You are here: Forums Coupes & Convertibles Sports Cars - The Definitive Discussion 

Sports Cars - The Definitive Discussion - READ ONLY

522 messages,  Last post on Dec 08, 2007 at 6:07 PM

You are in the Coupes & Convertibles Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Porsche 911, Chevrolet Corvette, Ferrari F430, Lotus Exige, Lotus Elise, Coupe

#31 of 522 materials comparison by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 08, 2005 (2:34 pm)
I was only comparing the benefits of fiberglass vs. metal and the benefits of aluminum siding vs. redwood---because somebody else was saying that glass might be a selling point for a car, not a turnoff.   Metal is traditional for a car and Wood is traditional for a house, yes?   If you deviate from tradition you are going to a) attract people who like new materials and b) turn off people who like traditional materials. The B people don't CARE about wood rot and re-painting and all the rest. They WANT WOOD.   So in other words, materials have aesthetics attached to them. They aren't neutral. And they have value judgements attached to them, right or wrong.   Forget this kind of thing and you can go broke in the auto business. Replies to this message: porscheguy1 (Apr 09, 2005 8:48 am)
#32 of 522 Doesn't mean I have to get it ... by starrow68 Apr 08, 2005 (3:11 pm)
Your intangibles are great but if that is why someone spends $75k instead of $50k and I still have that in the bank and they have less performance, I'll take the numbers. As to Corvette having issues, no doubt. Drive even a Z51 performance suspension on the track and then ride in a Dinan M3 and you wonder what got left out. I hear your input but for me it doesn't make much sense because that isn't the way I think about things.    And then on going to the track, I really am amazed at how many people I run into that are really shocked that anyone would take an expensive car out and put it and yourself at what they see as excessive risk. Something that you either have a passion for or for most can't understand. Makes the world go around, I suppose. Enjoy what you drive, I'm smiling!
#33 of 522 Taking it to another level by starrow68 Apr 08, 2005 (3:17 pm)
http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/marketresearch/article/197919/market-research-livin- g-lives/
#34 of 522 hey we're not alone! by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 08, 2005 (5:59 pm)
I was looking on other message boards (some run by well-known car magazines) and PLENTY of people are talking about this very thing----"glass" vs. "metal" and should I or shouldn't I?   So it looks like people do think about this when purchasing a car. I can't direct you because they are competing forums but generally the vote is split. Some do remind everyone that the C5 and newer cars are really composites, not fiberglass per se.   Also I didn't know that the Maybach is carbon fiber body. That is pretty radical.   The reason people spend 20K more even though they don't get better numbers than a Vette is because they get an entirely diffrent experience. It's a whole other movie. Driving a Vette/Porsche/Viper/Ferrari are all radically different experiences.   So if you want the Ferrari "feel", the Porsche ain't gonna cut it for you, or you want all that American V-8 stuff, a Honda S2000 is not going to work for you.   Ferraris are really exciting to drive, there's no explaining it. They feel like outer space cars or something, alien technology....soooooo different from other cars.   So that' s what gets people to fork up big bucks I think.   I'm really glad that different sports cars feel so different from one another. Unlike passenger cars, there is great individuality in today's sports cars.
#35 of 522 Re: materials comparison [Mr_Shiftright] by porscheguy1 Apr 09, 2005 (8:48 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 08, 2005 2:34 pm) Do most people care what their car is made from? Corvettes are fiberglass but weigh about the same as a 997. Audi A8's are a aluminium as are Aston Martins and offer no significant weight advantages over their rivals. Isn't the Carrera GT made from carbon fiber? Again, I believe it weighs about the same as a 997 (little faster though). Why do I have a 997? The same reason I own a $9000.00 lawn tractor, a $1500.00 espresso maker and a $6000.00 TV. I'm nuts!! Honestly, If you crave quality, attention to detail, exclusivity (ok, snobbery) along with the fact that the Porsche 997 has been called by one auto mag "the best all around sports car in the world for less than 100K" those are the reasons why people buy 'em. it has nothing to do with the Corvette. Porsche buyers don't consider Corvette's for purchase and the opposite is true as well.   It's comparing apples and potatoes. You can pick which is which
#36 of 522 Let's not forget! by ultimatedriver Apr 09, 2005 (10:40 am)
To take a different path, I'm going to refer to some vehicles I've driven that have fallen into the category of "sports car." I'm sure it's no surprise that it's not only the Germans and Italians who've been getting good at this sports car thing.   Let's not forget Honda. That special little car company that has been quietly breaking new ground in the automotive industry for the better part of the last 17 years. Even though there are only 2 valid entries into the sports car club, the NSX and S2000 each defined the term "sports car" to a tee while maintaining an impressive record of reliability when compared to other sports cars. I've driven each around Willow Springs, and they both prompt huge smiles.   The S2K in the turns is magical. I found the nature of the stock tires on the 2002 model lacking in balance. They made the car too on/off in nature when switching from understeer to oversteer. A simple switch to SP Sport 9000s cut about 3 seconds off of my time and the 9000RPM limit was being hit more than a heavyweight boxer.   As for the NSX, I couldn't find a better ride/handling trade off anywhere. And I've driven most sports cars. Factoring that in with communicative steering, lightweight aluminum construction (production car first!) and a VTEC screamer under the hood and a sweet transmission, and I think you have the makings of a truly progressive sports car builder.   And unless you've been hiding under a rock in recent years, Honda has been the primary vehicle provider of the sport compact scene. I've rarely seen a more devout following. These kids are getting higher specific outputs from these already wonderful engines than a lot of our coveted automakers. Who's to say that some high school student's 1991CRX is any less a sports car than the new Vette or 997? As mentioned earlier in this forum, a key ingredient to a sports car is the smile on the driver's face. These kids drive their cars daily and tear them up on the weekends because they love the way their vehicles drive. It's all about the drive for them.   That's what sports cars are all about.
#37 of 522 nah-nah, you put your toe over the line! by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 09, 2005 (11:14 am)
Can't accept that last definition, as much as it does speak of brotherhood and good will. If you allow that a sportscar is whatever makes someone smile, then a Checker Cab with a Flowmaster and Koni shocks is a sports car to someone, and you are once again in "meaningless land". That's the rub. Your intentions are good but you render the word "sportscar" worthless by making it wayyyyy too broad.   A CRX is a two door sedan, or to be kinder, a "sporty" coupe. That differentiates it from true pure sports cars like the S2000 or the NSX, which are both great sports cars but really lousy for groceries, kids and toting two mountain bikes.   Thank heaven.   It is the very "narrowness" of purpose that helps to define any car more clearly.
#38 of 522 The line is wherever the owner puts it by ultimatedriver Apr 09, 2005 (4:27 pm)
I apologize for not being more clear in my previous post. Please don't think that the weekend racers I was referring to are out there modifying Chevy Astros, Crown Vics and Checker Cabs. They're starting out with some good cars as foundations, and modifying them to the point that they become sports cars. Now, maybe that's not what the intention was when the vehicle left the assembly line, but that's what the car is to that particular person.   Here's what I've come to understand looking at the automotive world in a holistic fashion. Cars intended for sporty driving by having handling biased suspension designs, low drag coefficients and optimal weight/power ratios are sports cars by definition. This fact does not exclude cars that were initially built and designed with more plebeian intentions, and later modified to include the aforementioned criteria. Even though I was using the CRX as an example, who's to say that a 2-door sedan can't be a sports car? I've seen BMW M3s tear it up at the racetrack and the autocross. Through the streets of Willow Springs in 2001, the Acura Integra Type R maintained a higher cornering speed than your aforementioned Porsches and Vettes. That Acura is about as 2-door sedan as you get. Front wheel drive, even!   The point is that there is no set definition of what a sports car is. It may behoove you to try to let go of your preset terms of what a sports car is. Even though two seat, two door sports cars are still being produced every day, they themselves don't define the genre. They're just the best of the breed, and rightfully so.
#39 of 522 I'm not budgin' but you make a good point by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 09, 2005 (6:41 pm)
What a car looks like is as much a part of the definition as what it does I think. A Type R is certainly very competent but it looks no different than a commuter car variant Integra. By your standards, if I post great numbers in my modified Checker Cab and beat a Miata on the track, then I have a sports car....but really you don't believe that, right?
#40 of 522 Since I spend time at the track by starrow68 Apr 09, 2005 (9:21 pm)
I'd have to agree that many modified small coupes do very well vs. their power to weight competition. A good driver in one will often pass 'better' cars when the driver of the Vette, Boxster, 911, etc., is new to the track. But another day with NASA at Sears Point and I can tell you that even with modest skill, nobody in any coupes were passing the leaders of the pack. A G35 got out in the lead in the cold pit line up but was passed by the two Z06's, one with Hoosiers that had passed me in lap 2 when I was passing the G35, well driven but just too big to be agile. About 6 laps in I was catching and passing the back of the pack which the Z06's had made much shorter work of. When the drivers are close, the sports cars on track really do show their stuff. That doesn't mean that the modded coupes weren't generating smiles, but I doubt they were bigger than mine.     As to the comment about Porsche drivers don't look at Corvettes, the Z06 seems to have changed that some, based on some Z06 drivers I've come across. Interesting to see how few will be able to afford to track the new '06 Z06!

You are here: Forums Coupes & Convertibles Sports Cars - The Definitive Discussion