2014 Corvette Stingray - 30mpg hwy

[darcane]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Porsche 918
7:14 around the Ring
3.3L/100km
887hp combined
20 mile EV range.

And it's EPA highway fuel economy rating is...? That 78mpg that Porsche claims is certainly not realistic, just like the Chevy Volt claiming 230mpg.

I hadn't realized the 918 was anything other than a prototype. I just looked up that they do plan to sell them soon. For $800k more than the Vette...

[niky]

Porsche's claims take advantage of NEDC rules that allow them to start with a full battery on the city loop. EPA would classify electric efficiency and gas efficiency separately.

-

Obviously, the Mustang is not a sports car. It's a two-door sedan.

-

But more seriously, sportscar shmortscar. The exclusive term ain't nothing but a body-style, considering there are four-door sedans that can whip traditional sports cars in terms of both power and handling, and most traditional "sportscars" are actually 2+2 coupes now. The traditional definition is 1- or 2- seat only, open-topped and low-slung. Which means, from the list given, the Corvette and Z4 are the only ones that count.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by darcane

And it's EPA highway fuel economy rating is...? That 78mpg that Porsche claims is certainly not realistic, just like the Chevy Volt claiming 230mpg.

If you have updated EPA numbers feel free to post them here. Until then 78mpg stands.

Originally Posted by darcane

I hadn't realized the 918 was anything other than a prototype. I just looked up that they do plan to sell them soon. For $800k more than the Vette...

Does that somehow disqualify it as a sports car? Your own words were:

Originally Posted by darcane

To me, a "sports car" must be good at driving on a road coarse, and its performance there defines it more than what specific design criteria was met. I would be surprised if there is any stock, production car that can post faster lap times at the Nurburgring that will use less gas on the drive home.

The Porsche 918 meets your definition in every way.

Originally Posted by niky

The traditional definition is 1- or 2- seat only, open-topped and low-slung. Which means, from the list given, the Corvette and Z4 are the only ones that count.

So the convertible Corvette is a sports car but the hard top isn't? The Boxster (22/32) is a sports car but the Cayman isn't? Thats an interesting theory. Keep in mind that the 29 mpg claim was only for the hard top Stingray. No mention of the vert.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by tjts1

If you have updated EPA numbers feel free to post them here. Until then 78mpg stands.

Like hell it does. There is no way that car will be anywhere near 78mpg EPA rating. It won't be rated until it just before it is released for sale.

Originally Posted by tjts1

Does that somehow disqualify it as a sports car? Your own words were:

The Porsche 918 meets your definition in every way.

No, it is certainly a sports car. I just deny that it will get better mileage on the way home after a day at the track than the Vette will. Maybe it will prove me wrong later, but it certainly hasn't yet.

I just brought the price up because it surprised me.

[pete c]

The Cayman is the epitome of a sports car. Just read an article about the latest one where they say it just may be the best handling car in the world and it definitely beats out the 911.

[cbaber]

Oh my, this thread is funny. If you buy a sports car for it's highway MPG you are buying the car for the wrong reason. Drive a Prius to work, save the sports cars for the weekend and track days. Why trade off the comforts and practicality of a commuter car for the power of a sports car if you are not going to use the power? If you drive these cars in the way they were meant to be driven you won't be getting 30 mpg. If you want to have fun in the car you won't be getting 30 mpg. Save the fuel economy for your daily driver. Focus on the fun in sports cars.

Arguing about what is a sports car and what is a super car is just absurd. A sports car is a sports car if it was designed to be one. The amount of horsepower it has or the price tag has nothing to do with it. Does it put an uncontrollable smile on your face as you hit the apex of a corner? If you have ever sat in a Del Sol you know it was a sports car. I don't care if it only had 120 hp. 2 seats, targa top, low driving position, back hugging seats, shift knob up by the steering wheel, etc. It was all designed to feel sporty, and sporty it felt. The MX-5/Miata is one of the best sports cars in history. It has proof to back it up. It is probably the most raced production car ever. If that doesn't make it a sports car what does?

[niky]

Originally Posted by tjts1

So the convertible Corvette is a sports car but the hard top isn't? The Boxster (22/32) is a sports car but the Cayman isn't? Thats an interesting theory. Keep in mind that the 29 mpg claim was only for the hard top Stingray. No mention of the vert.

Typically, the classic definition is what's used to define roadsters nowadays, but most accept the use for tin-tops.

"An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds."

or

"a small, high-powered automobile with long, low lines, usually seating two persons."

Early sports cars, given the times, typically had no roof, as automobile tops back then were typically non-aerodynamic canvas bits on frames. It's only later on that they became enclosed.

-

I wouldn't really worry about it. I only ever drag it out when we have a net-fight over whether front-wheel drive cars can be sports cars or not. The answer? It doesn't matter. A Honda Integra is just as much a Sports Car as a Porsche 911, as they're both 2+2s with a focus on performance rather than comfort. And the Integra is lighter. The increasing weight and size of the 911 have some people classify it as a Sports Grand Tourer.

Meh. They're all sports cars, to me.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by UltArc

I think power comes into play, the 86 GT has less than half the HP of the Corvette, it should be seeing better than 32. 400+ gets 31, 180 gets 32?

TT and Z4 are both not near as much power- I wouldn't classify them as a true sports car, like the base Camaro, Mustang, Challenger. They are sports cars, but they aren't the sportiest- sporty? lol, thats what I always call it. I, personally, try to reserve sports to Corvettes, GT500s, Viper, that range as true sports cars. Though, the Viper is expensive for a sports car, but its definitely not a super/hyper car...

My thoughts may not be clear, but the vehicles you mentioned (other than the Porsche, not sure about it) are not nearly as powerful while just edging out the fuel economy.

Originally Posted by tjts1

How is a Z4 or a TT not a sports car but a Challenger is? The Challenger is just a 2 ton rebodied late 90s Mercedes E class and the Mustang has a live axle rear suspension off a pickup truck. These are not sports cars by any stretch of the imagination.

Horsepower does not make a sports car. The claim was that the Corvette is the most fuel efficient sports car on the market. Thats clearly not true.

Let me rearrange that statement, this might help.

I wouldn't classify them as a true sports car, like the base Camaro, Mustang, Challenger.
=
Like the base Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, I wouldn't classify them as a true sports car.

I don't consider any of these cars "sports" cars, they are "sporty" to me and my car critiquing group. Is there a clear, defined line on what the EXACT description [of a sports car] is? No, and I don't think mine is right or wrong. It's an opinion, not being harsh, based on the information being presented.

I agree, the statement of being the most fuel efficient sports car is moot.

But,
86 GT-25/28/34-200
Au-TT-22/26/31-211
Bm-Z4-22/26/34-240
PCay-22/26/32-275
and
CVet-x/x/(30+)-(400+)


(Compare Side-by-Side & Compare Subaru BRZ 2013 vs. AudiTT2013 vs. BMWZ42013 vs. PorscheCayman2014 - Cars.com)

SO, for the economy to performance ratio makes me wonder why the 86 GT isn't getting 68 mpg highway. I know it doesn't work that way, I am saying it regarding the point-one has 3 to 0 extra highway mpg, but 200 LESS horsepower. To me, that means efficient for the Corvette.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by tjts1

The Mustang is either a muscle car, rental car or secretary's car depending on who you ask. Its never been a sports car.

Porsche 918
7:14 around the Ring
3.3L/100km
887hp combined
20 mile EV range.
Anyway to slice it, the GM claim is bogus.

When I had the patience to listen to the ignorant remarks about all cars non Mustang (Mustang forum), the biggest argument was pony car, vs sports car, vs whatever. The point when someone non stop argued with me that his 2013 GT500 cost less to buy, operate, fuel, drive for six years vs a 2013 Fusion hybrid, all things mileage the same, was the breaking point for me. Regardless of the Fusion getting twice (~) the mileage, and costing half- math wasn't his strong point- he thought it would be cheaper because the dealer told him so.

So conversations (it doesn't seem like an argument- yet lol) like this, don't bother me. Rational individuals conversing and bringing up facts, opinions, and personal experience to me, is a conversation.

As stated, I agree there is no real firm definition. I usually start consider sports cars in the 350-450 range that are track oriented. Mustang? No- sporty car. Boss Leguna Seca? Sports. Two seaters? Unless they are cruisers, or an Elio, or smart, then I would think sports. But with so many entry level cars with performance, mileage, and being able to be a DD, and AMGs, M series, GT500s, ZL1s, Koenigseggs- "sports car" is a bit broad to classify the Miata through the Veyron.

Originally Posted by cbaber

Oh my, this thread is funny. If you buy a sports car for it's highway MPG you are buying the car for the wrong reason. Drive a Prius to work, save the sports cars for the weekend and track days. Why trade off the comforts and practicality of a commuter car for the power of a sports car if you are not going to use the power? If you drive these cars in the way they were meant to be driven you won't be getting 30 mpg. If you want to have fun in the car you won't be getting 30 mpg. Save the fuel economy for your daily driver. Focus on the fun in sports cars.

Arguing about what is a sports car and what is a super car is just absurd. A sports car is a sports car if it was designed to be one. The amount of horsepower it has or the price tag has nothing to do with it. Does it put an uncontrollable smile on your face as you hit the apex of a corner? If you have ever sat in a Del Sol you know it was a sports car. I don't care if it only had 120 hp. 2 seats, targa top, low driving position, back hugging seats, shift knob up by the steering wheel, etc. It was all designed to feel sporty, and sporty it felt. The MX-5/Miata is one of the best sports cars in history. It has proof to back it up. It is probably the most raced production car ever. If that doesn't make it a sports car what does?

Extremely disagree, and kind of agree, respectively.

If I could afford a Prius (24k to start) and a GT500 ( 48k to start), I would have bought a real commuter car and a real "sports" car. Since I'd rather not pay interest for the rest of my life on a depreciating liability, I bought a commuter (saved 5k, 60~% of the fuel economy) and a sporty car (saved 29k, 60~% of the horsepower), and got what I got. But if I had so much money that I could drop 72 grand on cars just so my daily drive sucks, I wouldn't buy either of these two.

Maybe buying a car that satisfies several needs rather than just being a specialty car built for one thing is the wrong reason. Although, I drive it like it's supposed to be driven, I am getting 137% of the highway mpg. But until I am getting 100k+ /year in interest, I couldn't fathom wasting money like that.

Like, buying a phone that won't play music, or take pictures, so I can buy an mp3 player and a separate camera for more money (based on my practical wants).

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by darcane

No, it is certainly a sports car. I just deny that it will get better mileage on the way home after a day at the track than the Vette will. Maybe it will prove me wrong later, but it certainly hasn't yet.

I just brought the price up because it surprised me.

The 918 has a smaller engine than the Vette and even if you don't plug it in its still a full parallel hybrid just like the Prius. I don't see how the 918 wouldn't get more than 30mph on the highway.

Originally Posted by pete c

The Cayman is the epitome of a sports car. Just read an article about the latest one where they say it just may be the best handling car in the world and it definitely beats out the 911.

The previous generation Cayman (987) has depreciated to under $20k. I can definitely see buying one in the near future. They worked out most of the engine bugs of the 986/996 so it should be far more reliable. The new generation Cayman is a real gem but far outside my budget.

Originally Posted by cbaber

The MX-5/Miata is one of the best sports cars in history. It has proof to back it up. It is probably the most raced production car ever. If that doesn't make it a sports car what does?

Miata is an excellent example of a pure sports car. The hard top convertible you can actually live with every day in any weather. Sports car has nothing to do with horsepower.