captainbilly

I was reading a post down the page where the poster states that Audis are not sports cars so I started to wonder what other people think about what makes a car a "sports car". I personally would agree that, none of the Audis I am familiar with, would be considered "sports cars". I would put the RS4 in the sport sedan (station wagon) catagoryalong with the S4 and some of the BMWs (M3, M5, etc.) I certainly wouldn't consider calling a Camaro or Mustang a "sports car", maybe a sporty car?

To me a sports car needs to be small and light and very agile, something these 3000-4000 lb and up cars have a hard time being. Certainly over the years the distinction between sedans and 2 seat sports cars has blured. Some of the modern 2 seaters would not come close to keeping up with a fast sedan but is speed really what makes a car a sports car? As big and heavy as many of the exotic "sports cars" like the Viper, some Lamborghinis and Ferraris and even some models of the Corvette have gotten I would even think twice about calling them true "sports cars" but I don't know what catagory they would then fall under. For me a sports car is something like the TVRs, Lotus, some Porsches, etc. agile, reasonable power (or lots of power), less concern about luxury than performance.
Most modern "sports cars" now have A/C, cupholders, fancy sound systems, etc. Now I like all these frills but if I wanted to go fast I would pull all that stuff out, put a roll cage in and then take it for a drive.

Finally, I am not saying that my definition of a "sports car" is correct, it's just my thoughts. What do you think?

PS I was one of those pilots that felt that F-4s and even F-15s were too big to be considered true fighters. Even the F-16 has grown much since it's conception as a lightweight fighter but I know many of my friend in the USAF disagreed strongly with me.

phred

Lotus = Lots of trouble usually serious

srosie

I like calling your "sports cars": roadsters.

captainbilly

car be a convertable. I would call a Lotus Europa a sports car but certainly not a roadster.

Michael Kwok

Only want to add that there are some cars in the 3000-4000 pound category that I would include (such as the Ferrari 360 Modena converible (okay 2976lbs)...other ferrari's are more GT's).

Another car I would like to submit for consideration is the 3415lbs M3...okay this really is not a sport coupe ut definition but is as close a modern example other than exotics and Porsches that we've seen in a while.

I also think that layout is important, so while a Clio 172 has lots of hp for its size and is very light,....I'm not sure i'd cal it a sport car either. Sports cars a two door layout with some notion of a rear deck showing...not a hatchback....although I love hot hatches that blow away heavy and heavily modified 'stangs and vettes.

I also think that sports cars require a certain amount of bhp/ton rating perhaps starting at 125 bhp/ton???too much??? too little??

As a result, this would rule out the new MR2 even though it is small and light...a 200hp version...with appropriate chassis setup yes maybe....

aNd that brings me to the last one...sports cars must be more uncompromising than standard sporty cars. By definition, they must be able to perform a whole lot better on track than their street related brothers. Not saying that comfort is not important but the setup must be more on the side of track use and liveable on the streets. Again, this does not mean hard...a miata is not hard but has great track feel. As a matter of fact, drove a friend's heavily modified miata and it didn't feel good at all.......

Mike

captainbilly

Although not a great one, mostly due to low power. And you are not kidding about the reliability of Lotus. My JPS Europa was just about as reliable as my Triumph GT-6+, in other words terrible. But unlike the GT-6, when the twincam Europa went, it drove beautifully. It is frightening to think about what would happen to an occupant of a Lotus Europa in an collision with a modern 4000 lb sedan or 7000lb Excursion. The Europa weighed 1600 lbs. if I remember correctly and the body was so fragile that you couldn't sit on the fenders without worrying about breaking something.

captainbilly

Even Ferrari considers many of their cars to be GTs and not "sports cars". I believe that Porsche used to consider some of their 2+2s to be something other than a true "sports car". And I would agree that some of the 2 seaters (convertable and otherwise) are really too underpowered to be considered a sports car.

By the way I don't consider myself to be the authority on this topic. I just have an opinion and I wondered what others thought.

no.radar

TT?

Bob W.

ANY car can be a sports car. To me, a sports car is any car that can be driven for fun. So that means almost anything. Sport is defined as "a physical activity engaged in for pleasure". So I think the term 'sports car' has less to do with the car, and more to do with who's driving it and whether they're having fun!

Just my $.02...

Bollinger

That is somewhat stripped down and definitely built for speed and handling. As such some very sports-style cars don't make it (most notably the 911 due to its rear seat).

But frankly I don't care much what is a sports car anyway. I know what I like, and the labels applied to cars don't affect that.

There are plenty of non-sports cars in this world that are better performers than a true sports car.