Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I should maybe elaborate on that a bit, since it really goes to the definition of what a sports car should (IMHO) be. A sports car is for driving briskly (but not necessarily at high speeds) on winding roads, with the top down. It should be as much fun to drive that sort of road at 40 mph as to go around a track at 140.
Now on a properly twisty road - say Hwy 1 around Big Sur - you just can't go that fast, so most of your 600 horses are wasted. Further, you don't (at least if you're me) even want to go fast, because there's a point (around 50-70 mph) where having the wind in your hair switches from joy to being a pain in the neck.
So most of your Lambos, GT-Whatevers, and so on fail the elementary test of being sports cars, 'cause the top doesn't come down, and (from my very limited experience, anyway) they're rather a pain on the slow & twisty bits.
|
I do see your point, but I think of it differently. I think of a REAL sports car as a garage only, not your daily driver car. A car designed for sport. Now a days we have sports cars, and super cars, and hyper cars, and I'm sure in a few years we will have something even beyond that.
My mind set is still back in the time when there was a Chevy Camaro, and a Ford Mustang as sporty cars. Everything else was either a slug and just a cruiser, or they were a Ferrari, or a Lambo. Most vehicles under 55k aren't sports cars, rather sporty, cars-in my opinion.
So I do agree that a Datsun GTR, and a Ford GT, Buggati Veyron, so on, are more than sports cars, but super or hyper cars, but in my mind I will always have that divide.