F-Type ( X152 ) 2014 - Onwards

No one knows what a sports car is anymore.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 21, 2016 | 10:07 PM
  #41  
enfield's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 221
Likes: 56
From: Ontario
Default

Originally Posted by Nati
0-60 in less than 5.5 (preferably less than 5) and will make a group of teenage boys stare and/or point = sports car
My Range Rover Sport V8 can do a sub 5 second 60mph run
 
Reply
Old Feb 21, 2016 | 11:51 PM
  #42  
hardwired's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 350
Likes: 58
From: SF Bay Area
Default

Originally Posted by bjg625
I think I would add impractical, illogical, and emotional to a definition of a sports car. If it makes sense it has moved to GT, like a SL or Maser GTS. Is new NSX a GT or sports car?
emotional?!?
Come on man... the guys at Stuttgart make fantastic sports cars.
 
Reply
Old Feb 22, 2016 | 12:59 PM
  #43  
Uncle Fishbits's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Veteran Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 721
From: Tiburon, CA
Default

Originally Posted by enfield
My Range Rover Sport V8 can do a sub 5 second 60mph run
 
Reply
Old Feb 22, 2016 | 01:17 PM
  #44  
uncheel's Avatar
Veteran Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,596
Likes: 724
From: Chapel Hill, NC
Default

I had to laugh, given the dialogue above - especially about Corvettes and Mustangs.

In contrast to the original article from Road & Track, the cover of Feb's Car & Driver reads:




"America meet your new sports car king."
 

Last edited by uncheel; Feb 22, 2016 at 02:02 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 22, 2016 | 03:59 PM
  #45  
AnD3rew's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 953
Likes: 173
From: Sydney Australia
Default

That is amusing. A Mustang is clearly not a sports car, muscle car yes, GT coupe yes, sports car no.
 
Reply
Old Feb 22, 2016 | 11:25 PM
  #46  
mjm3457's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 280
Likes: 68
From: Colorado
Default

In 1965 I was a graduate student with no money, but looking to buy a "sports car." They were 2-seaters, with good power, manual trannys, with tight steering, roadsters, and fun to drive. I didn't know any other definition.

At the bottom end running about $2000-$2200 were: MG Midget, Austin Healy Sprite, and Triumph Spitfire. In the middle range running about $2700-$3000 were: MGB and Triumph TR-4, and at the top end running $3500-$3700 were Austin Healy 3000, Alfa Romeo Spider, and Porsche 356B. Somewhere in the clouds maybe $4500 (?) was the Jaguar XKE. I never considered the Sunbeam, either model, Alpine or Tiger. I bought a new 1965 Triumph TR-4 off the lot; it was more than I could afford. I still have it and drive it.
 
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2016 | 05:01 PM
  #47  
TR64ever's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 433
Likes: 89
From: Westfield, NJ USA
Default

The Triumph guys hijack the thread! My TR6 was the best sports car I could afford when I bought it in 1983. 32 years with it, then the F-type came along and stole my heart. "I've always had a sports-car" and when the TR6 couldn't keep up with the kids Saturn ion, I was ready for the Jag. But I digress, this is the definition I lived with as a TR6 driver:
"A car with everything unnecessary removed with competition capability, a convertible top and seats for only two. The negative aspects of such a car are: They are small, light-weight and rough riding, not to mention noisy, dangerous, uncomfortable, cold in winter, hot in summer and prone to disabling electrical problems at the first smell of rain."
 
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2016 | 06:46 PM
  #48  
Uncle Fishbits's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Veteran Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 721
From: Tiburon, CA
Default

Originally Posted by TR64ever
The Triumph guys hijack the thread! My TR6 was the best sports car I could afford when I bought it in 1983. 32 years with it, then the F-type came along and stole my heart. "I've always had a sports-car" and when the TR6 couldn't keep up with the kids Saturn ion, I was ready for the Jag. But I digress, this is the definition I lived with as a TR6 driver:
"A car with everything unnecessary removed with competition capability, a convertible top and seats for only two. The negative aspects of such a car are: They are small, light-weight and rough riding, not to mention noisy, dangerous, uncomfortable, cold in winter, hot in summer and prone to disabling electrical problems at the first smell of rain."
Where is that from? It is GREAT. LOL

My definition of a sports car is that it comes with weather gear and goggles because if you don't need that, you aren't in a sports car.

Also... Triumph may lose to the obvious sports car prowess of this Austin Healy I see around Town....

https://imgur.com/gallery/Ee1b7
 
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2016 | 07:55 PM
  #49  
TR64ever's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 433
Likes: 89
From: Westfield, NJ USA
Default

I have no idea where it's from anymore. Too many late nights in the garage lying under the sports car with a spanner in my hand and I've forgotten... But we live in a different world, I have visited the Castle Bromwich Factory and watched our Sports Cars being built, very 21st Century, our F-Types, vs. the 20th century view:
"British Sports Car owners need to drive their cars regularly and spend at least one day a month under them with a spanner in your hand. If you don’t know what a spanner is, don’t own the car. British Sports Car owners love to drive their cars when the weather is right and you’re out on some winding road with the top down and plenty of bridges and underpasses to reflect the wonderful sounds the car makes back at you as you drive. Then they break, and you get to take them home and have an even better time fixing them. Back in the garage they stink the place up with the wonderful smell of petrol, hot rubber and oil, warm grease and old leather. Why don’t modern cars smell this great? (Probably because they don’t leak)."
And my old TR6 with a Tri-Carb set-up could take any Austin Healey 3000...just as my F-Type can take any Porsche it comes across...
 
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2016 | 08:16 AM
  #50  
TR64ever's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 433
Likes: 89
From: Westfield, NJ USA
Default

Final thoughts: that is a mean looking Austin Healey; I love the fire bottle on the trans cover: i bet the owner has used it before on the car (I carried one on my TR6).
In conclusion, I think the world has changed and so has the definition of a "sports car." Modern technology and engineering has eliminated the negative aspects and compromises inherent in a sports car. I still think track performance -- "competition capability" matters. 4 doors and back seats are just WRONG, but if the car can carry me around a track in airconditioned comfort, I'm willing to live with that. Track prowess is important, and dedication to the mission is important if your a sports car, everything else is a GT.
The fact that our cars are fierce Porsche eating monsters on the track, and we've all paid around $100,000 for a 2-door 165 MPH beast that has the rated capacity of only 419 pounds qualifies them as 21st Century SPORTS CARS.

 
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2016 | 11:06 AM
  #51  
DPelletier's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 334
From: kelowna
Default

Originally Posted by TR64ever
In conclusion, I think the world has changed and so has the definition of a "sports car." Modern technology and engineering has eliminated the negative aspects and compromises inherent in a sports car. I still think track performance -- "competition capability" matters. 4 doors and back seats are just WRONG, but if the car can carry me around a track in airconditioned comfort, I'm willing to live with that. Track prowess is important, and dedication to the mission is important if your a sports car, everything else is a GT.
The fact that our cars are fierce Porsche eating monsters on the track, and we've all paid around $100,000 for a 2-door 165 MPH beast that has the rated capacity of only 419 pounds qualifies them as 21st Century SPORTS CARS.
Well said, in my opinion.



Cheers,
Dave
 
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2016 | 01:23 PM
  #52  
PolkNole's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 383
Likes: 108
From: Lakeland, FL
Default

Originally Posted by TR64ever
The fact that our cars are fierce Porsche eating monsters on the track, and we've all paid around $100,000 for a 2-door 165 MPH beast that has the rated capacity of only 419 pounds qualifies them as 21st Century SPORTS CARS.

Holy crap - I just double checked my rating - same thing - 419 pounds!

In a 550 HP car, a capacity of 419 pounds. Wow!
 
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2016 | 02:13 PM
  #53  
DPelletier's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 334
From: kelowna
Default

Yep, I have to keep passengers under 229 lbs.......might have to have a scale beside the car.... LOL!

Dave
 
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2016 | 02:42 PM
  #54  
PolkNole's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 383
Likes: 108
From: Lakeland, FL
Default

My wife's 1.6L Mini Cooper has almost double the weight capacity! This doesn't make any sense...



EDIT: Since this weight issue is unrelated to the thread at hand and is hijacking the original points, I'm starting a new thread on the subject.
 

Last edited by PolkNole; Mar 11, 2016 at 10:26 AM.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2016 | 03:01 PM
  #55  
DPelletier's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 334
From: kelowna
Default

You wanna hear something REALLY funny? My motorcycle is rated for 496 lbs!


Dave
 
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2016 | 06:37 AM
  #56  
TR64ever's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 433
Likes: 89
From: Westfield, NJ USA
Default

Mini Cooper and motor cycle are not sports cars ��
I joked to the wife "No fat chicks" she retorted "No fat guys."
 
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2016 | 09:04 AM
  #57  
Uncle Fishbits's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Veteran Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 721
From: Tiburon, CA
Default

I am going to start adding watercraft to the sports car conversation. What about the Galeocerdo?



LOL I do kid.

Mini SuperLeggera would qualify, but now I'm just digging:
MINI.com - MINI Concepts - MINI Superleggera Concept

 
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2016 | 01:50 PM
  #58  
amcdonal86's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 485
From: Arlington, VA USA
Default

I don't agree that the Mustang is a sedan (in the author's example, he uses the standard of what would you report it as to the police?), but I agree it is not a sports car. Muscle car, performance car, sure.

I have never been under any doubts that my XKR is a GT car, not a sports car. The only sports car I have ever owned was a Mazda Miata.

I think the Corvette is definitely a sports car. At times, it may not have been a very good one, but a sports car nonetheless.
 
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2016 | 02:11 PM
  #59  
Unhingd's Avatar
Veteran Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 16,948
Likes: 4,728
From: Maryland, US
Default

Mustangs and corvettes are pony cars. Neither sports cars nor sedans. I, personally, have never considered the F-Type to be a sports car either. Too luxurious, too heavy. It's a GT.
A light version (
 
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2016 | 02:21 PM
  #60  
Foosh's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 6,176
Likes: 1,039
From: Maryland, USA
Default

Originally Posted by Unhingd
Mustangs and corvettes are pony cars. Neither sports cars nor sedans. I, personally, have never considered the F-Type to be a sports car either. Too luxurious, too heavy. It's a GT.
A light version (
I can only hope you meant to say Camaro instead of Corvette.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 AM.