Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Detroit has not built a sports car since the Ford Thunderbird and Chevy Corvette of the late '50s.
|
Ooohh them's fightin words!!
Contingent, of course, on how you and I define "sports car".
For me, "sports car" means what Europeans call a GT car, i.e. fast, good on a winding road, and a wee bit impractical. My favorites are the coupes (non-convertible), with Ferrari
berlinette of the 50s and 60s essentially defining the breed. Honorable mention goes to Porsche's 911 and its lineal successors.
The most common counterdefinition I have encountered is "small sporty convertible", typically British, with the center of cultural gravity around any number of Triumph, MG, some Jag and perhaps Healey models. In a word, roadsters, which market was revived/captured by the Miata.
I cannot see the T-bird fitting either definition comfily. I see it as a precursor of that purely American confection, the pony car. I class pony cars as a subset of that even more quintessential American vehicle, the muscle car.
If we choose definition A, which
being mine, is obviously and definitively correct
, and restricting myself to major US makes, I would allow all Corvettes, especially the solid-rooved ones with the manny tranny, perhaps disqualifying the C3 and pre-1992 C4 on grounds of general automotive execrability.
Then there's that venomous reptilian ten-cylinder Dodge thingy, especially the GTS with its rakish coupe roof. Admittedly it is a grotesque, defining one boundary of the GT-car envelope, with or without the leakish cloth top.
Niche products but still available at the dealership: the AC/Shelby Cobras (60s) and the brilliant Ford GT40-remake of a few years ago. Pure sweet GT, all the dinoflagellates and twice the caffeine.
If we choose definition B, would you allow that Pontiac Solstice weirdness? Personally I think it's uglier than a hatful of toads, but it is a domestic roadster.
(I hope you take this in good fun as I intend it.)
cheers apo