[Conissah]

Originally Posted by N54Yankee

So based upon your definition of a sports car it absolutely needs a radio to qualify?

Guess my NA miata with no radio, ac, power steering, and a half an interior doesn't count. It ALMOST fits his definition though. Too bad it makes all of 90 whp and is slower than dog shit.

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by N54Yankee

So based upon your definition of a sports car it absolutely needs a radio to qualify?

It's not my definition, it's just the earliest definition I could find. And yes, the car would need to have a radio.

You have to understand that the original (well, the oldest) definition of a Sports Car is part and parcel to "fun", hence the radio, open top, 2-seat, light weight, manual gearbox...

Originally Posted by Conissah

Guess my NA miata with no radio, ac, power steering, and a half an interior doesn't count. It ALMOST fits his definition though. Too bad it makes all of 90 whp and is slower than dog shit.

That's correct, if you take the radio out you take part of the fun out.

Again, not my definition, just the earliest I could find.

Also, no speak of whp in a discussion about Sports Cars, please, it literally makes no difference whatsoever. The earliest Sports Cars were fun despite having very little power.

Maybe a discussion about Muscle Cars would suit you more, as their main goal is power.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

It's not my definition, it's just the earliest definition I could find. And yes, the car would need to have a radio.

And a fighter plane needs to be piston powered, tail-dragger, seats one person, .50 caliber machine guns, no ejection seat, no electronic countermeasures, etc.

F-16, F-15, F-22s, NOT FIGHTER PLANES!

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

It's not my definition, it's just the earliest definition I could find. And yes, the car would need to have a radio.

You have to understand that the original (well, the oldest) definition of a Sports Car is part and parcel to "fun", hence the radio, open top, 2-seat, light weight, manual gearbox...




That's correct, if you take the radio out you take part of the fun out.

Again, not my definition, just the earliest I could find.

Also, no speak of whp in a discussion about Sports Cars, please, it literally makes no difference whatsoever. The earliest Sports Cars were fun despite having very little power.

Maybe a discussion about Muscle Cars would suit you more, as their main goal is power.

The earliest you could find doesn’t pass muster. There are earlier definitions that you couldn’t find. You have to understand that the first definition of sports cars came about when ‘wireless’ radio was in its infancy and not even put into any automobile yet and took quite some time before most cars had them, including sports cars. So therefore your criteria to pass the sports car pass/fail test is a big fail. Not forgetting many people I know with sports cars, myself included often turn off the radio so we can listen to the sweet music of our mechanicals.
Horse power shouldn’t matter and I didn’t mention that power had any bearing on classification. Many people have fun in their cars regardless of how it’s classified. Your entitled to your opinion and you are certainly alone on this forum and in the car world in general but that’s ok you can stick to your odd interpretations, I support your right to be wrong, freedom of speech and all.

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

And a fighter plane needs to be piston powered, tail-dragger, seats one person, .50 caliber machine guns, no ejection seat, no electronic countermeasures, etc.

F-16, F-15, F-22s, NOT FIGHTER PLANES!

Don't shoot the messenger.

Originally Posted by N54Yankee

The earliest you could find doesn’t pass muster.

Sure it does, look at who invented Sports Cars.

Or, just ignore it, and keep thinking everything is a Sports Car.

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

Don't shoot the messenger.




Sure it does, look at who invented Sports Cars.

Or, just ignore it, and keep thinking everything is a Sports Car.

That doesn’t even make sense. Yes, Europeans invented sports cars and they did it before radios were put into cars. So you saying a radio to qualify as a sports car is totally wrong and ridiculous to boot as are some of your other opinions on the subject. You lost ALL credibility, no wonder you stand alone on this subject.
Little heads up, if someone thinks everyone around them is wrong, they're the problem.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

If you consider a Ferrari or Lamborghini Sports Car, congratulations, you're normal. You also consider a Dodge Demon a Sports Car. To me, this is too wide of a range to properly categorize cars, so I go by the older definitions.

The classic definition of a Sports Car is as follows:

- 2 seat
- open top
- manual gearbox
- light weight
- nimble (handling fun being the primary objective)
- radio

What you have with your Ferrari's and Lamborghini's is much more the classic definition of a GT or Grand Touring Car.

Correct. See above.

You define things the way you like, I'll define them the way I like. To me, calling both a Diablo and a Miata a Sports Car isn't specific enough.

Yes I am normal, appreciate you confirming that (I'll let my wife know). For a dodge demon - I would actually call that a muscle car rather than a sports car.

But literally any rational person would consider the typical Ferrari or Lamborghini a sports car. I would venture to say that if you asked a random person to name a sports car there is probably an 80%+ chance they would say either Ferrari or Lamborghini (perhaps Porsche a distant third but I am assuming you think Porsche's are not sports cars either).

[VisualEcho]

[QUOTE=gatorfast;26447688]For a dodge demon - I would actually call that a muscle car rather than a sports car.[/qyote]

You see, now that's where you're not making any sense (respectfully).

The classic 3 were...

Sports Car - main purpose handling fun
Grand Touring Car - main purpose to be the best of both worlds
Muscle Car - main purpose power in a straight line

The fact that you recognize the Demon is a Muscle Car, in the classic sense, but don't acknowledge the fact that Ferrari and Lamborghini are GT Cars is beyond me.

Originally Posted by gatorfast

But literally any rational person would consider the typical Ferrari or Lamborghini a sports car. I would venture to say that if you asked a random person to name a sports car there is probably an 80%+ chance they would say either Ferrari or Lamborghini (perhaps Porsche a distant third but I am assuming you think Porsche's are not sports cars either).

An enthusiast should know better (IMO). We aren't random people here, we're car people.

[gatorfast]

[QUOTE=VisualEcho;26447719]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

For a dodge demon - I would actually call that a muscle car rather than a sports car.[/qyote]

You see, now that's where you're not making any sense (respectfully).

The classic 3 were...

Sports Car - main purpose handling fun
Grand Touring Car - main purpose to be the best of both worlds
Muscle Car - main purpose power in a straight line

The fact that you recognize the Demon is a Muscle Car, in the classic sense, but don't acknowledge the fact that Ferrari and Lamborghini are GT Cars is beyond me.

An enthusiast should know better (IMO). We aren't random people here, we're car people.

lol I'm an enthusiast too but I think you are being pedantic on this one.

You have developed some sort of strict definition of a sports car of your own creation. Here is what the internet has to say (and the internet is never wrong): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

Again, if you showed two pictures to an enthusiast, a Ferrari and a Demon, and asked them to label one a sports car and the other a muscle car we all know which one would get which label. I am using common car knowledge here, not some overly restrictive definition.

[VisualEcho]

[QUOTE=gatorfast;26447799]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

lol I'm an enthusiast too but I think you are being pedantic on this one.

You have developed some sort of strict definition of a sports car of your own creation. Here is what the internet has to say (and the internet is never wrong): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

Again, if you showed two pictures to an enthusiast, a Ferrari and a Demon, and asked them to label one a sports car and the other a muscle car we all know which one would get which label. I am using common car knowledge here, not some overly restrictive definition.

If you gave them the choice between the three they would ask for the definitions, and then they'd get it right 😊.

I can't help it that I'm more specific than most 😎.

[Flacht3]

Guys who the hell cares if someone considers it a "sports car" or not. It's like the stupid debates over if something is a "super car" or not.

Does some random dude on the internet's definition of "sports car", "super car" etc. change my desire to drive, own, dream of certain cars? Not one bit, so who cares.

(this was not a shot at one person, I'm speaking in general).

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by Flacht3

Guys who the hell cares if someone considers it a "sports car" or not. It's like the stupid debates over if something is a "super car" or not.

Does some random dude on the internet's definition of "sports car", "super car" etc. change my desire to drive, own, dream of certain cars? Not one bit, so who cares.

(this was not a shot at one person, I'm speaking in general).

Just keeping the "I miss my 458" thread alive. Hell, I miss his 458.

[gilberjj]

Beautiful car. If I had the money, I’d strongly consider an F-430 manual. Last of its kind.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

yes

annual maintenance is about 1k a year
depreciation was about 45k total over 4 years.

I guess it was a little more as the springs, spacers, install, and then the clear bra were another 5-6k on top of that. I also didn't factor in property taxes.

Annual maintenance is about $1k/year and the car was only driven 2000 miles/year?

I don't know if the Ferrari experience would ever be worth that much to me, even if I could afford it. I'd spend more time just looking at it parked than driving it, and that simply doesn't make sense for someone like me (more torture than joy). Hec, you can rent 458s on Turo these days, and it's not even that expensive. Thus, an enthusiast could rent one for a week, have your fun it for like 750 to 1000 miles, and then return it. If I could do this annually, it would be all the 458 experience I'd ever need, since I'd only be driving it another 1000 miles for the rest of the year if I owned it anyway ... while still forcing me to spend $1,000 each year for maintenance for my total of 2000 miles of driving it, not including insuring it every month.

And I imagine most 458s are never tracked for the obvious fear of messing up the car, and that would be half the fun of owning one for me.

The 458 is a truly special car, but I'd rather own a GT3 or GT3RS just so I could average 2,000 miles/month some months if I wanted to, and could take any trip I wanted, while also tracking it each year to truly get the full experience of its capabilities.

[dgoldenz]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

Annual maintenance is about $1k/year and the car was only driven 2000 miles/year?

I don't know if the Ferrari experience would ever be worth that much to me, even if I could afford it. I'd spend more time just looking at it parked than driving it, and that simply doesn't make sense for someone like me (more torture than joy). Hec, you can rent 458s on Turo these days, and it's not even that expensive. Thus, an enthusiast could rent one for a week, have your fun it for like 750 to 1000 miles, and then return it. If I could do this annually, it would be all the 458 experience I'd ever need, since I'd only be driving it another 1000 miles for the rest of the year if I owned it anyway ... while still forcing me to spend $1,000 each year for maintenance for my total of 2000 miles of driving it, not including insuring it every month.

And I imagine most 458s are never tracked for the obvious fear of messing up the car, and that would be half the fun of owning one for me.

The 458 is a truly special car, but I'd rather own a GT3 or GT3RS just so I could average 2,000 miles/month some months if I wanted to, and could take any trip I wanted, while also tracking it each year to truly get the full experience of its capabilities.

Believe it or not, you can also drive a 458 more than 2000 miles per year if you want.

[Humdizzle]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

Annual maintenance is about $1k/year and the car was only driven 2000 miles/year?

I don't know if the Ferrari experience would ever be worth that much to me, even if I could afford it. I'd spend more time just looking at it parked than driving it, and that simply doesn't make sense for someone like me (more torture than joy). Hec, you can rent 458s on Turo these days, and it's not even that expensive. Thus, an enthusiast could rent one for a week, have your fun it for like 750 to 1000 miles, and then return it. If I could do this annually, it would be all the 458 experience I'd ever need, since I'd only be driving it another 1000 miles for the rest of the year if I owned it anyway ... while still forcing me to spend $1,000 each year for maintenance for my total of 2000 miles of driving it, not including insuring it every month.

And I imagine most 458s are never tracked for the obvious fear of messing up the car, and that would be half the fun of owning one for me.

The 458 is a truly special car, but I'd rather own a GT3 or GT3RS just so I could average 2,000 miles/month some months if I wanted to, and could take any trip I wanted, while also tracking it each year to truly get the full experience of its capabilities.

it all depends on what your are comfortable with. There are guys who buy a 720s / 812 Superfast.. only put a few thousand miles on it and lost $60k+ deprecation in 1-2 years and its nothing to them. You can drive most modern ferraris ALOT and they are fine. There are guys on the forum with over 100k miles on their 458 no major issues.

[Lucky1]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

just can't do 911 verts, or verts in general really.

that and the speedster is like twice the price of a GT3 lol

Those ITB's tho

[freakystyly]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

it all depends on what your are comfortable with. There are guys who buy a 720s / 812 Superfast.. only put a few thousand miles on it and lost $60k+ deprecation in 1-2 years and its nothing to them. You can drive most modern ferraris ALOT and they are fine. There are guys on the forum with over 100k miles on their 458 no major issues.

Almost as bad depreciation as an M car.

Ferrari is a special brand tho, it should be measured in $ / smile.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

it all depends on what your are comfortable with. There are guys who buy a 720s / 812 Superfast.. only put a few thousand miles on it and lost $60k+ deprecation in 1-2 years and its nothing to them. You can drive most modern ferraris ALOT and they are fine. There are guys on the forum with over 100k miles on their 458 no major issues.

I can't imagine buying a special car and worried about its level of depreciation. If I'm worried about it depreciating, I'm buying the wrong car. If I'm not driving it and/or tracking it, then it simply becomes something I spend more time ogling than driving.

So, I'd rather rent those truly special cars for a bit, return them...and own the ones I can put 200,000 miles on, frivolously if I desire.....and then if I do want to sell it later, I will have gotten every dollar of joy out of it that I could so then it doesn't matter what it's worth at that time. Whatever I get is bonus money at that point, as its already paid for itself in giddiness.

But I'm different, I'm not a collector, and cars are not investments for me. They're either bought for utility (pickups, daily drivers, etc.) or for tools of utter excitement and adrenaline. I invest in the market and real estate, I enjoy cars. I try not to mix the two so I'm never feeling guilty if I take my car toy to the grocery store or to the cleaners, just for the 5-minute thrill of it...