Sports car qualification
#1
09-01-2010, 08:46 AM
Sports car qualification
I have read in this forum that Jaguar XK8/R's are not sports cars! While Mustangs, Camaros, Alfa's, Miata's etc, are. What's the deal, what is the crieteria to say one car is a "sports car" and another is not. There must be rules, but what are they? My XKR looks, is built like, and performs much like an Aston-Martin Vantage and I don't see anyone telling an A-M owner he doesen't have a "sports car"!
#2
09-01-2010, 08:59 AM
Veteran Member
I would consider Mustangs and Camaros as modern muscle cars. The XK8/XKR is a Grand Tourer. A Corvette is a sports car. An Aston Martin DB9 is a Grand Tourer as well. You could consider a GT car a sports car in a more general sense of the word, since GT is more of a subclassification of the more broad "sports car"
#3
09-01-2010, 10:52 AM
Veteran Member
Having had a Corvette, I wouldn't even consider that a "sports car". But I guess it really depends on which "era" you grew up in. When I was a kid, what were classically called sports cars were MG's, Triumphs, Austin-Healey, etc. and the characteristics seemed to be 2-seater open roadsters that did not have much (if anything) in the way of luxury or comfort.
What are called sports cars these days are either glorified muscle cars (Corvette, Porsche, Lamborghini, Maserati) or grand tourers (Jaguar, LexusSC, Mercedes SL). What I would consider a sports car in the "old tradition" are the small Lotus cars I occasionally see or even the BMW Z3/Z4.
Just my opinion.
Doug
What are called sports cars these days are either glorified muscle cars (Corvette, Porsche, Lamborghini, Maserati) or grand tourers (Jaguar, LexusSC, Mercedes SL). What I would consider a sports car in the "old tradition" are the small Lotus cars I occasionally see or even the BMW Z3/Z4.
Just my opinion.
Doug
Last edited by SeismicGuy; 09-01-2010 at 11:56 AM.
#4
09-01-2010, 11:40 AM
In my life I have had a (new) 68' Camaro RS/SS 600hp, it went really fast in a straight line, didn't turn or STTTTTOOOOOPPPPP too well, a Ford / Lotus Cortina that blew the doors off Porsche 356's, a '78 Corvette pig car, and my '08 Mazda RX8 zoom zoom. As I see it, a "sports car" is more an emotional moniker than an actual designation. After all, some people refer to BMW's other than Z3/4's as "sports cars", go figure. My car, to coin the phrase from Aston-Martin is a "Luxury Sports Car".
#5
09-01-2010, 02:21 PM
Veteran Member
Wikipedia defines it:
The term sports car has been defined as "an open, low-built, fast motor car."Sports cars can be either luxurious or spartan, but driving and mechanical performance is requisite. Many drivers regard brand name and the subsequent racing reputation and history as important indications of sporting quality (for example, Porsche, Lotus, or Ferrari), but some exotic car brands, such as Lamborghini, which do not race or build racing cars, are also highly regarded by sports car enthusiasts.
So I guess You can look at it in different perspectives, I consider many coupes as sports car. Many Ferrari's are petty luxurious and they are definitely a sports car. Just my 2 cents worth
Doug
2001 XKR Silverstone
The term sports car has been defined as "an open, low-built, fast motor car."Sports cars can be either luxurious or spartan, but driving and mechanical performance is requisite. Many drivers regard brand name and the subsequent racing reputation and history as important indications of sporting quality (for example, Porsche, Lotus, or Ferrari), but some exotic car brands, such as Lamborghini, which do not race or build racing cars, are also highly regarded by sports car enthusiasts.
So I guess You can look at it in different perspectives, I consider many coupes as sports car. Many Ferrari's are petty luxurious and they are definitely a sports car. Just my 2 cents worth
Doug
2001 XKR Silverstone
#6
09-01-2010, 04:40 PM
#7
09-01-2010, 06:13 PM
I agree that the term "sports car" has variable definitions. In America,the small, two seater, spartan vehicles, such as the MGs and so forth were called sports cars. It pretty much carried on to such small 2 seat cars that were more engineered for handling and performance at the sacrifice of comfort. Here is a rundown by Sports Car International of the best Sports Cars of different decades and of all time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_...op_Sports_Cars
The original XKE was considered a sports car, while our current versions of the XK8/R are clearly not in contention, as they are more accurately described as Grand Tourers, as has been previously noted. Camaros, Mustangs, Barracudas, Challengers etc. are also not considered sports cars in the sense of the word. As I recall, these are called Pony Cars. (from the original Mustang, a good looking body put on top of a Ford Falcon chassis, which was NO sports car, by any means!!!)
I might add that you will not see the XKE even show up in the decade of the 70's, even though it was #1 in the 60's as I suspect that even at that point it was no longer considered a true sports car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_...op_Sports_Cars
The original XKE was considered a sports car, while our current versions of the XK8/R are clearly not in contention, as they are more accurately described as Grand Tourers, as has been previously noted. Camaros, Mustangs, Barracudas, Challengers etc. are also not considered sports cars in the sense of the word. As I recall, these are called Pony Cars. (from the original Mustang, a good looking body put on top of a Ford Falcon chassis, which was NO sports car, by any means!!!)
I might add that you will not see the XKE even show up in the decade of the 70's, even though it was #1 in the 60's as I suspect that even at that point it was no longer considered a true sports car.
Last edited by Kevin D; 09-01-2010 at 08:33 PM.
Trending Topics
#9
09-01-2010, 08:44 PM
Yes, the XKE for the first few years was a sports car. Please read about it in the link that I provided. As many of us may know, that car was like a quantum shift in the development of automobiles, as it represented a completely new concept to production automobile development. THAT car is the reason that I bought my XK8, which, to me is a VERY good update and representation of that original model. Just like the original XKE's, which lost their true character after several years of production, so has the current XK series. To me, it is like a band whose best albums are their first two or three, and then they try to push the envelope and end up losing what it was that made them so great to start with.
Last edited by Kevin D; 09-01-2010 at 08:51 PM.
#10
09-02-2010, 02:06 AM
For everyones entertainment:
Clarkson on: sports cars
So, does a sports car have to be fast? I only ask because parked on my drive are a Smart Roadster and a Ford StreetKa which, superficially, are two of the most confusing machines ever to see the light of day.
It's not just the speed either. It's everything. These cars have forced me to ask a very big question indeed. We know what an off-road car is, and we know what a saloon car is. But what, exactly, is a sports car?
Sport implies speed and excitement, but let's not forget shall we that a sport is any game which requires specialist clothing. If you can do it in jeans, it's a pastime.
On that basis, this duo of steel and plastic and canvas are pastime cars. However, let's not forget, shall we, that you need specialist clothing to play that symphony of tedium and sloth called cricket. So even though it moves with the vim and vigour of a Jane Austen plot, it's a sport.
Perhaps sport, in the case of cars, derives from ‘sporting'. And a sporting car is one which can be used on a track, in some kind of competition. So on that basis, yes, unless you want to be last, a sports car has to be fast.
And yet if we look back through the history of MG, which is like reading Emma in slow motion, we find an endless succession of cars which couldn't have pulled a greased stick out of a pig's ****. The TF, for instance, could only do 80mph, whereas its rival, the Triumph TR2, could do over a hundred.
Then we find the MG Midget which waded into the gunfight with a small butter knife under the bonnet. It had a top speed of 86mph and took more than 20 seconds to get from 0 to 60. But was it a sports car? Yes, and so is the Mazda MX-5, which isn't exactly a streak of lightning either.
Maybe looks have something to do with it. And now the Daimler Dart has just popped into my head, so maybe they don't.
Then there's the Triumph TR7. That was a fairly speedy two-seater convertible. But not a sports car. And yet the tin-top GT6 most definitely was. Curiouser and curiouser.
Strangest of all, however, is the Mercedes SL. It comes with a big engine, bundles of power, two seats, two doors and a folding roof. It's even known at women's lunch groups from Houston to Harrogate as the Mercedes Sports. But it isn't a sports car.
Indeed, if I were to make a list of the five least sportiest things in the world, it would go something like this:
5. Me
4. The monkfish
3. A gate-leg table
2. The Mercedes SL
1. Terry Wogan
I think it's mostly a question of attitude. A sports car does not have to be fast or pretty. It need not have a folding roof and it can have seats in the back. But it does need to be uncompromising in some way, shape or form. It needs to be hard riding and noisier than necessary. It needs to remind its owner every single yard of every single journey that he or she bought the car to be exciting.
It needs, therefore, to transmit its interaction with the road with a series of semaphore signals in the driver's pants. It needs to telegraph every burp of its engine, every squeak of its tyres. A sports car is a state of mind.
And that's why the StreetKa misses the mark. But I like it. I think it's fun to drive.
It also manages to be cheap and cheerful, which is quite a feat since the words ‘cheap' and ‘cheerful' go together like bacon and Sullivan. Or Gilbert and eggs. If a hotel is cheap, it is likely to be miserable. And if someone is cheerful, he's likely to be rich. And yet the StreetKa, with its unlined roof and its fantastically flimsy glovebox, is both.
What's more, I think every single woman from the salons of Wilmslow to the fashion pages of Vogue magazine will kill to buy one. And yet, despite all this, it is not a sports car.
The engine isn't quite raspy enough. The steering's not quite precise enough. It's too comfortable. And as a result, it feels like a hatchback with the roof cut off. It's like a Marlboro Light. Either smoke properly, or don't smoke at all.
I thought, when I first clapped eyes on the Smart, that it would miss the mark by an even greater margin. Nothing, I figured, with a 600cc engine could possibly be called a sports car. Not even MG ever sunk that low.
And yet, it works. There's plenty I don't like. The steering wheel is far too large and the cockpit puts me in mind of a 1982 British kit car - a Midas Gold or a Clan Invader, perhaps. Then there's the gearbox. Holy mother of Mary, what were they thinking of?
It's a manual with a Tiptronic-style shift, which is never alright. In the Smart, however, it's truly terrible. Jerky is too small a word, and because the 600cc engine is not exactly the Flying Scotsman when it comes to torque, you have to change gear a lot. Or you can switch to auto mode.
That may seem more sensible - why buy a self-cleaning oven, and then clean it yourself - but in auto mode, you never know when the jerks are coming. You just turn round to see if... and whoops, your head's come off.
What else don't I like? Well the boot's like a baking tray, the paintwork looks cheap and a price of £13,500 is expensive - mainly because the left-hand-drive models are only £9,999.
Also, it most definitely is not fast. It's not even on nodding terms with the vaguest concept of speediness. I mean, 0 to 60 in 11 seconds. How Jane Austen is that?
But you should hear the noise. To liken it to the Joneses, it looks like ‘Snowman' Aled but it sings like Tom - a loud, Welsh roar bouncing off the hillsides as you flash by.
Well, when I say ‘flash', what I mean is tootle. But that's OK. You have plenty of time to enjoy the wind in your hair.
Well, when I say ‘wind', what I mean is gentle breeze. But that's OK too. You'll arrive refreshed.
Well, when I say ‘arrive', you'll be late almost to the point of rudeness but no-one will mind because you'll be up for a party.
And happy. There's a rightness, not only to the noise but to the steering and the handling too. It feels exciting, like a good pop song, and safe too. Because if anything does go wrong, you will have time to undo your seat belt, open the door and jump.
I wouldn't buy one, but I liked it. Because it's a sports car. Whatever that may be.
So, does a sports car have to be fast? I only ask because parked on my drive are a Smart Roadster and a Ford StreetKa which, superficially, are two of the most confusing machines ever to see the light of day.
It's not just the speed either. It's everything. These cars have forced me to ask a very big question indeed. We know what an off-road car is, and we know what a saloon car is. But what, exactly, is a sports car?
Sport implies speed and excitement, but let's not forget shall we that a sport is any game which requires specialist clothing. If you can do it in jeans, it's a pastime.
On that basis, this duo of steel and plastic and canvas are pastime cars. However, let's not forget, shall we, that you need specialist clothing to play that symphony of tedium and sloth called cricket. So even though it moves with the vim and vigour of a Jane Austen plot, it's a sport.
Perhaps sport, in the case of cars, derives from ‘sporting'. And a sporting car is one which can be used on a track, in some kind of competition. So on that basis, yes, unless you want to be last, a sports car has to be fast.
And yet if we look back through the history of MG, which is like reading Emma in slow motion, we find an endless succession of cars which couldn't have pulled a greased stick out of a pig's ****. The TF, for instance, could only do 80mph, whereas its rival, the Triumph TR2, could do over a hundred.
Then we find the MG Midget which waded into the gunfight with a small butter knife under the bonnet. It had a top speed of 86mph and took more than 20 seconds to get from 0 to 60. But was it a sports car? Yes, and so is the Mazda MX-5, which isn't exactly a streak of lightning either.
Maybe looks have something to do with it. And now the Daimler Dart has just popped into my head, so maybe they don't.
Then there's the Triumph TR7. That was a fairly speedy two-seater convertible. But not a sports car. And yet the tin-top GT6 most definitely was. Curiouser and curiouser.
Strangest of all, however, is the Mercedes SL. It comes with a big engine, bundles of power, two seats, two doors and a folding roof. It's even known at women's lunch groups from Houston to Harrogate as the Mercedes Sports. But it isn't a sports car.
Indeed, if I were to make a list of the five least sportiest things in the world, it would go something like this:
5. Me
4. The monkfish
3. A gate-leg table
2. The Mercedes SL
1. Terry Wogan
I think it's mostly a question of attitude. A sports car does not have to be fast or pretty. It need not have a folding roof and it can have seats in the back. But it does need to be uncompromising in some way, shape or form. It needs to be hard riding and noisier than necessary. It needs to remind its owner every single yard of every single journey that he or she bought the car to be exciting.
It needs, therefore, to transmit its interaction with the road with a series of semaphore signals in the driver's pants. It needs to telegraph every burp of its engine, every squeak of its tyres. A sports car is a state of mind.
And that's why the StreetKa misses the mark. But I like it. I think it's fun to drive.
It also manages to be cheap and cheerful, which is quite a feat since the words ‘cheap' and ‘cheerful' go together like bacon and Sullivan. Or Gilbert and eggs. If a hotel is cheap, it is likely to be miserable. And if someone is cheerful, he's likely to be rich. And yet the StreetKa, with its unlined roof and its fantastically flimsy glovebox, is both.
What's more, I think every single woman from the salons of Wilmslow to the fashion pages of Vogue magazine will kill to buy one. And yet, despite all this, it is not a sports car.
The engine isn't quite raspy enough. The steering's not quite precise enough. It's too comfortable. And as a result, it feels like a hatchback with the roof cut off. It's like a Marlboro Light. Either smoke properly, or don't smoke at all.
I thought, when I first clapped eyes on the Smart, that it would miss the mark by an even greater margin. Nothing, I figured, with a 600cc engine could possibly be called a sports car. Not even MG ever sunk that low.
And yet, it works. There's plenty I don't like. The steering wheel is far too large and the cockpit puts me in mind of a 1982 British kit car - a Midas Gold or a Clan Invader, perhaps. Then there's the gearbox. Holy mother of Mary, what were they thinking of?
It's a manual with a Tiptronic-style shift, which is never alright. In the Smart, however, it's truly terrible. Jerky is too small a word, and because the 600cc engine is not exactly the Flying Scotsman when it comes to torque, you have to change gear a lot. Or you can switch to auto mode.
That may seem more sensible - why buy a self-cleaning oven, and then clean it yourself - but in auto mode, you never know when the jerks are coming. You just turn round to see if... and whoops, your head's come off.
What else don't I like? Well the boot's like a baking tray, the paintwork looks cheap and a price of £13,500 is expensive - mainly because the left-hand-drive models are only £9,999.
Also, it most definitely is not fast. It's not even on nodding terms with the vaguest concept of speediness. I mean, 0 to 60 in 11 seconds. How Jane Austen is that?
But you should hear the noise. To liken it to the Joneses, it looks like ‘Snowman' Aled but it sings like Tom - a loud, Welsh roar bouncing off the hillsides as you flash by.
Well, when I say ‘flash', what I mean is tootle. But that's OK. You have plenty of time to enjoy the wind in your hair.
Well, when I say ‘wind', what I mean is gentle breeze. But that's OK too. You'll arrive refreshed.
Well, when I say ‘arrive', you'll be late almost to the point of rudeness but no-one will mind because you'll be up for a party.
And happy. There's a rightness, not only to the noise but to the steering and the handling too. It feels exciting, like a good pop song, and safe too. Because if anything does go wrong, you will have time to undo your seat belt, open the door and jump.
I wouldn't buy one, but I liked it. Because it's a sports car. Whatever that may be.
#11
09-02-2010, 08:49 AM
It seems many use a prerequisite of calling a car a "sports car" to be uncomfortable when driven. Not so, at least according to Wiki "spartan or luxurious" was the description used. Low, open, and agile with two seats or a rear seat that is really a shelf in disguise is the stated definition of a sports car, not an emotional one that one car is and another is not. Take the MGB for example, who would contest that it is a true sports car? So what about the MGB-GT, not a sports car but a grand tourer? I think not. Now the XKR, grand tourer? XKR cabriolet, open, low, fast, sports car? Mclaren F1? race car!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jaguar Forums Editor
Jaguar Press release
0
08-27-2015 03:18 AM
Vector
US Lower Atlantic
0
08-26-2015 05:36 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)