[UltArc]

Originally Posted by UltArc

Sports car is subjective. When I say "race car" do you think Formula 1 or Nascar? Or just a Ferrari? So does sports car mean a power to weight ratio? A basic drivetrain layout? A general purpose? A Camaro, Mustang, even...a Challenger...is a sports car.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sorry, but no. Those are overpowered muscle cars. Sports cars (by my definition) put a priority on handling, not power, so they go around curves fast. Which is why I said the Corvette barely makes it into my personal sports car category: too much engine.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post419974

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Did I say those aren't race cars? No, if they're for racing, they're by definition race cars, but their form depends on the rules of the particular type of racing. There's truck racing (Truck racing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), tractor racing, and even lawnmower racing.

Specifically quoting my question, you specifically say “no.” The point was that a sports car is not an exact layout, power to weight ratio, or your articulation of how it should handle. Just as a race car can be a racing truck, Nascar, or F1 car (a car for the purpose of racing?), a sports car can achieve spirited driving, or driving for the pleasure of driving in many ways (a car for the purpose of sport?).

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I'll agree with Webster. So is the Mustang small or low? No - unless your standard of comparison is an SUV. Is it a 2-seater? No. Is it designed for quick response & easy maneuverability? No - again, unless you're comparing against an SUV.

To consider a car a sports car, I would compare it to a SUV. And a truck. And a motorcycle. And any other car that has a specific purpose. The Mustang is rather low, and small. Is it small to a Miata? No. It is comparable to an RX8. What is the utility compared to the Miata? For the performance of the vehicle, weighing 50% more and having 100% more torque, it will outperform it.

I guess the Lamborghini Aventador isn’t a sports car either- jeeze, it weighs more dry than my Mustang from the factory! The purpose of it’s construction, nor it’s power is meaningless.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Then there's the not-so-small matter of weight: the 2014 Mustang runs about 3500 lbs, vs about 1600 for a classic Lotus Elise, 2000-2500 for a Miata, etc.

Bah, power to weight ratio. What a rubbish, pointless set of information. Clearly, we are both wrong, and the best new sports car is the Mirage
2013 Mazda Mazda2 vs. 2013 Mazda MX-5 Miata vs. 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage

Originally Posted by gk_ghig14

Well the new pony/muscle/sports cars coming out are actually able to corner with the benchmarks from Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, etc. One of the magazines tested a 5.0 against an m3 and they were dead even. Boss 302 is even better, 1le camaro, z28 camaro, zl1 camaro are good too. But that's a whole different forum lol

But there are more than two seats. They also need about 50% of their power pulled out, and they need to lose about 30% of their mass. As much of a slop I think the Z28 is at it’s massive weight (bigger than a Challenger, if I recall), it had a blistering time on the ‘Ring.

I don’t think there’s many turns there. And the LFA thought it could sneak in because it had two seats, but that 550 hp engine and massive body prove it’s really an SUV. SLS AMG thought it could do the same. When will they learn…
New 2014 Camaro Z28 Laps the 'Ring in 7:37.47, Faster than Lexus LFA and Porsche 911 CS - Carscoops

Originally Posted by cbaber

I would argue that a muscle car is a sub-category of sports car. In fact, anything can be a sports car. To classify them only as small 2 seaters is not correct. I would call an M3 or M5 a sports car, and they come in sedan versions, and are not small. And if you call a Miata a sports car but not an M5, yet an M5 out performs it nearly every aspect, then your logic is severely flawed.

There are different niches of sports cars. You can't compare a Mustang to a Miata, or and M5 to a Ferrari 458. All sports cars, all for different purposes.

I was beginning to think maybe only I thought this way.

Through all of this, I have concluded Escapes, Rav4s, Tahoes, Land Cruisers, Discoveries, Expeditions, and Suburbans are not SUVs. Since the most SUV like SUV is the Excursion, and all of these fall short of it’s size and mass, clearly they do not meet the purpose of being a utility vehicle.

There is really no point in even talking about this, or wasting our brain power on the matter. Your view seems to be that a sports car is dedicated completely to turning, while I will argue until blue in the fingers that a sports car is built with the purpose of being driven- regardless of weight, power, seats (Audi RS7 or BMW X5M, anyone?) or any other factor that aids in the general utility. I call stalemate, but wouldn’t dare have the last word

When the new design was released a while back (NAIAS 12 or 13?), I never thought it would come to life. I haven't researched if the vehicle is actually lower and wider, or if it just looks that way. And the seven speed gearbox? Wicked. A Corvette never impressed me [for the money] until this new generation.