[TonyP83]

I know most of us consider something fast and fun a sports car but what is your definition? and lets keep the wiki-definition out of it.
The line between sports and super car seem to be blurred as of late.

Two doors? Then what is a Hyundai Elantra Coupe?
Great handling? Then what is a BRZ/FRS?
Extraordinary numbers? Then what is GTR?

I find it difficult to put an M3/4 in the same category as a Miata but is that what it is?

[NemesisX]

I find your list of presumed counterexamples to be strange. I consider the GTR to be more of a sports car than the M4. Why is the GTR listed in the same vein as an elantra or miata as a car that has one aspect commonly associated with sports cars but (presumably) not others?

[Sedan_Clan]

....Any car with a sporty aspect to its nature. It could be a sedan, coupe, convertible, etc. The original definition is antiquated. Cars have come a long way.

[Litos]

Miata is a sports car just as the Challenger Hellcat is a sports car....

one sports car costs $22K and the other will be north of $60K.....

however, the Challenger can also be considered a muscle car whereas the Miata will NEVER be considered a muscle car....

GTR, any 3-series, any 4-series, STi's, EVO's, Ferraris, Lambos, etc will never be considered muscle cars either.....

"...there's levels to this shit..."

[gtron]

i almost hate to participate in this thread as it's very open ended and there's no correct answer.

i will though because wth, it's a forum.

imo, if it can be used for driving as a sport then it can be a sports car.

that said, bmw uses the z4 now rather than the m cars, right? not sure if true since i haven't been keeping up with things.

i will tell you though, some sports cars are a different animal than other sports cars. lately i've been enjoying feeling like i'm very "connected" to the road. sit low with stiff suspension and listen to sweet engine noises. quiet and comfort has been put to the side for now as it feels more intoxicating regardless of 0-60 times.

of course all of the above is opinion.

[F1Venom]

Sports cars are best for one or two people due to their high level of performance and driver involvement.

[John 070]

It's something that is always RWD, usually has only 2 doors (these new 4 door coupes are the exception), has a clutch, and must be above average in acceleration and handling.

[Year's_End]

Pitching in my $0.02 from an old post that addressed this question.

@Litos: the Challenger (and Hellcat for that matter) is so far and away from the sports car label. It's a genuine model day muscle car which would better fit the GT class if you had to group it in with something. Way too big and heavy, but it's great cruiser with a lot of power and real back seats. The Miata is definitely a sportscar.

Originally Posted by Year's_End

It's hard to classify cars, especially as the overall selection of production performance cars has multiplied substantially in the past couple of decades. There are subjective measures like aesthetics and brand cache, and then there are objective measures like performance specs, versatility/usability (or lack thereof), costs, dimensions, and construction methods.

Here's my take on some of these terms, many of which are interchangeable or can be used as umbrella labels.

Sports Car: purpose-built; two-door; lightweight construction and agility are a priority; "fun" to drive; visceral; typically FR setup.
(e.g. Elise/Exige, S2000, 370Z, Corvette, majority of 911 variants)

Sports Coupe/Sedan: two or four doors doors, of course; typically based on an existing chassis that shares a sedan variant; performance intentions; accessible driving dynamics; not usually track capable from the showroom floor; heavier relative to sportscars; rarely stripped down and is daily driveable.
(e.g. M3, CTS-V, RS5, etc.)

Super Car: a shared concept with the sports car category, but with increased performance metrics that are typically headline-grabbing and in the top percentile of road going cars; can be based on existing sports car chassis, but more common to have a bespoke chassis with expensive production costs, a wide footprint, and a particularly low roofline; usually (but not restricted to) MR, FMR, M4, RR, and R4 layouts; hard to categorize due to constantly shifting performance bars being set.
(e.g. ZR1, LF-A, 911 GT3/TT, SLS, 458, GTR, Lamborghini range, etc.)

Hyper Car: state of the art tech; completely standout aesthetics; pushes existing powertrain/drivetrain/chassis limits for the given period; absurd price tag.
(e.g. TheTheFerrari, Enzo, 918, CGT, P1, F1, etc.)

Exotic: umbrella term; applied to cars almost always using a mid-engined setup; rarity is a requisite which carries a big price tag to match; performance doesn't have to be record breaking, but supercar levels are typically expected
(e.g. Lambos, Ferraris, high-end Astons, Paganis, etc.)

GT: the goal is versatility; DD qualities and high luxury mixed with impressive levels of performance; usually longer wheelbase; relatively medium in weight; insulated; born for the streets and not for the tracks, although they usually can be track-capable.
(e.g. M6, F-Type, XK, SL AMGs, etc.)

There's a lot of overlap to be had with the multiple labels we have here. You can take a car like the SLS or 991 and check off a few boxes here because their performance and capability envelopes are so vast.

[John 070]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I find your list of presumed counterexamples to be strange. I consider the GTR to be more of a sports car than the M4. Why is the GTR listed in the same vein as an elantra or miata as a car that has one aspect commonly associated with sports cars but (presumably) not others?

An M3 used to be affordable (and I wish I had bought one in 2008). The M3/4 costs 89k today, c'mon now, and it has simulated engine sounds piped in through the stereo....

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

....Any car with a sporty aspect to its nature. It could be a sedan, coupe, convertible, etc. The original definition is antiquated. Cars have come a long way.

+1 to this. Now we have sports jeeps, sports trucks, sports utility vehicles, etc. "Sports" now is just another marketing word I think. Tons of people consider the 335i to be a sports car just because it is fast and a good car.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by John 070

An M3 used to be affordable (and I wish I had bought one in 2008). The M3/4 costs 89k today, c'mon now, and it has simulated engine sounds piped in through the stereo....

Ummm, an ///M3 or ///M4 costs that much IF you check every option box available including CCB's. MOST ///M's are in the mid/low-70's and are not outfitted with CCB's; a base car is $62-64k with more standard options than an E9X had (..including navigation and carbon fiber trim). Let's be a tad bit more objective.


P.S. Affordability is relative to inflation. An E46 ///M was in the mid/high 40's (..around $45-47k) brand new; the E9X was in the mid-50's (..around $53-55k). The price of the new base car is right in line with previous price increases.

[dreamingat30fps]

For me it means it's primary focus is the driving experience. You drive a sports car because it's fun to drive, not because it's comfortable, seats a lot of people or has a nice ride. It's a car built for performance first and everything else second.

Now my personal preference would be 2 seater, rwd, manual, but I may be biased on that.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by PINeely

+1 to this. Now we have sports jeeps, sports trucks, sports utility vehicles, etc. "Sports" now is just another marketing word I think. Tons of people consider the 335i to be a sports car just because it is fast and a good car.

Disagreed. There are more sporty vehicles available now but that doesn't make them sports cars. The term is not antiquated.

I'll agree on the word "sport(s)" being an overly abused marketing term.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

Pitching in my $0.02 from an old post that addressed this question.

@Litos: the Challenger (and Hellcat for that matter) is so far and away from the sports car label. It's a genuine model day muscle car which would better fit the GT class if you had to group it in with something. Way too big and heavy, but it's great cruiser with a lot of power and real back seats. The Miata is definitely a sportscar.

from your own definitions, the Hellcat can be a GT, Sports Car or Sports Coupe....

and it can almost be considered a Muscle Super Car...

here's your umbrella back, sir...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

Disagreed. There are more sporty vehicles available now but that doesn't make them sports cars. The term is not antiquated.

I'll agree on the word "sport(s)" being an overly abused marketing term.

It is antiquated indeed, and most of the motoring automotive world would agree that it is. The old definition of a sports car generally referred to manual transmission equipped two door/two-seater (..or 2+2) vehicles often with a convertible top. The definition does not fit today's standards.

Here's an interesting short read on the convoluted nature of the definition, and a more lengthy read.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Litos

from your own definitions, the Hellcat can be a GT, Sports Car or Sports Coupe....

and it can almost be considered a Muscle Super Car...

here's your umbrella back, sir...

It isn't purpose built or lightweight. It's compromised for the sake of usability and could fit the "sports coupe", "GT" or muscle car terminology. I know you own one so don't take it personally.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

It isn't purpose built or lightweight. It's a compromised for the sake of usability and could fit the "sports coupe", "GT" or muscle car terminology. I know you own one so don't take it personally.

There are very few cars on the road that are "purpose built or lightweight". Hell, your purpose built suggestion would even rule out a Porsche GT2, and that, indeed, is a sports car in the truest sense of the word as it does have compromises for the sake of usability and comfort.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

It is antiquated indeed, and most of the motoring automotive world would agree that it is. The old definition of a sports car generally referred to manual transmission equipped two door/two-seater (..or 2+2) vehicles often with a convertible top. The definition does not fit today's standards.

http://jalopnik.com/what-is-a-sports-car-exactly-1190468446]Here's[/url] an interesting short read on the convoluted nature of the definition, and a more lengthy http://emapeters.hubpages.com/hub/true-sports-cars]read[/url].

There are plenty of sports cars that are still produced today. The proliferation of vehicles that have extended performance envelopes and practicality does not render then null nor antiquated

What would you call a Corvette? It's certainly a sports car, yet thanks to some trick bits like its optional MR dampers and nicer interior, it possesses GT qualities.

And what about Lotus products? MR Ferraris like the Italia/Speciale? All Caterham product?

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

There are very few cars on the road that are "purpose built or lightweight". Hell, your purpose built suggestion would even rule out a Porsche GT2, and that, indeed, is a sports car in the truest sense of the word as it does have compromises for the sake of usability and comfort.

The GT2 is a sports car no matter which way you slice it. The 911 chassis is about the most accomplished and versatile one a consumer can buy, so you'll have varying degrees if comfort/visceral to choose from, but it's the sand basic ingredients: light, compact, driving dynamics first. You can get a GT3 (or better yet an RS), or a Turbo. One's a pure sports car, the other is closer in quality to a GT.

[John 070]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Ummm, an ///M3 or ///M4 costs that much IF you check every option box available including CCB's. MOST ///M's are in the mid/low-70's and are not outfitted with CCB's; a base car is $62-64k with more standard options than an E9X had (..including navigation and carbon fiber trim). Let's be a tad bit more objective.


P.S. Affordability is relative to inflation. An E46 ///M was in the mid/high 40's (..around $45-47k) brand new; the E9X was in the mid-50's (..around $53-55k). The price of the new base car is right in line with previous price increases.

fuuny Chan...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by John 070

fuuny Chan...

I fail to comprehend what's funny about that......or am I missing the punchline?

[Litos]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

It isn't purpose built or lightweight.

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)....