Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
That just means that you're using the (IMHO) wrong definition of sports car. It's not, in the final analysis, about absolute performance, but about fun. Sport, in other words. For instance, many of the classic sports cars of the '50s and '60s - Austin-Healey, MG, Triumph, etc - were honestly not all that great at performance, but they were small & fun to drive.
Maybe if you take an analogy, it's like the difference between riding in a Boeing, and buzzing around at treetop (or sagebrush, hereabouts) level in your Piper or Citabria.
Which is why I think it's a pity that Mustangs and such are thought of, and sold as, sports cars: it crowds a market niche that could have real, affordable sports cars. As Lee Iacocca is quoted as saying of the declining sales of the increasingly porky original Mustang, "The Mustang market never left us, we left it."
|
Well it can't be defined based on fun because fun is subjective. I just don't like the strict definition of sports car or muscle car or GT car, because there are so many overlaps and technicalities. It's just easier for me to say sports car as a broad group, and break it down into muscle car, touring car, roadster, super car, etc.
I think that is the most popular way to think of it. You won't get many people to agree that a Nissan GTR is not a sports car. But I do understand your point, having owned a MX-5 and Midget, and honestly when I buy another sports car it will be a "true" sports car lol
