[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

Speaking of reading comprehension, how can one put on the brakes, when by definition one don't have any?

But back to the point. 30 year old definitions don't encompass cars of today. That's why an Alfa Guillia (I know, reliability) can outperform an M3, and why SS 1LE is faster than M2/3/4/C63/RS5 and the list goes on. And then there is the Charger Hellcat.

And what you consider a POS Muscle Car these days will wipe the floor with M cars on track.

Definitions evolve for a reason.

I agree that old definitions encompass few cars today (everyone wants everything all the time nowdays).
I also agree that definitions evolve for a reason.

But if you evolve these definitions you literally have almost nothing today except GT Cars.

To understand a car's basic philosophy is still relevant IMO, and that means [to me] separating them by their core philosophy.

[dreamingat30fps]

Two of my current vehicles would be the biggest I've owned since I've mostly owned 4 and 6 cylinder cars.

2014 Corvette 6.2L
2017 F350 Powerstroke 6.7L

[N54Yankee]

Anyone who calls Corvette a GT loses the argument right then and there.

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by N54Yankee

Anyone who calls Corvette a GT loses the argument right then and there.

Spoken like a fat American.

Which are you, or are you both?

Got your guns loaded? Where is your Confederate flag? Are you wearing boots?

I'm just giving you shit .

But really...

- Too much power to be a true Sports Car...
- Automatic availability...
- Coupe availability...
- Too serious to have real fun in (for most).

Unless you're calling it a Muscle Car?

The Corvette fits more in in the Super Car slot now, but that's still a GT Car, as there are no Super Cars that are true Sports Cars, they are all way too serious.

[Frupal]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

Spoken like a fat American.

Which are you, or are you both?

Got your guns loaded? Where is your Confederate flag? Are you wearing boots?

I'm just giving you shit .

But really...

- Too much power to be a true Sports Car...
- Automatic availability...
- Coupe availability...
- Too serious to have real fun in (for most).

Unless you're calling it a Muscle Car?

The Corvette fits more in in the Super Car slot now, but that's still a GT Car, as there are no Super Cars that are true Sports Cars, they are all way too serious.

You seem to have some very rigid guidelines! Most people call anything with only two seats (besides pickups) a sports car. Of all of the cars I have owned, I would only consider the 3 NSXs that I had to be true Sports Cars. Although they were not! By your definition. Mine were all manual, but they did offer an automatic. Perhaps the ‘manual only’ requirement could be re-assessed. Most of the great ‘sports cars’ today offer ‘automatics’ Which shift faster than shift through a goose. Haha. And I think that they shift MUCH faster than we humans can toss a gear lever.

I saw a gorgeous BMW today at the dealer. M4 Edition M Heritage. Was absolutely beautiful and although it is no true sports car, it did come with a manual tranny. 20 years ago I would have bought it on the spot, but today, (At 62) I guess I am just too lazy to do all of that shifting, especially since the new automatics are so amazing.

I also did not buy it because I am waiting for the right time to get my hands on a C8 Corvette. I’m not fat, and don’t have a confederate flag, or own any guns, but I do have some fly Prada Boots. Do you think they’ll still sell me one?

Happy Motoring!

[RM7]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

there are no Super Cars that are true Sports Cars, they are all way too serious.

Oh, so now some cars are "too serious" to be sports cars?

It's like cherry-picking your own favorite car and excluding everything else, because other people aren't exactly the same as you. Come on, open up...

[RM7]

Back on topic, currently at 6.2, but I'm adding a 1.6T to the fleet, tiny! Something about small-displacement turbo is also attractive to me. There is no replacement for displacement...except forced air!

[plutnicki]

My biggest engine in a vehicle was a Sierra Denali with the 6.0 (2003, AWD with 4 wheel steering, that was one of the best vehicles I ever had).

My last boat had an 8.1 in it, does that count.

By contrast, my 1987 RX-7 Turbo had a 1.3L. I think that's the smallest car engine. Heck, I've had motorcycles with bigger...

[quick6]

Originally Posted by Mason Hatcher

I had a 1976 Chrysler Cordoba with a 400 CI v8.

Corinthian Leather?

[Moflow]

The car with the biggest engine displacement is also by far the least powerful car i've owned.

1976 Pontiac Sunbird with a 3.8L V6 - 105 hp



2nd biggest was my 350Z

3.5L V6 with 300 hp.

3rd goes to the BMW M2 with a 3.0L I6 making 405 hp

And the smallest engine i've owned in car was my 1988 Celica all-trac with its 2.0L I-4 making 190 hp.....a full 85 more horsepower than the engine in the Pontiac.

[Mason Hatcher]

Originally Posted by quick6

Corinthian Leather?

Lol. No, cloth seats with a pattern they called Indian Blanket

It had a crank "moon roof"

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by Moflow

The car with the biggest engine displacement is also by far the least powerful car i've owned.

1976 Pontiac Sunbird with a 3.8L V6 - 105 hp



2nd biggest was my 350Z

3.5L V6 with 300 hp.

3rd goes to the BMW M2 with a 3.0L I6 making 405 hp

And the smallest engine i've owned in car was my 1988 Celica all-trac with its 2.0L I-4 making 190 hp.....a full 85 more horsepower than the engine in the Pontiac.

Dude Pontiac sunbird was my first car believe was 76 or 77. Camt recall, was a real pos. 600 bucks in high school. Drank oil.

[jimbobiggens]

1978 Lincoln Town Car
70 Mustang
71 Cougar
All had 460's in them.
However, I am currently working on a bored and stroked 428, measuring 468 ci, which will replace the stock-sized 428 in this:

[Tambohamilton]

Originally Posted by Moflow

1976 Pontiac Sunbird with a 3.8L V6 - 105 hp

.....how!?!? How did someone build one of those and say 'yup, that'll do nicely. Let's make lots more of these.' Mind blowing. Looks cool though!

Largest is my current 30d. Also most powerful at 230hp...

2nd place was my 2.8L mk2 Jetta, that I shoved a VR6 engine in. Lazy as hell, at 176hp. Sounded great though!

Smallest was a 1.1 fiesta. Sounded like a sewing machine, and had a similar amount of power.

Also owned a 125cc bike, with a whole 11hp...

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by Frupal

You seem to have some very rigid guidelines!

Just the oldest classic guidelines I could find.

Originally Posted by Frupal

Most people call anything with only two seats (besides pickups) a sports car.

Of course, but we're not most people, right? We are enthusiasts, and as such have better definitions for these things. I mean, if we go by the general public's definition then there is no need to even have the words Muscle Car or GT Car, as both fit into the general Sports Car category.

Originally Posted by Frupal

Of all of the cars I have owned, I would only consider the 3 NSXs that I had to be true Sports Cars. Although they were not! By your definition. Mine were all manual, but they did offer an automatic. Perhaps the ‘manual only’ requirement could be re-assessed.

By the earliest definition yes, the car would need to be a manual, but maybe I wasn't clear earlier. Just because it's available as an automatic doesn't mean it's not a Sports Car if fitted with a manual.

More clearly, an automatic NSX cannot be a Sports Car, but a manual NSX could (depending on the other criteria).

Originally Posted by Frupal

Most of the great ‘sports cars’ today offer ‘automatics’ Which shift faster than shift through a goose. Haha. And I think that they shift MUCH faster than we humans can toss a gear lever.

It's precisely the fact that the automatic has less driver involvement that excludes it from the Sports Car definition. And remember, "fun" doesn't care how fast you are, so the lightning-fast shifts of today's automatics are meaningless.

Originally Posted by Frupal

I also did not buy it because I am waiting for the right time to get my hands on a C8 Corvette. I’m not fat, and don’t have a confederate flag, or own any guns, but I do have some fly Prada Boots. Do you think they’ll still sell me one?

Happy Motoring!

I love your attitude, you sound like a very cool guy

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Oh, so now some cars are "too serious" to be sports cars?

It's like cherry-picking your own favorite car and excluding everything else, because other people aren't exactly the same as you. Come on, open up...

Yes, that's exactly it. And exactly why the Miata is the closest thing we have to a real Sports Car, as it doesn't take itself too seriously. Muscle Cars are serious. Most GT Cars are serious. But the idea of the Sports Car is to be fun.

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm only saying that by the earliest definitions of a Sports Car it would need to be fun.

I actually forgot to mention that it's required to be a 2-seater as well, but Frupal reminded me of it.

Sports Car:
- manual trans
- radio
- 2 seater
- open top of some sort
- focus on handling tossability (not ultimate race-car grip)
- light-weight
- power is not a focus
- generally skinny tires

Muscle Car:
- automatic trans
- coupe or sedan
- focus on straight line quickness (not top speed)
- weight not a consideration
- handling not a consideration
- focus on power
- focus on ease of modification for more power
- generally wider tires

GT Car:
Generally not as fun, or well-handling as a Sports Car, and not as powerful as a Muscle Car, but seeking to give the customer a good middle-ground between the two.

[Tambohamilton]

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by mgmarsh39

Had a c6 z06 for a few months... LS7, 7 liter, 427cu in big girl.

I have owned a few of those. Talk about out of the box fun....in stock form they can get you into trouble quickly.

Of course I had to mod it later.

The I had a 2004 Terminator. 4.6 liter and supercharged. One of the cars I wish I had kept.

One of the most fun cars I had was the E46 M3. Still wish I had that one as well.

That's the beauty of the two cars I own now. Each car has it's own distinct characteristics.

One is a TQ monster...the other being a high revving lower HP rated car that I can really feel like I am wringing it out...and not get into trouble!

Two different driving experiences.

[Dagamus_NM]

My biggest was a 460 police interceptor. 7.5 liters that were quick off of a start and then fell flat on its face shortly after. 1977 Ford LTD old police detective motor pool car. Awful thing. After that it was probably the 1991 Crown Vic with the 351 Windsor, retired border patrol car. It was still border patrol green and white. Let me tell you that living in Albuquerque I had some fun driving through some of the south valley neighborhoods in that.

Now I have smaller engines. The 4.4L N63 and the 4.0L s65.

[Frupal]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

Just the oldest classic guidelines I could find.



Of course, but we're not most people, right? We are enthusiasts, and as such have better definitions for these things. I mean, if we go by the general public's definition then there is no need to even have the words Muscle Car or GT Car, as both fit into the general Sports Car category.



By the earliest definition yes, the car would need to be a manual, but maybe I wasn't clear earlier. Just because it's available as an automatic doesn't mean it's not a Sports Car if fitted with a manual.

More clearly, an automatic NSX cannot be a Sports Car, but a manual NSX could (depending on the other criteria).



It's precisely the fact that the automatic has less driver involvement that excludes it from the Sports Car definition. And remember, "fun" doesn't care how fast you are, so the lightning-fast shifts of today's automatics are meaningless.



I love your attitude, you sound like a very cool guy





Yes, that's exactly it. And exactly why the Miata is the closest thing we have to a real Sports Car, as it doesn't take itself too seriously. Muscle Cars are serious. Most GT Cars are serious. But the idea of the Sports Car is to be fun.

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm only saying that by the earliest definitions of a Sports Car it would need to be fun.

I actually forgot to mention that it's required to be a 2-seater as well, but Frupal reminded me of it.

Sports Car:
- manual trans
- radio
- 2 seater
- open top of some sort
- focus on handling tossability (not ultimate race-car grip)
- light-weight
- power is not a focus
- generally skinny tires

Muscle Car:
- automatic trans
- coupe or sedan
- focus on straight line quickness (not top speed)
- weight not a consideration
- handling not a consideration
- focus on power
- focus on ease of modification for more power
- generally wider tires

GT Car:
Generally not as fun, or well-handling as a Sports Car, and not as powerful as a Muscle Car, but seeking to give the customer a good middle-ground between the two.

Ha! Great responses!

[Alfisti]

I know what Visual is on about, traditionally a "sportscar" is small, light and nimble with not a ton of power, that was the definition back in the day. The massive power numbers you see today sort of move the bar a little in terms of how the car is driven, even a base carrera has a shit ton of power.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

even a base carrera has a shit ton of power.

Take it further, even a base Cayman has a shit ton of power compared to something back in 1940.

The idea that open-cockpit cars, like convertibles, are "for handling" (in his description) is a bit ridiculous.

[Alfisti]

Yeah he is being a bit black and white but I get the spirit of the definition.