is just too tame, would have reasonable fuel/insurance bills, have a boot for shopping and although I would stop and stare it would only to internally scream "WHY ON EARTH DID THEY PUT THOSE AWFUL HEADLIGHTS ON IT!!!!!!!!!"

Also its only a Supercar if Top Trumps says so! (If top trumps is still going?)

Edited by Jonnyhas84 on Wednesday 10th July 11:54

[Cotic]

DonkeyApple said:

"jibbering clunge"

Just found my new term of endearment for 'er indoors. Thanks for that.

[T1berious]

Funny isn't it?

Now that you can have an exec unrestricted knocking on the door of 200 mph and 0 - 60 on sub 4 seconds, the supercar has to be the one that causes normal people into stupefied manikins, that after the initial shock take out phones and take pictures. It's entirely emotive and something that can't (IMHO) be defined by cold hard figures of power to weight etc.

It's something that makes you say "I want one of those when I grow up" and it becomes an obsession that drives you, taunts you and haunts you depending on how the dice rolls.

I mean we all as kids used to admire a 911 Turbo but it was the Countach that ended up on the bedroom wall....

I saw a Ferrari California in the Gym car park, and admired it but didn't lust for it.

If that makes sense?

Agree with all the other stuff regarding needing to be hilariously impractical (agreed F1 broke the mould there)

[Gavlar83]

its a supercar if its only purpose is to go very fast, look very beautiful and not give a toss about being practical. also must be heard from down the road and make you stop and stare no matter what your doing.

[oldtimer2]

A supercar is defined by an informed observer (like Setright) not by the manufacturer`s marketing department (like Alfa).

[Bear Phils]

A supercar shouldn't need to be defined. If it is a supercar, you will know.

[Polrules]

To me a 'supercar' can't be front engined & must have 8 or more cylinders.

As always there are a some exceptions to the rule - XJ220 & 911 GT1 spring to mind.

[Twincam16]

To my mind, the Alfa Romeo 4C is a sports car, in that it is a car designed along motorsport principles. You could say the same of any mid-engined car in that respect.

But for me, a supercar is something with significantly higher performance than the average car on the road at the time.

Problem comes with defining the 'significantly' bit.

I also don't like the word 'hypercar'. It was invented by Clarkson for one of his DVDs, released around the time when supercars were first breaching 200mph, it was something of a throwaway comment by him back then (around 1993 IIRC), but for some reason people seem to think it's a definite 'class' of car even if you can get 200mph saloons.

[Twincam16]

Polrules said:

To me a 'supercar' can't be front engined & must have 8 or more cylinders.

As always there are a some exceptions to the rule - XJ220 & 911 GT1 spring to mind.

As of next year, that's F1 cars buggered then.

[gsuk1]

I think the 4C will prove to be an awesome 'sports car'! And what's wrong with being a sports car...? For me I see it as part of the Cayman S, Lotus Evora, Jag FType kind of area which are all sports cars.

Super cars for me at the McLaren MP4-12C, Audi R8, 911, 458 etc...

and Hyper cars are the Pagani's, McLaren P1, La Ferrari (stupid damn name) kind of area...

Incidental I think Clarkson's comment on the F12 is being "too powerful" was a bad choice of words, I think "Doesn't handle its power very well" would be better. The F12 is very twitchy, which makes it feel very dynamic and responsive rather than planted. This set up is probably more suited to a 458 super car, rather than F12 super GT... In my opinion anyway.