Depends on context. Am I talking to my car buds? Yeah, its a sports car. Am I talking to my insurance provider? Yeah, its just a simple luxury "performance" sedan.
Depends on context. Am I talking to my car buds? Yeah, its a sports car. Am I talking to my insurance provider? Yeah, its just a simple luxury "performance" sedan.
I think the classical definition is 2 doors, 2 seats, RWD.
The spiritual definition could be anything that prioritizes performance over practicality.
Karacticus wrote:foxtrapper wrote: So it's not the car, it's the application. Drive anything on an autocross course, and it becomes a sports car. Drive anything to work regularly and it's now an appliance. Can't say I'd go along with that in either way.It's only a sports car if it's driven on an autocross course and you call it racing!Let's make sure we use as many of our tropes at once as we can!
But would he be an athlete? 
What's the old saying? Can't describe it but I know it when I see it.
BlueInGreen44 wrote: I don't think it's elitism. I just see it as a category. Like "sedan" or "minivan" or "compact car"
Exactly - this is meant to be a category, not a value judgement. If I say that I think a Camaro is a pony car and not a sports car, I simply mean that it is in the same genre as the Mustang - a rear wheel drive, smallish coupe with a lot of horsepower and a somewhat functional back seat.
wlkelley3 wrote: What's the old saying? Can't describe it but I know it when I see it.
So now we've established the link between sports cars and obscenity!
So if a sports car is a two seater, manual transmission, and rear wheel drive, then a lot of pickup trucks and Jeeps with no back seats are sports cars right?
Has there ever been a two seater Jeep other than the Comanche?
But I'd be willing to accept a 2WD regular cab pickup as an "Alabama Sports Car".
Some of the original Jeep CJs had rear seats as options, but did not necessarily come with them. A CJ-8 had no provisions for a rear seat.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
Sorry about the miata mgb stereotypes, i have driven miatas for a decade but never seen an mgb or triumph run long enough to see it get to 60 so i didnt want to step on any mgb toes.
But about trucks or suvs, they cant be sports cars even if they have only two seats because the one glaring fact that they are not cars, they are trucks/suvs.
Seems the general consensus is 2 door, manual, rwd, only two real seats, insurance rear seats that only fit infants are okay. Anything else i missed?
So if a sports car is a two seater, manual transmission, and rear wheel drive, then a lot of pickup trucks and Jeeps with no back seats are sports cars right?
I have said that I felt Miatas and 2dr Wranglers were similar in spirit in the past. 
RossD wrote: So if a sports car is a two seater, manual transmission, and rear wheel drive, then a lot of pickup trucks and Jeeps with no back seats are sports cars right?
Pretty much.
This was established a few years ago here. A sports car is a convertible with 2 seats. They come in 2 types, a Roadster, which has no side windows and a Cabriolet, which does. Anything with an nondetachable roof is a GT. GTs are driven to get somewhere, Sports cars are driven for fun.
Seems like this thread pops up every few months...last time it was GT vs Sports Car IIRC
In reply to pjbgravely:
I beg to differ. I would agree with the last sentence, but have to ask what about a fixed roof makes a light, responsive, focused coupe incapable of being driven for fun? Are raw cars like the Porsche GT3RS, Ferrari 599 GTO, or Lotus Exige best described as a GT and not a sports car simply because of the roof?
In my mind, a GT is a coupe that includes enough comfort and a little luggage space without making a huge compromise in performance or driving experience. Long-legged performance+driving experience+a touch of luxury/comfort is a GT. Engaging driving experience is a sports car, and it can be open-top/fixed roof and higher-performance/lower-performance but focused on driving fun, and it should be two-door, two-seat or 2+2, light and responsive.
Convertibles are heavier, flexier sports cars for people who care less about performance than about making sure everyone can see them at the wheel and are too scared to ride a motorcycle for that open-air feeling. Whoops, I mean convertibles can also be sports cars.
I thought of this the other day as I was busy smoking an S2000 in some windy, curvy woodland roads....in my 4-door daily driver sedan. He almost went off multiple times trying to keep up and I wasn't even really pushing it.
So what's a sportscar? IDK. My 4-door 4-cylinder daily driver can absolutely annihilate both my 2-seater (Triumph GT6) and my actual race car in pretty much any performance category, in any weather, on a dragstrip or a road course. With the air conditioning and radio on. It can also kill a good number of modern "sportscars" in most of those categories as well...
I guess one could argue that a sportscar is something that is more "raw" but I hardly consider my WRX to be "refined"
You could argue that sportscars are things that you would see at a competition event, but then tracks are full of fast sedans and rallies are full of Subarus and Ford Focuses and no roadsters (and few 2-seaters at all) can be found.
I don't much care what the word means. Of the cars I own the one that I would say definitely considered a sportscar (or, many of you would say "GT car") is easily the least sporty to drive and the lowest performance. Also probably the least enjoyable to drive. But damn it's pretty.
While we're at it, let's talk about what sports are played by "athletes." Football, baseball, golf, bowling, etc. It's the same argument. In the eye of the beholder.
pjbgravely wrote: This was established a few years ago here. A sports car is a convertible with 2 seats. They come in 2 types, a Roadster, which has no side windows and a Cabriolet, which does. Anything with an nondetachable roof is a GT. GTs are driven to get somewhere, Sports cars are driven for fun.
So this is a sportscar. Buick Reatta driven for fun?
While I'll admit to a fondness for the classic British definition ("any 2 seat, open car which can in a pinch be raced"), my working definition is any car with these two features:
And also at least 3 out of 4 of the following:
An M100 Elan is a sports car. An Rx-8 is not, sorry Mazda.
--Ian
There was a guy on CL with a bmw z roadster that said he wanted to trade for a sports car....he didn't give a definition of what he thought that meant. I thought it was a little funny. If your z3 isn't a sports car, what is? He probably wanted to trade for a foxbody.
ae86andkp61 wrote: In reply to pjbgravely: I beg to differ. I would agree with the last sentence, but have to ask what about a fixed roof makes a light, responsive, focused coupe incapable of being driven for fun? Are raw cars like the Porsche GT3RS, Ferrari 599 GTO, or Lotus Exige best described as a GT and not a sports car simply because of the roof?
You answered your question with the examples you gave. GT is right in the damn NAME of the cars.
Sports cars have always been 2 seat RWD convertibles and when you add a roof they BECAME GTs, as in Ferrari 250 GTO, Porsche GT2 and GT3, Ford GT40, Viper GTS. The names, by traditional sports car definitions, are the clue. Ferrari and Porsche, being old school sports and GT makers, knew the difference and still do.
This all came about from FIA racing classifications. Sports cars were open cars primarily designed for road racing and road use, and GTs were closed cars primarily designed for road racing and road use. Sport sedans are, you guessed it, sedans made for road racing and road use. Pony cars are GT styled muscle cars designed for road racing and DRAG racing (which is the muscle car portion). Muscle cars are intermediate and full size coupes and sedans made primarily for drag racing and circle track racing.
The BRZ/FRS are GTs, and the basic car, the Toyota GT86, has it in it's name. They are closed roof cars. The Miata is the quintessential sports car.
SCCA confuses things by having Production and GT classes that have a little bit of overlap (like RX7s are in Production classes, even though they are closed cars except for the FC convertible).
Power has never been part of the Sports Car definition, even though some have been quite powerful. But the vast majority of traditional sports cars from around the world have not ben very powerful cars, as exampled by one of the first imported sports cars that set the trend: the MG TC.
Definitions matter, and they shouldn't change just because you have a different opinion otherwise we can't have a coherent conversation about anything, from sports cars to vegetables. Without definitions how would you know you're eating a banana and not a tomato? Oh, you can be of the opinion that a tomato IS a banana and decide that you have your own definition of the word, but you can't converse intelligently with anyone about it and most people will simply laugh at you for being an idiot.
A sports car is a sporty car yes.. . . ...
Ok I am no help am I.
Ones definition of "sports car" is the same as trying to agree on the definition of what is "sexy". Blond or red head full figure or thin. Athletic or .. . . Well ... . The preverbal "bon bon" girl. It I all in the eye of the be holder.
And most importantly no one is wrong. What works for me probibly does not for alot of you.
Along the same lines is the argument that the "stance" crowd are not somehow car guys. Defining sports car is like trying to define what is a "car guy"
My well-sorted 99 Civic Si that has seen many an auto-x (during which its rear end can get all slidey), a few track days, while weighing 2500lbs is most certainly a "sports car". It weighs a helluva lot less than most current "sports cars".
With this topic coming from an Abarth owner, this question seems like a good bit of stone throwing.
pjbgravely wrote: This was established a few years ago here. A sports car is a convertible with 2 seats. They come in 2 types, a Roadster, which has no side windows and a Cabriolet, which does. Anything with an nondetachable roof is a GT. GTs are driven to get somewhere, Sports cars are driven for fun.
So a normal Corvette is not a Sports car but when you put a convertible top on it, it becomes one. Got it.
Now what about motor SPORTS that don't allow convertibles?
Chris_V wrote: Definitions matter, and they shouldn't change just because you have a different opinion otherwise we can't have a coherent conversation about anything, from sports cars to vegetables.
All languages continue to evolve over time. If one person chooses to ignore (or is unaware of) modern use(s), while the other chooses to ignore (or is unaware of) historical use(s)...Who is to blame for their combined inability to have a coherent conversation?
Driven5 wrote:Chris_V wrote: Definitions matter, and they shouldn't change just because you have a different opinion otherwise we can't have a coherent conversation about anything, from sports cars to vegetables.All languages continue to evolve over time. If one person chooses to ignore (or is unaware of) modern use(s), while the other chooses to ignore (or is unaware of) historical use(s)...Who is to blame for their combined inability to have a coherent conversation?
You still don't get to just make up definitions as you go along. The language in this case hasn't "evolved" to a completely new, but well agreed upon definition. It's fractured and a free for all where everyone defines it on their own. That's not "evolving" but completely losing the plot.
Using your logic, can I just start calling pickup trucks station wagons because I feel like it and it be YOUR fault that you don't know what I'm talking about? No.
You'll need to log in to post.
