What exactly makes a sports car?

Rupert wrote:

noddaz wrote:

BlueInGreen44 wrote: To me sports car is anything where practicality/comfort/etc comes 2nd to a fun drive down a twisty road on a nice day. So in my book that rules out comfy gt cars and practical hot hatches.

So..... A 240/260/280Z are not sportscars? And neither are 944s? (I was waiting for a response like this...)

Don't forget the 928 or the Avanti.

I thought the 928 was even marketed as a "GT"?

So can a Hatchback also be a sports car?

Lof8 wrote: Anything I drive becomes a sports car.

BOSS!

Sports cars are cars with 2 seats that are designed from the ground up to have good driving dynamics. There are some outliers, like cars with rear seats just for insurance purposes. They are not automatically impractical. Single people without kids can often dd a sports car.

In reply to ronholm: Hatchbacks are definitely not sports cars; they are a "big" small car to hold more stuff in the trunk.

Philosophically, it the requirement to load the design envelope with less comfort and more agility oriented performance.

From a more personal and subjective point:

4 wheels

2 seats. This one is non-negotiable unless you are a McLaren 3 seater. I will bend for that one!

convertible...sorry BRZ 240Z and MGB GT. but you whored out with the fixed roof thing, so you are out.

2000-2400lbs

150+ HP in the weight envelope mentioned

RWD only. Mid engine OK, NOT rear engine. (sorry Porsche)

double a-arm suspension front and rear.

The Tudor sponsored "sports car" racing series includes Corvettes, Vipers, Z4s, Porsche 911, Ferrari 458. The only open roof car in the series are Prototype Challenge cars all using the same chassis and engines....

just sayin...

Chris_V wrote: Is a 250 GTO really any more comfortable for an endurance race then a 250 TR? I'd say the only reason it's more comfortble is the roof. And the 250 California is a GT car because it was not for motorsports, according to Enzo (who was the most strict about the definitions of sports cars and GT cars). Street cars and 2+2s were GT cars to him, which is how you got the GTS Ferraris. It's the same for Porsche GT2 and GT3 cars. They are LESS comfortable than the street 911, but designed for motorsports in well, GT classes. Why would they be in GT classes instead of sports car classes? Because 911s are GT cars. Always have been. Closed roof or 2+2.

Did I say anything about comfortable in a race?! No. Comfortable on the street. And yes, a 250 GTO or 250 SWB would be more comfortable to drive long-distance on a highway than a 250 TR. Is it mainly because it has a roof? Likely. But that isn't the point. The point is that saying a car is not a sportscar simply due to the existence of a roof is asinine. You'd be saying that the Boxster is a sportscar while the Cayman is a GT, when arguably the Cayman is even more capable as a sportscar.

And you contradict your own definition anyway with the 250GT California. We aren't talking purely motorsports, we're talking street cars with the definitions of "sportscar" and "GT car". And Enzo's opinions are irrelevent, he was more PT Barnum-cum-politician than he was an engineer. He kept live axles and drum brakes on his cars long after it was obvious they were inferior and was one of the last to make the switch to the mid-engine layout in motorsports. Again, Porsche's use of GT3/GT2 has nothing to do with this, nor the relative comfort level compared to a standard 911. They are named for the ACO's classing conventions in the 1990s, which were put in place decades after the evolution of the terms we are discussing now.

I do agree that the 911 is a GT car rather than sportscar, though, mainly because it's historically been a less-capable chassis than their other offerings throughout the years due to the engine being in the wrong place!

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: In reply to ronholm: Hatchbacks are definitely not sports cars; they are a "big" small car to hold more stuff in the trunk.

So, 924 and 944 are not sports cars. None of the Z28s or Trans Ams that have hatchbacks are sports cars. (Ok, with the risk of ire, maybe Z28s and Trans Ams are just "Sporty Cars".) And even some of the Lotus (I think) with hatchbacks are not sportscars. No Mini, No Abarth, No Clio, No Integra GSR or Type R

Just sayin'...

I think they were thinking stereotypical "hatchback" economy car, not liftback/fastback type cars.

But using my definition the trunkal storage space access design doesn't matter

I seem to remember the hatchback argument being thoroughly dealt with somewhere else on this forum some time ago...

As to the various Loti: Not sure I am willing to concede CAR status of any-kind to anything pre-Elise. I'm pretty sure I have ever seen a Lotus move under it's own power.

250 GTO translates to "Homogelated Grand Touring" so by its own definition NOT a sports car. Grand touring would be the antithesis of a sportscar.

Sports Car.

GT

NOHOME wrote: Philosophically, it the requirement to load the design envelope with less comfort and more agility oriented performance. From a more personal and subjective point: 4 wheels 2 seats. This one is non-negotiable unless you are a McLaren 3 seater. I will bend for that one! convertible...sorry BRZ 240Z and MGB GT. but you whored out with the fixed roof thing, so you are out. 2000-2400lbs 150+ HP in the weight envelope mentioned RWD only. Mid engine OK, NOT rear engine. (sorry Porsche) double a-arm suspension front and rear.

So on weight and hp alone, almost nothing built before 1990 is a sports car due to hp and after due to weight.

My RX7 FB was stock 115hp and 2650lbs

A Lotus Elan, MG Midget, Austin Healey Sprite, some of the purest sports car ever built has less than 150hp.

IMHO

Overcomplicating this category has caused the issues.

Mustangs and Camaros are Pony cars.

FWD Hot Hatches are Hot Hatches.

Functional rear seats are not a sign of a sports car.

I reiterate, 2 doors, 2 seats, RWD, compact and nimble.

So a Mailbu Maxx is NOT a sports car now? Wtf?

aussiesmg wrote:

NOHOME wrote: Philosophically, it the requirement to load the design envelope with less comfort and more agility oriented performance. From a more personal and subjective point: 4 wheels 2 seats. This one is non-negotiable unless you are a McLaren 3 seater. I will bend for that one! convertible...sorry BRZ 240Z and MGB GT. but you whored out with the fixed roof thing, so you are out. 2000-2400lbs 150+ HP in the weight envelope mentioned RWD only. Mid engine OK, NOT rear engine. (sorry Porsche) double a-arm suspension front and rear.

So on weight and hp alone, almost nothing built before 1990 is a sports car due to hp and after due to weight. My RX7 FB was stock 115hp and 2650lbs A Lotus Elan, MG Midget, Austin Healey Sprite, some of the purest sports car ever built has less than 150hp. IMHO Overcomplicating this category has caused the issues. Mustangs and Camaros are Pony cars. FWD Hot Hatches are Hot Hatches. Functional rear seats are not a sign of a sports car. I reiterate, 2 doors, 2 seats, RWD, compact and nimble.

AussieMG

OK, I should read my post more carefully. A lot of times my brain and fingers don't work in unison.

Not sure what I was thinking when I typed the 150+ as I certainly do agree with you that low HP should not keep you out of the running. I actually see sports cars as being somewhat power limited as part of the requirement. You can move that 150+ all the way down to 50+ as far as I am concerned.

NOHOME wrote: Not sure what I was thinking when I typed the 150+ as I certainly do agree with you that low HP should not keep you out of the running. I actually see sports cars as being somewhat power limited as part of the requirement. You can move that 150+ all the way down to

Sports Car?

Not rear wheel drive but I'd consider them sportscars.

In reply to BlueInGreen44:

I disagree on all counts.

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

Good. I'm actually interested in hearing a counter-argument for the fwd Italians.

In reply to noddaz: Yeah, at the time, I forgot that a 944 and a Corvette are hatchbacks! Those two are sports cars, they just happen to be made as hatchbacks. I would say that the Integra aren't sports cars, but they're sport coupes.

NOHOME wrote: ...2000-2400lbs

Up to 2400 lbs.

Fixed that for you, else you're lining out some of the cars most deserving of the title, the Lotus Seven for one.

Depending upon year, some Miatas wouldn't fit your definition...

ronholm wrote:

NOHOME wrote: Not sure what I was thinking when I typed the 150+ as I certainly do agree with you that low HP should not keep you out of the running. I actually see sports cars as being somewhat power limited as part of the requirement. You can move that 150+ all the way down to

Sports Car?

Yup

kb58 wrote:

NOHOME wrote: ...2000-2400lbs

*Up* *to* 2400 lbs. Depending upon year, some Miatas wouldn't fit your definition...

Like the NC! I deliberately picked that cut off to try and exlude the NC cause I think that Mazda let the car get too porky with that edition if the goal was to build a sports car. Glad to see the new one gets back into the bracket cause I want one where I did NOT want an NC.

Course, like all rules there are a ton of exceptions, what to say about a V8 swapped NA Miata? I invoke the "Hot Rod" rule.

BlueInGreen44 wrote: In reply to Nick_Comstock: Good. I'm actually interested in hearing a counter-argument for the fwd Italians.

I have no good counter argument. Sorry. I just hate all FWD things.