[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Litos

so ??

we're talking definitions of certain cars that a random person on the internet thought up[ in his head.....

nothing you say is definitive, because it's impossible....everything falls under an umbrella, regardless of where it falls in your own mind...

so we will continue to go around and around, but it'll be fun, especially when I go back to work on Monday (if this thread hasn't died by then)....

This thread can go on without me because in clearly never going to get the point across.

I'll keep it brief and simple: the Challenger can comfortably seat four and is the size of a land whale. That means it made a compromise for the sake of utility and disqualifies it from the sports car label.

But hey, I'm just some rando on the internet pulling arbitrary checklists and parameters out of my tush. Here's some required reading for you. I'll be willing to continue the thread after you've taken a quick glance at them and have a reasonable retort.

I'll try to not be an asshole about this and I'm okay to agree to disagree. I'm a firm believer that the overwhelming consensus differs with what you and that other guy (or guys, I'm not paying attention) have stated in this thread.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://en.m.wikipedi...Sports_car</a>

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tourer" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://en.m.wikipedi...and_tourer</a>

http://jalopnik.com/what-is-a-sports...tly-1190468446" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://jalopnik.com/...1190468446</a>

[Litos]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

This thread can go on without me because in clearly never going to get the point across.

hey you, yeah you - YOU were the one that defined a sports car...

I can change that definition to suite my needs also...

your definition is meaningless because its far from fact - more like an opinion (an opinion that defies facts), but it's your opinion nonetheless.....

p.s.
I can't take your opinion seriously if you can't even legitimately copy and paste a link to help prove your point.....

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

This thread can go on without me because in clearly never going to get the point across.

I'll keep it brief and simple: the Challenger can comfortably seat four and is the size of a land whale. That means it made a compromise for the sake of utility and disqualifies it from the sports car label.

But hey, I'm just some rando on the internet pulling arbitrary checklists and parameters out of my tush. Here's some required reading for you. I'll be willing to continue the thread after you've taken a quick glance at them and have a reasonable retort.

I'll try to not be an asshole about this and I'm okay to agree to disagree. I'm a firm believer that the overwhelming consensus differs with what you and that other guy (or guys, I'm not paying attention) have stated in this thread.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://en.m.wikipedi...Sports_car</a>" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://<a href="http...ts_car</a></a>

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tourer" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://en.m.wikipedi...and_tourer</a>" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://<a href="http...tourer</a></a>

http://jalopnik.com/what-is-a-sports...tly-1190468446" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://jalopnik.com/...1190468446</a>" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://<a href="http...468446</a></a>

So now you're re-posting links that I already posted on page 1?

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

So now you're re-posting links that I already posted on page 1?

It's pretty apparent that I missed your links

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Litos

hey you, yeah you - YOU were the one that defined a sports car...

I can change that definition to suite my needs also...

your definition is meaningless because its far from fact - more like an opinion (an opinion that defies facts), but it's your opinion nonetheless.....

p.s.
I can't take your opinion seriously if you can't even legitimately copy and paste a link to help prove your point.....

Thank the phone app which won't let me link anything

The conversation's over unless you bother to read the info I posted backing my opinion up or provide some type of actual reasoning for yours

If you're convinced that a 4300 pound 5-seater is a sports car then there's not much to discuss at this point

[ddk632]

Minivans are the only true sports cars.

[NemesisX]

I saw 'last post: ddk632' and before I even entered this thread I thought to myself "I wonder if David will break the norm and post something non-sarcastic for once?"

[ddk632]

That was funny, man.

Honestly, I wanted to participate in this thread but as I thought about how I define a sports car throughout the day, the thread degenerated into exactly what OP stated he wasn't looking for ... Throwing wiki definitions out...

So I figured, hey, what the hell, right?



Anyway I am still forming my opinions on the subject!

[schoy]

Wiki def'n of "sports car": "a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling. Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite."

Merriam-Webster def'n of "sports car": "a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving."

Encyclopedia Britannica def'n: "the sports car is usually a two-seater, sometimes a four-seater, characterized by its nimble abilities (if not speed and power) together with general suitability for high-speed touring on ordinary roads"

While, yes, one can define any word to fit one's own desires (since a word is simply a construct of language), I think what we're talking about is the general consensus definitions. I think the M3 fits the definitions (though the minimum weight requirement for the wiki definition puts it on the edge).

[PINeely]

We get that "sports car" is a term which in fact has a very specific definition but colloquially its use is much broader than that. For the record I like the traditional definition much better.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by schoy

Wiki def'n of "sports car": "a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling. Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite."

Merriam-Webster def'n of "sports car": "a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving."

Encyclopedia Britannica def'n: "the sports car is usually a two-seater, sometimes a four-seater, characterized by its nimble abilities (if not speed and power) together with general suitability for high-speed touring on ordinary roads"

While, yes, one can define any word to fit one's own desires (since a word is simply a construct of language), I think what we're talking about is the general consensus definitions. I think the M3 fits the definitions (though the minimum weight requirement for the wiki definition puts it on the edge).

Perfect.

[wrickem]

Originally Posted by schoy

Wiki def'n of "sports car": "a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling. Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite."

Merriam-Webster def'n of "sports car": "a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving."

Encyclopedia Britannica def'n: "the sports car is usually a two-seater, sometimes a four-seater, characterized by its nimble abilities (if not speed and power) together with general suitability for high-speed touring on ordinary roads"

While, yes, one can define any word to fit one's own desires (since a word is simply a construct of language), I think what we're talking about is the general consensus definitions. I think the M3 fits the definitions (though the minimum weight requirement for the wiki definition puts it on the edge).

Originally Posted by Year's_End

Perfect.

+1. And to me, a sports car doesn't necessarily have to be especially fast, but they have to be kind of impractical for everyday use, but especially fun to drive.

[E39lolz]

IMHO a FWD car isn't a 'true' sports car.

[m3ray]

Anything sub 3000 lbs, with RWD and a real manual transmission with a clutch

[gtron]

Originally Posted by E39lolz

IMHO a FWD car isn't a 'true' sports car.

i see others make that comment from time to time so i thought i would finally reply.

lamborghinis all wheel drive and i believe they're widely accepted as sports cars and beyond. i can list several awd sports cars.

also, there's rally cars that will blow the balls off most people that are fwd. rallying is an awesome driving sport imo that requires amazing driver and car talent. if people don't think rallying is not driving as a sport then i'm not sure what a sport even is.

[E39lolz]

When I said that IMHO FWD cars aren't true sports cars, it only meant towards front wheel drive cars. Thus, I never mentioned that AWD cars aren't sports cars

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by John 070

It's something that is always RWD

C'mon. So a 4WD Lamborghni Aventador is not a sports car? A FWD Lotus Elan M100? A host of FWD hot hatches are every bit the equal of a BMW sports sedan when it comes to being sporty. The SEAT Leon Cupra just lapped the Nurburgring in under 8 minutes, surely qualifying.

The "must have a clutch" people are equally out of date. These days a pedal operated clutch and a lever sprouting from the floor are both old fashioned, and a performance detriment. No race car today has those archaic devices, unless it's required by the rules.

If we're just talking personal biases, I say a sports car:

Has two seats. A non useful back seat (Porsche 911) qualifies, barely.

Must have a retractable top. Or no top.

This question has no meaningful answer. A sports car is a car that can be driven for the sheer joy of driving. There are a lot of them. Any definition that excludes a Suburu WRX STI or a Golf Type R is missing the point.

Much of the discussion reminds me of people talking about how digital recordings are not "true hifi sound". Nostalgia may be useful in emotion, but not, to me, in technology.

[ddk632]

Also the sub-3000 lbs rules would exclude most of today's cars, period. Including the Aventador.

The retractable top or no top also excludes a lot of sports cars.

My definition is a sports car is a car built with spirited driving in mind, one that would feel at home in canyons and on a racetrack.

My definition does not limit it by number of doors, weight, power, size, type of transmission, or any other such factor.

To me, cars like the BMW M5, Porsche Panamera GTS, and BMW i8, are just as much sports cars as the Lotus Elise, Chevy Corvette, Mazda Miata, Honda S2000, Acura (Honda) NSX, and Nissan GT-R; yes, they are not all created equal, but they are sports cars to me.

[John 070]

The easiest way to identify a sports car is if it has an S designation on the trunk. A corolla is never a sports car, a Corolla S is always a sports car

[John 070]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

The "must have a clutch" people are equally out of date. .

'nuff said

[ddk632]

Originally Posted by John 070

The easiest way to identify a sports car is if it has an S designation on the trunk. A corolla is never a sports car, a Corolla S is always a sports car

That's a good way to look at it.

Honda OdySSey...

2x S = Super Sport edition.

Practically a street legal race van right there!

[ddk632]

A funny thing about Corollas and South Florida.

When I first moved here, realtor told me, "Never mess with Corollas. They are driven by old rich people and they will just ram right in to you, and then have their butler bring them another Corolla."

True story.

I don't mess with Corollas. Ever.