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

#41 of 522 Some Porsche owners will be jumping ship by designman Apr 10, 2005 (7:14 am)
There is considerable interest in the new Z06 among Porschephiles. It frequently comes up on the enthusiast sites. But in general the Corvette goes against the nature of the Porsche lover. Hey, things change and not every Porsche aficionado is happy with their MO these days what with looming RMS problems, broken half shaft problems and having to spend over 100 grand to get the died-and-went-to-heaven dry sump that used to come standard on Carreras.   Porsche culture is a scream. It's not one culture, rather a bunch of subcultures under one roof. As far as I can see, each platform has its own subculture and they sometimes are at each other's throats. Being a 911 owner is not enough to define your breed. Also, I know of a 964 owner who accused cappuccino-swilling Boxster owners of single-handedly ruining Porsche. Man, that's funny. Thank goodness for humor, but now I have an identity crisis every time I go to the coffee bar at Barnes and Noble.   I think the media has to be more stringent with the definition of car segments because you can't be comparing a Miata to an SL. However my opinion is much looser with defining a sports car. You have to look at the element of SPORT which spans a spectrum of criteria. Karl Malone started playing basketball with a milk crate nailed to a tree. A young Sammy Sosa cobbled baseball gloves using paper cups. The purity of sport is quite evident at the grass roots level. Accordingly I accept CRX tuners and sport sedans into the sports car club. If you have to draw lines, fine, but I fail to see much significance.   As ultimatedriver mentioned, the vehicles that are honed for higher levels of competition are merely the best of the breed and are conventionally categorized as sports cars. However, a little league baseball game is no less sport than late October at Fenway Park.   By the way I have read that the new Z06 will be around $63K. However, a Vette-owning friend of mine who knows people who claim to know, says it will be around $75K. Any further knowledge of price?   Also Car & Driver says… get this… that Cayman, the imminent Boxster coupe, will be positioned between the Carrera and Carrera S at around $75K. Something doesn't add up. One of three things could be happening here:   1 - C&D is mistaken 2 - Porsche is laying a big surprise on us 3 - Porsche is out of their minds because C&D also says Cayman will come with the 3.4 liter 291 hp engine.   Now, is the SL is a sports car? That baby is more than a ton heavier than Elise. Where does Mercedes fit in here? Boggles my mind how the SLK350 has a stick but not the SLK55.   Starrow, I can see you really love your car. Seems like a perfect match. That's the way it should be.
#42 of 522 NASCAR by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 10, 2005 (6:44 pm)
So a NASCAR Chevy is a sports car?
#43 of 522 Maybe ... by starrow68 Apr 10, 2005 (7:42 pm)
With the right driver and running at Sears Point, even a NASCAR, Chevy, Ford or Dodge seem to exhibit some talent at turning left and right. But then again so does a formula Mazda, fun too.   So I agree that 2 seats in normal configuration on the street would be my base line for the definition. And then when competing against the same power to weight and similar grip a sports car usually will do better than something trying to play in the road course world, from other spectrums.   The SL is interesting, since I wanted a 280SL back in '71 when I bought my '72 MGB for less than $3k and the SL was about $9k. My mother-in-law passed along her '71 so I now have one of the cars I lusted after when younger, I will not take it to the track. I have yet, after 2 years, to see an SL on track. Randy   Thanks for noting that I love the Vette, it wasn't a dream come true, just what looked fairly practical at the time, really, but it has allowed me to do some things that I didn't think I would ever get to pursue. Sears Point is the best track in Nor. Calif. and working to cut lap times is really just producing!
#44 of 522 Shifty by designman Apr 11, 2005 (4:19 am)
According to my previous argument I have to call NASCARs sports cars. However I surely understand your points. And I think we all pretty much know the classic definition of a sports car. We can’t go around calling a 530 with SP a sports car even though it outhandles a T-Bird which is. (Please don’t nail me for calling the T-Bird a sports car.)   If we say to someone “I think I am going to buy a sports car”, it automatically rules out a bunch of vehicles in people's minds. So we usually defer to the conventional definition. My contention is that the pure element of “sport” has a lot of significance and transcends convention here. However I will not push the point and wholeheartedly accept the conventional definition even though it has some loose ends. We could take this to the metaphysical level. I don’t know, should we? After all this is the definitive discussion.
#45 of 522 this and that... by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 11, 2005 (9:30 am)
Oh, yes, let's get metaphysical   No, you can't take a 280SL on the track unless you want to kill yourself, but you could rallye the car (some people did) and it IS pretty useless as anything else other than a pretty toy, and it does have two seats and a drop top and is small and reasonably agile (top speed is not important for a sports car--you only have to SEEM like you are going fast)--so it has most of the qualifications.   A T-Bird on the other hand is a 4-passenger car with all luxury amenities and is obviously a highly compromised vehicle.   If you take any "sport" instrument, it is dedicated to a function. A golf club does not have a cup holder on it or an AM/FM digital clock in the handle, and does not double as a pool cue or a baseball bat.   Good biking shoes? You can hardly walk in them. They are dedicated to a sporting function.   So the more a car is dedicated to sport (that is, romping on the gas and steering wildly around corners and burning your brakes to a cinder while going YAAA-HOOO, and doing all this without gross embarrassment to driver or car), the more it is a sports car.
#46 of 522 Re: couple points [Mr_Shiftright] by xkss Apr 11, 2005 (10:16 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 08, 2005 11:11 am) Ferrari and Porsche have not been around for 60 YEARS!   Why do you make assumptions? Do you know what the future holds? Do you have facts to show that the Corvette is raced for marketing? Was the C5-R raced just to market the new Z06? Is Ford just racing the new Mustang in Grand-Am Cup for marketing?   "And even IF Corvette were to start winning really serious international races quite regularly, they'd pull out as soon as they won. American car companies never stick it out through thick and thin in racing, which is another reason people buy the heritage of Porsche and Ferrari. The cars are "winners" and everybody wants a winner, right? Americans race for marketing, Europeans race for love, is what I think anyway (not the drivers, I mean the factories)."   Does Ferrari race the 360?   The Corvette C5-R went 1-2 in the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2001, 2002, and 2004.   "As for the fiberglass issue, people spending $100K and up want real metal."   Do you have facts to back that up?   "I’ll wait for the new Z06 when it comes out later this year."   - Jay Leno from London Times Replies to this message: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 11, 2005 10:49 am)
#47 of 522 Re: couple points [xkss] by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 11, 2005 (10:49 am)
Replying to: xkss (Apr 11, 2005 10:16 am) First off, don't be so aggressive with us...this is for fun, remember? This is a forum of opinion. Tell us why you think what you think, but not all opinions need to be data rich---they just have to make some kind of sense. Will it rain today. I think so, I see dark clouds. No, I haven't measured the barometric temperature and don't have current humidity ratings for the last three hours   Okay, it's 57 years for Porsche and Ferrari...got me there cheating 3 years   I believe that history backs up everything I said regarding racing, at least in my view of digesting and understanding it.   Where did Ford go after Lemans?   Home....   Of course Americans race for marketing. There is no other explanation for the fact that they don't hang around if they lose. Nothing to sell if you lose. Porsche and Ferrari, on the other hand, stay in racing whether they win or lose. Even lose badly. Embarrassed, discouraged, humiliated. They never quit. If Corvette got whupped in their class in Lemans a couple years in a row, they'd go home, absolutely. You really think they'd sit in front of the world press and lose?   Ferrari has contested every Formula I since it has existed as a marque. Even when it was losing badly. Never gave up. Porsche has more trophies than GM could accumulate in the next 50 years. There is nothing left to prove.   Now, this is not to disparage Corvette or any American product. That was then, this is NOW!   I'm only presenting this to show that the European view of racing and its purpose differs from the American, and AND...that it was this DEDICATION to racing that produced the superior sports cars of the 50s through 90s. Racing improves the breed, as the old cliche goes. Isn't this logical?   If Corvette had been dedicated to international racing these last 50 years, you would have seen the C5 many many years ago.   So, sure....one could safely say --"No American company has ever dedicated itself to international racing....emphasis on DEDICATED, as in "for better or worse".   That's in the history books, that's all I can say about it.   As for the statement:   "As for the fiberglass issue, people spending $100K and up want real metal."   Unless you can name a a) highly successful, and b) serially-production $100K+ production fiberglass car, I'll let history speak for itself once again.   As for carbon-fiber cars priced over 100K, these are so small in number and so specialized that it's hard to know what the general public thinks of them. I don't know. We'll have to ask a Maybach owner or maybe a McLaren F1 owner ( aluminum honeycomb monocoque, about 100 cars made)   Oh, I do have one bit of "proof"----Ferrari once made the exact same car in both fiberglass and metal, and the metal ones are worth more today. So at least Ferrari collectors think metal is worth more than glass, since they have a choice of identical cars.   And then there's the XLR which hasn't exactly swept the SC430 off the map.   BTW, Corvettes and XLRs aren't really glass, but more like plastic composites. I still think that's an image problem for XLR, yes I do, but not for Corvette's price point.
#48 of 522 sports cars by xkss Apr 11, 2005 (11:33 am)
Two new Corvettes lost to an Aston Martin DBR9 at Sebring. Is GM going home? Nope.   Does Panoz go home after getting beaten by many Porsche 911s in the American Le Mans Series? Nope. In fact, they are going to the 24 Hours of Le Mans in June. According to a recent issue of Motor Trend, the 2006 Esperante will use some carbon fiber for its chassis which will drop an estimated 100 pounds and improve rigidity.   go here:   Panoz   Ferrari marketed the Enzo as an F1 car for the road. What a joke. F1 cars bear just about zero resemblance to production cars. Did Ferrari back the 360 or Enzo in racing? Yes to the second car in a way as Maserati's MC12 takes an Enzo and makes it bigger and entered it in FIA GT last year. It doesn't meet requirements for the American Le Mans Series though.   The people behind the new Corvette C6-R are too dedicated to back out if the competition walks over them. Haven't you seen how excited Dave Hill and the rest of the people behind the new Corvette C6 are?   The C5-R couldn't compete with the Vipers back in 1999. The new Viper isn't raced in ALMS, but it has won the first two races in the Speed World Challenge.   If Porsche is so excited about racing and what not, why did they sell out and make an SUV? Why don't they race the blocks from the standard 996 and 997? Perhaps because those pumped-up Boxster engines can't handle racing like the GT3 engines.   Has Saleen backed down in racing just because they haven't won as many races as the C5-R?   Nope.
#49 of 522 Porsche by xkss Apr 11, 2005 (11:35 am)
Does Porsche back the Carrera GT in racing? Nope.   Lambo packed up and left ALMS after last year.
#50 of 522 Let's try and focus for a minute by ultimatedriver Apr 11, 2005 (12:18 pm)
We're not sure that all these marques didn't make some of their decisions because of financial woes, or a shift in the company's focus.   SUVs make money. No doubt about that. If there were no potential to successfully market and sell SUVs in the American market, then the Cayenne would have never seen the light of day. Porsche obviously wanted to make money more than they wanted to focus on their racing efforts at that particular time. Maybe they'll use that money to develop new powertrains for either racing efforts, or consumer purposes. And why would Porsche discontinue a racing chassis to build a supercar, only to back it in a GT effort?   Try to look at the company as a whole and where they've been in the last few years. We, as the consumer, may not always be able to explain a company's decisions primarily because we're not sitting there during the board room discussions as to the company's direction.

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