What defines a sports car?

[royale]

extension of this thread (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13090&perpage=15&pagenumber=3).
In your opinion, what defines a sports car?

I think it must have the following components...
2 doors
RWD, or AWD,
0-100km/h of less that 6 seconds
0-400m under 14 seconds
Power/Weight of > 140 kW/ton
must handle exceptionally well
must be as capable stopping as accelerating
only exceptional 4cyl would qualify (ie Lotus Espirt)

Under this definition, the WRX and RX8 (this years sports cars of the year) would not qualify, nor would any falcadore.

[jmello]

*vroom vroom* wheee!!

[DrDivad]

i think sports cars can be just about anything, i think FAST cars should be adhering to your criteria :D

then you got supercars above that :D

[StygiaN]

What about the 22B WRX's. Thats quite the sports car!

[royale]

Originally posted by StygiaN
What about the 22B WRX's. Thats quite the sports car!

Yep, qualifies in all respects

http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/fuel/116/22b2.jpg

[hazza]

wouldnt the wrx be a rally car anyway?

[DrDivad]

rally is a part of motorsport, i think it counts :D

[Cassa]

Originally posted by royale
only exceptional 4cyl would qualify (ie Lotus Espirt)


Rules out DumHed's Fully-Sikvia. Though that's not so much a car as a rattly deathtrap (hi honey :p)

[hazza]

why must it be 2 doors?

[DrDivad]

well that would make it Coupe which certainly makes it more sporty and is just Royale's personal opinion. But i agree that a 4 or more door car could be a sports car still :)

[Cassa]

Given the other things that royale has specified I think you might have trouble finding many with 4 doors that can do all that anyway.

Oh yeah, and it has to look cool and pull chicks. So that definitely rules out the rex :D

[DrDivad]

i kinda like the look of the rex, but only he MY99 and MY03 ones, but it wouldn't be my choice of looks for a sexy street car, it's says rally to me

yeah i know but in general, there no reason why one person couldn't consider something to be a sports car even though it didn't adhere to any of royales criteria, it's just personal opinion :)

[DumHed]

Personally, I think the definition of sports car has changed somewhat, and is very subjective.

In the days of early MGs, Triumphs, etc a sports car was a basic, cut down car (usually convertible) based on the mechanicals of an existing standard car.
The idea was that the sports car's style appealed to the younger market, and the lower cost made it affordable.
Due to the simplicity, lower weight, and lower center of gravity these cars also performed / handled better than the cars they were based on, so they were also much more fun to drive.

After the sports car's popularity increased, car makers began developing purpose built sports cars with more handling and performance improvements. (eg Lotus)

The essence of a sports car is still the light weight, good handling, and responsive small engine of the original ones - but without the cheapness and lack of technology.

Cars like the Fiat X1-9, Toyota MR2, Lotus Elise / Exige (gimme), Honda S2000 (bit heavy) and Mazda MX-5 are good examples of "real" sports cars built with more modern designs.
Note that these are all small 4 cylinder cars, with responsive engines and chassis designed for handling.

More recently manufacturers have been filling the "sports car" portion of their ranges with cars based predominantly on a standard passenger vehicle, but with different bolt on options (more power, suspension changes, body kits, spoilers, etc)
Cars like the WRX are a good example of this.
They perform well due to increased power over the standard models, but the overall design is the same, just upgraded in some areas.
This is more what I like to define as a "performance car" - ie, anything which is a hotted up version of a standard model.

I've heard plenty of people referring to HSVs and the like as sports cars, when to me it's about as far from the essence of a sports car as you can get.

There are cars that sit somewhere in the middle too, like the Celica (based on Camry mechanicals, but with more of a sports car style, and better handling due to size / weight), and the Ford Capri (convertible car based on super boring standard mechanicals, to appeal to the hairdresser set).
These I tend to refer to as "sporty" cars.
Many of the "hot hatches" almost fit into this category as well.

Then there are cars such as the Integra Type-R, which is based on a standard (if already slightly sporty) car, but is upgraded in almost every possible way - including lightening and reinforcing of the chassis - which makes it much closer to a purpose built sports car than a "hot up" model.

Cars such as my own (Silvia) and it's later models like the S15 200SX are what I think real sports cars have become.
They're purpose built from the start to handle well, be light weight, and have powerful but responsive engines.

The older models (like mine, or the S14) don't really look sporty enough to be a real sports car in my opinion, but they have what matters - the driving experience.

What I value most in a car design is not outright power or acceleration, or even mid corner speed capability - but the ability to feel exactly what the car is doing, and have the responsiveness of engine and chassis to be able to correct or change it as subtly or as violently as necessary while still feeling like a part of the car, not someone sitting on it telling it where to go without any communication from the car.

This is what really separates sports cars from the rest.

To me, a sports car isn't necessarily the fastest, the best looking, or the most advanced car - it's the combination of the right characteristics to make it something you want to drive for the fun of it.
An HSV will (probably) out accelerate my car on a 1/4 mile, or in a high speed rolling start drag, and a WRX will out corner me on dodgy surfaces, wet roads, or dirt - but give me the right bit of twisty road, or a race track and I'll blow away the HSV, and I'll have ten times the fun of the rex driver who's throwing the car through corners battling understeer and getting no feedback.


Just to add to that, there are many cars (Supra, 300ZX, 350Z, M3, Soarer, etc) which are quite sporty in design, but are a larger car, with larger engines than is possible while maintaining small size and light weight.
These are more of a GT. They perform well, and handle quite well, but in the end they have too much weight and are more of a fast, stylish luxury car than a real sports car. Even if they can lap a race track in the same times as a smaller car they just don't have the same driver involvement as a well set up, responsive sports car.

[gooey]

fully sic skirts and a phat ass rear spoiler -

cause you gotta have down force bro!

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Cassa
Given the other things that royale has specified I think you might have trouble finding many with 4 doors that can do all that anyway.

There are some that come close (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/maybach3.htm), though. It's not exactly something you pick up at the local dealership, however.

[hazza]

how bout ferraris and the such?

[DumHed]

ferraris are based on most of the sports car ideals, but they're more in the supercar bracket I think.

Sports cars are generally somewhat affordable :)

Ferrari make some cars more in the luxury bracket, but most of them are more the exotic ultra stylish high performace super expensive types.
They're usually quite large, heavy cars too, but make up for it with very low / wide proportions, massive amounts of power, huge tyres for grip, and heaps more style appeal than anything else around.

[SamBo]

my pulsar has 4 doors and is ultra stylish!

no, wait, it's almost as ugly as the guy who sits behind the wheel.... :p

[kré]

sorry, i haven't really read the thread other than the first post, so if it's been said already, let me know. but why does the rx7 fail to qualify by those rules? :confused:

[StygiaN]

Would you call this (http://www.supercars.net/cars/1995@$Renault@$Espace%20F1%20Conceptg.html) a sports car?

Top Speed = 312.2 kph / 194.0 mph
0 - 60 mph = 2.8 seconds

;)

[djrobotek]

You're all wrong!

A sports car is one that can play tennis as good as Sampras, can dunk like the Shaq and break the backboard, play golf like Tiger Woods and can swim like the Thorpedo...

no cars qualify unless it's one of the Autobots!

boooyaaaa

Robot(ek)s in disguise

[Deimos]

What does the "S" stand for in SUV?

*runs and hides...

[kré]

Originally posted by StygiaN
Would you call this (http://www.supercars.net/cars/1995@$Renault@$Espace%20F1%20Conceptg.html) a sports car?

Top Speed = 312.2 kph / 194.0 mph
0 - 60 mph = 2.8 seconds

;)

no. mainly because it's not really a 'car' as such.

[dozer]

something that always needs work/fixing/upgrades

[royale]

Originally posted by cray
sorry, i haven't really read the thread other than the first post, so if it's been said already, let me know. but why does the rx7 fail to qualify by those rules? :confused:

I actually meant rx8 (hence the sports car of the year reference) and therefore- 4 doors.
(original post edited to rectify stuff-up)
RX7 would qualiy in my opinion.

[pleed]

A sports car would be a car painted like a soccer ball with golf clubs as head lights.

[plext]

Originally posted by royale
I think it must have the following components...
2 doors
RWD, or AWD,
0-100km/h of less that 6 seconds
0-400m under 14 seconds
Power/Weight of > 140 kW/ton
must handle exceptionally well
must be as capable stopping as accelerating
only exceptional 4cyl would qualify (ie Lotus Espirt)
Originally posted by Cassa
Given the other things that royale has specified I think you might have trouble finding many with 4 doors that can do all that anyway.
*ahem*http://plext.users.btopenworld.com/img/m5back.jpg

[royale]

I agree pretty much with what dumhed said, expecially GT and performance cars 'cept
non-turbo silvias dont qualify (not enough focus on power/acceleration) they would sit somewhere between hairdressers car (which they are not) and a true sportscar (which they are nearly).
Integra Type R- front wheel drive.

And thanks to cassa and the doc for clarifying that the first post was opinion only.

[royale]

M5- GT car (as is Monaro, 350Z, Supra/Skyline etc)
M3- now there is a true sports car IMHO (even if it was built on the 3 series platform)

[royale]

Originally posted by Deimos
What does the "S" stand for in SUV?

*runs and hides...

shit? or maybe stupid as in "stupid useless vehicle"

[Drakin]

So where does a Audi TT sit?

[plext]

Originally posted by dozer
something that always needs work/fixing/upgrades In that case, my pc is a sports car.

[royale]

TT has its own status- the worlds first fully reverseably styled car, no one can tell if its going forward or backwards.

And the non quattro are front wheel drive, so no go there.

[plext]

Originally posted by Drakin
So where does a Audi TT sit?
The TT (especially the V6) has all the ingredients to be an intriguing vehicle, but falls down badly on the score of driver involvement.

The steering and handling are aimed at non sports minded drivers and are dead in the extreme.

Not a bad car, just boring.

[royale]

Originally posted by plext
The TT (especially the V6) has all the ingredients to be an intriguing vehicle, but falls down badly on the score of driver involvement.

The steering and handling are aimed at non sports minded drivers and are dead in the extreme.

Not a bad car, just boring.

V6?? I only know of a 1.8 4cyl turbo in oz. Is there a V6 in europe?

[scathing]

Originally posted by royale
Under this definition, the WRX and RX8 (this years sports cars of the year) would not qualify, nor would any falcadore.

Under that definition, a Lotus Elise / MX5 (or a lot of the pure roadsters) wouldn't qualify either.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Drakin
So where does a Audi TT sit?

The Audi TT is a hairdresser's car. Its a car designed to look good rather than drive quickly.

[plext]

Originally posted by royale
V6?? I only know of a 1.8 4cyl turbo in oz. Is there a V6 in europe?
Very much so. Spec:
3.2 24v V6 247bhp@6300 236lb ft@2800
AWD
6 Speed DSG gearbox with steering wheel paddle shift
1520kg

Sounds much better than it drives. Very dull indeed. Quick and capable, but extremely boring.

[Necron]

Originally posted by royale
Under this definition, the WRX and RX8 (this years sports cars of the year) would not qualify, nor would any falcadore.

err, 'Somewhat conforming to your discription is a "falcadore" as you so unlearnedly put it. The HSV GTS Coupe fits this description sort of 300kw/1600kg, V8 2 door coupe design, sleek and cool!. I dunno what everyone else thinks though?.... Oh well, just my opinion.

P.S. sorry about the massive pic

[scathing]

Originally posted by Necron
err, 'Somewhat conforming to your discription is a "falcadore" as you so unlearnedly put it. The HSV GTS Coupe fits this despriios sort of

How can it? Royale specifically required something that handled well.

[royale]

Originally posted by Necron
err, 'Somewhat conforming to your discription is a "falcadore" as you so unlearnedly put it. The HSV GTS Coupe fits this despriios sort of 300kw/1600kg, V8 2 door coupe design, sleek and cool!. I dunno what everyone else thinks though?.... Oh well, just my opinion.

read previous post re-GT cars. Cars that are too heavy/not good enough handling etc to conform to sportscar.
Alternatively could be under heading muscle cars- cars designed with focus on power (by way of large capacity) rather than other dimensions of sports cars.

BTW I quite like the monaro, especially the GTS, but when are forden going to use technology others considered standard in 1980?

[Necron]

Originally posted by scathing
How can it? Royale specifically required something that handled well.

Have you ever driven one?, I have and they handle awesomely on the road, Dont let the weight/size fool you!.

Sorry, it's just my opinion!, I Love this car is all. you Dont have to agree with me.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Necron
Have you ever driven one?, I have and they handle awesomely on the road, Dont let the weight/size fool you!

You do know the difference between grip and handling, don't you?

[Necron]

Originally posted by scathing
You do know the difference between grip and handling, don't you?

Ok, yes I do... and yes they 'grip' well to the road and 'handle' very well around corners and tight bends.

Gee, cant anyone handle a broad statement these days!!!

[plext]

Broad statements? Not in here mate.

We're a picky bunch in the automotive forum :)

[Necron]

Originally posted by plext
Broad statements? Not in here mate.

We're a picky bunch in the automotive forum :)

Ahh I see, *resides to sit in the corner and never play with that (automotive thread) bunch of kids again!*. :D
Because whenever I do I get shot down:(

[royale]

Originally posted by Necron
Have you ever driven one?, I have and they handle awesomely on the road, Dont let the weight/size fool you!.


NB for future reference when playing with the automotive kiddies..
Don’t say any Holden "handle awesomely on the road"
Instead try "for its weight and inherent engineering inadequacies, the Monaro handles quite reasonably"

[durus]

Suggestion:
You should add a maximum weight restriction to seperate the sports cars and grand tourers.
Then add a price restriction to seperate the super cars.

I still think the RX8 should qualify as it's really only got 2 doors and 2 half doors. Besides it's a great mix of practicality and driver enjoyment (says me never having driven one).

[Necron]

Originally posted by royale
NB for future reference when playing with the automotive kiddies..
Don’t say any Holden "handle awesomely on the road"
Instead try "for its weight and inherent engineering inadequacies, the Monaro handles quite reasonably"

Hmmph.....Fine, I love Holdens and I can see that they are not appreciated.... Im going home!, you kiddies dont play fair.:cool:

[royale]

Originally posted by durus
Suggestion:
You should add a maximum weight restriction to seperate the sports cars and grand tourers.
Then add a price restriction to seperate the super cars.

I still think the RX8 should qualify as it's really only got 2 doors and 2 half doors. Besides it's a great mix of practicality and driver enjoyment (says me never having driven one).

Weight- fair call, but older sportscars weight a lot less than newer one (such as 911 turbo- 1540kg)

I think super-cars to be a sub-set of sportscars, so price restriction doesnt really matter.

RX8 weight is 1337 (kg) :p
Was going to suggest it would be GT, but probably not after seeing that. I guess its just a grey one.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Necron
you kiddies dont play fair.

The problem is that we do play "fair", so done-up land barges can't compete.

[royale]

Originally posted by Necron
Hmmph.....Fine, I love Holdens and I can see that they are not appreciated.... Im going home!, you kiddies dont play fair.:cool:

No quite true, holden/ford can be appreciated for what they are- good value, powerful, improved imitations of american crap.
They do their prime task admirably, but that task is transport, not being pleasurable to drive.

[prong]

how about the mk2 mr2 turbo?

it seems to satisfy all the requirements

[royale]

Originally posted by prong
how about the mk2 mr2 turbo?

it seems to satisfy all the requirements

Satisfies me, love the MR2.;)

[Necron]

Originally posted by royale
No quite true, holden/ford can be appreciated for what they are- good value, powerful, improved imitations of american crap.
They do their prime task admirably, but that task is transport, not being pleasurable to drive.

Dont take offence but I think that you wrong in that statement, They ARE pleasurable to drive, nice and firm on the road, softer suspension and hugging seats standard, cruise control, air-conditioning (not an exclusive feature), wide spacy and SAFE!.

'Pleasurable?.......all i can say is spacey and LARGE back seat

(No offence was intended by this post: Just trying to keep the peace)

[DrDivad]

ahh the old holden/fords vs everything battle :D

i must say, i personally thing the Monaro, GTS and to some extent even the Statesmen Caprice are fairly impressive vehicles.

most definately they do not handle the same as the mr2''s, silvias and lotus's of the world, but for what they are, a gigantic death power doom device, they do remarkably well!

you CAN make these suckers handle very well ala V8 supercars, yes i know they are full racig mahcines and you'd expect that, but they're stil pretty big and doomy, and even if you have australian v8's i think they still deserve some respect and aren't too bad to watch now and again.

basically in my opinion where it comes down to is these huge things can be made to have the same sorts of mid corner velocities as many smaller machines, the difference is, they aren't nimble, thats one thing you can never have, cos they're too bloody big!! so while say an MR2 kicks shyte down a mountain road cos of lots of sudden direction changes which it can easily handle, captian commodore gets left behind, but i think a few sweepers and they'll see that v8 a lot more!

having said this, i still think many other cars are lots better and that is what i would pick personally for my car, however if ever i want an affordable, powerful family car, i'll head straight for the Holden dealership :)

[royale]

Originally posted by DrDivad
having said this, i still think many other cars are lots better and that is what i would pick personally for my car, however if ever i want an affordable, powerful family car, i'll head straight for the Holden dealership :)

My point ;)

Sports Car- Porsche 911 (turbo or not) M3, 2 door Ferraris, Z4, 200SX, MR2 even, not commondore/falcon

[Necron]

Originally posted by DrDivad
ahh the old holden/fords vs everything battle :D

i must say, i personally thing the Monaro, GTS and to some extent even the Statesmen Caprice are fairly impressive vehicles.

I agree with this statement, The Commo/Falcon is much larger and therefore cannot handle corners as well, But they conquer on the straights! (I know that this is not what racing is all about).

They can look just as good! I think anyway, Personal preference but I like the big car look/ V8.

I think this statement sits best: "each to his own".

Cheers to every car enthusiest out there.... But id like to see less discrimination towards the Commo/falcon in the automotive threads...... You guys play hard and forget that everyone has thier own opinion.

[royale]

Originally posted by Necron
'Pleasurable?.......all i can say is spacey and LARGE back seat


pleasurable to drive was the statement, not be a passenger in, and as stated at the very begining, my posts are just my opinion. Driving pleasure for me is the ability to complete a corner at 30-40km/h above the suggested speed, without feeling that the back-end is going to beat me around the bend. I also like the ability to stop when when I need to, not when the car feels like it.

[Necron]

Originally posted by royale
pleasurable to drive was the statement, not be a passenger in, and as stated at the very begining, my posts are just my opinion. Driving pleasure for me is the ability to complete a corner at 30-40km/h above the suggested speed, without feeling that the back-end is going to beat me around the bend. I also like the ability to stop when when I need to, not when the car feels like it.

Settle down, same here.... It's just simple opinion, But I stick by mine, They are sweet to drive, they stop as easy as a new 'sports car'!. corners are almost not a problem at a slightly higher speed. All this depends on profile of tyres, Suspension setup, body roll and size/weight. but with the right setup a large car can be as good as a 'sports car'. almost!.

The pleasure bit was just a dig....Sorry!

P.S. some others take this way too seriously and that is why I made the statement that "everyone has their own opinion". This is in no way your fault Royale, you have been most hospitable

[Cassa]

Originally posted by Necron
with the right setup

That's the thing though, a real sports car doesn't require you to change anything.

[royale]

Anyone know where I can get some info on specific vehicles braking distances? (Not intending to throw it at you necron, I just remember the TAC ad where two cars stop from different speeds)

ie 0-100-0 times/distances etc

[V_Max]

Being too lazy to read the whole thread I just have to say that any definition of "sports car" which specifically excludes an original Elan, Elise or MX-5 (to name just a few) really does need to be relaxed a little bit I think :)

[royale]

Originally posted by Cassa
That's the thing though, a real sports car doesn't require you to change anything.

So does that disqualify the silvia? :p

[royale]

Originally posted by V_Max
Being too lazy to read the whole thread I just have to say that any definition of "sports car" which specifically excludes an original Elan, Elise or MX-5 (to name just a few) really does need to be relaxed a little bit I think :)

I think you're right, may need to re-define my opinion. :p

[Cassa]

Originally posted by royale
So does that disqualify the silvia? :p

Hey that's not a car, that's a lifestyle! :p

As someone said, it's almost a sportscar but not quite. And DumHed's one should be disqualified from existing.

[DumHed]

yeah, mine's modified enough to class as a custom built car I think :P

The reason I chose the Silvia to begin with though is that even in standard form it's close to what I want. (certainly closer than most other cars, and a lot cheaper than any of the other options)

Even the non turbo ones are a fairly serious car by way of their suspension setup and overall dynamics.

A sports car doesn't have to be super powerful, but it needs to make use of the power it has in the best possible way.


For people who said M3 - I personally find them to be very boring to drive, and definately way too heavy.
They've been softened up too much to give the driver involvement that I like.
I found that the E46 M3, while obviously quite powerful, just didn't have the same useable power delivery as even my non turbo silvia did, and found it to be less capable on some corners with tricky camber changes and bumps.
For the money I wouldn't go anywhere near one, even though it will probably outrun the n/a silvia in all comparisons.

[V_Max]

Try the CSL - much more entertaining.

[Necron]

For Royale's comment

Originally posted by Myself (Necron)
anyone who is going to post anything other than a v6 or v8 in here such as a Lancer or Pulsar.... Expect a harsh comeback as I take offence to these SHITBOXES and revere them as being lower than the scum scraped off of my boot!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, here is the deal:

I was TRYING to create a forum in which only (Positive) comments could be made about Big V6/V8's. I retracted the later statement in a post within that thread, Im sorry for being Hypocritical in this sense but since then I have put up with knocking about my Love of Holdens. I have not ripped anyone else off for thier "OPINION". I also know that this was probably the wrong way to go about this.

Im sorry for statements made in this thread but would have appreciated a forum that I could have talked about My Love of Holdens without everyone going.... Ohh but my Ricemobile can kick your ass standard, and ohh yeah but It looks mad with my rice LED's and blinding spotlights.

(Im sure that Ill also have to retract this statement later too)

[royale]

No need to apologise Necron, I knew where you were coming from, I just get a perverse pleasure from sticking the boot into those who think aussie cars are teh shit. (and the previously quoted line didn't help). For the record, I dont think jap cars are teh shit either (insert typical 'opinions are like arseholes' quote here). An unlimited budget would find my garage filled with...
Porsche 911 Turbo
Dodge Viper
Mercedes CLK 55 (Convertable)
Jeep Wrangler with offroad trailer
And a number of light overpowered mid-engine cars of my own design.
NB- nothing from Australia or Asia.

Future reference- love your aussies all you want, accept they aint awesome to everyone.

[Necron]

Originally posted by royale
No need to apologise Necron, I knew where you were coming from, I just get a perverse pleasure from sticking the boot into those who think aussie cars are teh shit. (and the previously quoted line didn't help). For the record, I dont think jap cars are teh shit either (insert typical 'opinions are like arseholes' quote here).

Future reference- love your aussies all you want, accept they aint awesome to everyone.

I just happen to be one.... and not the only person who absolutely loves them.

Now in the same respect, cant I, in turn have a forum in which I can express my views without being flamed!. Whenever I do I get hammered by someone!.

My question is: Cant we just have a 'truce' on the whole Holden/ford vs. everything battle! Im sick of all the shit that is produced as a result of this. again "each to his own"

[DumHed]

Originally posted by V_Max
Try the CSL - much more entertaining.


my boss bought the first CSL into the country.
He sold it though cos he lost his licence.

Personally I was unimpressed with the CSL.
The biggest advantage over the standard M3 is the better tyres that come with it (if you sign the disclaimer acknowledging that they have no grip in the wet)

Apart from that your extra ~$70k gets you a few extra kw (still less than the E36 M3R, even with 200ccs more capacity), better seats, and a ricey carbon fibre roof.

I've read a few reviews, and they've said that really it doesn't have anything much going for it over the normal model.

They could have done a good job of it. A couple of hundred kg weight loss (pretty easy in an M3), better brakes (stock ones are crap), and ditch the xenon headlights, sound deadening, and climate control - and it'd be somewhat closer to the cut down road going race car they make it out to be.

[royale]

Originally posted by Necron
I just happen to be one.... and not the only person who absolutely loves them.

Now in the same respect, cant I, in turn have a forum in which I can express my views without being flamed!. Whenever I do I get hammered by someone!.

My question is: Cant we just have a 'truce' on the whole Holden/ford vs. everything battle! Im sick of all the shit that is produced as a result of this. again "each to his own"

With all due respect, you did start the whole thing with the quote
"anyone who is going to post anything other than a v6 or v8 in here such as a Lancer or Pulsar.... Expect a harsh comeback as I take offence to these SHITBOXES and revere them as being lower than the scum scraped off of my boot!"
Had this line not been in the original thread, you would have had much less (if any) flaming. You want the non-aussie lovers to leave the aussie-lovers alone, no probs, do the same. ;)

[V_Max]

Originally posted by DumHed
Personally I was unimpressed with the CSL.Ah well, horses for courses - I wouldn't buy one at that price, but I loved it anyway :)

[DumHed]

that's why I have the car I have.
It's not the geatest car ever in standard form, but it's the easiest and cheapest car to get to the setup I want.

I could buy a Ferrari (if I had enough money) but I'd still have to modify it to have the car I really want, and modifying a Ferrari isn't cheap!

So far my car has cost about $8k, including all the mods and extras, and that makes it damn good fun for the money.

[royale]

Originally posted by DumHed
So far my car has cost about $8k, including all the mods and extras, and that makes it damn good fun for the money.

I envy your skill.......and courage....

[DumHed]

I'd just had too many people on the various web forums tell me what couldn't be done, so I decided to find out for myself.
So far everything can be done :)

It's not always easy, but with a bit of logic and some reasonable expectations a lot can be done with hardware that mose people wouldn't bother with.

The main thing is that as soon as you start wanting a car that looks nice (nice paint, no scratches, dents, new ricey wheels, etc) it starts costing a whole lot more, and you suddenly don't want to experiment with it as much - because you can't then insure it, or you'll damage some nice paint, etc.

I got sick of having a really nice clean car that seemed to collect shopping trolley dents, sticks falling on the roof, and general unavoidable damage.
By having a rough car I don't worry about any of that :)

[DrDivad]

Originally posted by DumHed
I'd just had too many people on the various web forums tell me what couldn't be done, so I decided to find out for myself.
So far everything can be done :)

It's not always easy, but with a bit of logic and some reasonable expectations a lot can be done with hardware that mose people wouldn't bother with.

The main thing is that as soon as you start wanting a car that looks nice (nice paint, no scratches, dents, new ricey wheels, etc) it starts costing a whole lot more, and you suddenly don't want to experiment with it as much - because you can't then insure it, or you'll damage some nice paint, etc.

I got sick of having a really nice clean car that seemed to collect shopping trolley dents, sticks falling on the roof, and general unavoidable damage.
By having a rough car I don't worry about any of that :)

can you say Subaru Wagon :D

[DumHed]

I think it would take quite a lot of effort to give a subaru wagon the kind of dynamics my car currently has, let alone what I want it to have :)

[DrDivad]

mostly i was referring to the care factor 0 element :)

[DumHed]

if I had a subaru I'd *want* to damage it :D

[royale]

Originally posted by DumHed
I think it would take quite a lot of effort to give a subaru wagon the kind of dynamics my car currently has, let alone what I want it to have :)

Actually a lot less than you may think. There has been so much development for subaru after-market parts that you can make them handle really well for very little money.

ie, last car 206GTi, handling was awesome in stock form, WRX, pretty average in stock, $750 later, is as much fun as the pug.

[DumHed]

There are still the issues of chassis design, weight distribution, suspension geometry, steering presicion, etc.

There are some things you just can't change in a car without massive work, and those things are far superior in the Silvia chassis than most other cars. With the Subarus you can make them grip, but they'll never have the same handling characteristics as the Silvia with comparable mods. This is of course a personal preference thing, because to some people the Silvia is just too responsive and too difficult to drive at the limit. I like it that way :)

There are few cars where you can buy a second hand, but good condition, japanese racing suspension package for under $1000, and there are no engines out there that respond better to minor mods than the SR20DET - more reasons behind my choice :)

That said, my Vortex was damn good fun, but nowhere near as capable as the Silvia - even in stock form.

I believe the Pug 206 is a fun car, and I've seen them go very well on the track, but I haven't yet had a chance to drive one.
I think compared to what I'm used to I'd find it an extremely soft and boring car :)

[royale]

Dont forget- drifting is just a fancy way of describing loss of traction.:p

[scathing]

Originally posted by royale
Dont forget- drifting is just a fancy way of describing loss of traction.:p

And circuit racing is just a fancy way of sitting in a hot, uncomfortable car for several hours doing zero velocity.

[still life]

Originally posted by royale
Driving pleasure for me is the ability to complete a corner at 30-40km/h above the suggested speed, without feeling that the back-end is going to beat me around the bend. I also like the ability to stop when when I need to, not when the car feels like it.

All of that said, I generally aim for double the sign, +/- 10%, depending on how hard I'm going, state of tyres and brakes and the prevalent conditions.. and if the back starts to go I generally try to just let it slide a tiny bit and not get mega-sideways... but I guess that's a RWD thing.

[DrDivad]

Originally posted by royale
Dont forget- drifting is just a fancy way of describing loss of traction.:p

well, when done properly it's a controlled loss of traction :P

tractionless traction you could say :)

[DumHed]

Originally posted by royale
Dont forget- drifting is just a fancy way of describing loss of traction.:p

I never said I was into drifting.
Actually I don't have much interst at all in drifting as a specific driving style.
The skills and concepts used in drifting are still part of driving though. If you can't control a drift then you can't recover from an accidental one, and can't use it to your advantage when you need to.
Drifting is really a way of using the tyres to control the car's speed and attitude instead of the brakes and steering.
By varying the amount of rear grip using the throttle you change the car's angle in a corner, and the front tyres are providing grip in a direction closer to their axis of rotation than they would be in an understeering situation.
Proper drifting (ie, not just hanging the tail out under power) is often the fastest way around a corner, and often allows the limits of the car to be pushed higher while still maintaining control.

Intertial drift (started due to lack of lateral grip, via steering input and weight shifting) works on FWD and AWD cars as well, and can be an excellent way to make an underbraked car corner fast and maintain control. By getting some sideways slip angle happening on the way into a corner the tyres do all the work of slowing down, leaving the brakes only having to handle the taks of weight shifting and balance (along with the steering and throttle).
By coming into a corner slightly sideways the car is transferring momentum from the entry direction of the corner to the exit direction - without having to rely on only the front tyres to do the work.
By the time you're at the apex of the corner the drift should be finished, and the car's pointed in the direction you need to go, and you're then putting maximim power to the ground in the direction you need to go.

Rally cars drift all the time because it's the most effective way to get the maximum possible power to the ground, in the direction it is needed when the surface grip levels are low.

So, I'm not into drift for the sake of drifting, but drift is something that is used when it's needed - as part of the art of car control.

[Cassa]

Originally posted by DumHed
I never said I was into drifting.

Is that because you suck at it? :D

[DumHed]

only when I'm not driving Da Rolla™ :D

[DrDivad]

drifitng is also the most expensive line through a corner :)

[scathing]

My definition of a sports car is a bit different.

Rather than have any hard numbers, my belief is that any car designed with the enjoyment of the enthusiast driver in mind is a sports car. Not any hard numbers as such (since, as shown by royale's definition, cars no-one would claim are anything but sport are excluded). More of a philosophy.

This means that tarted up econoboxes / land barges don't count. There's a world of difference between a sports car and a sports model. A sports car compromises comfort for performance. A sports model makes best with a design compromised for comfort over performance, to balance it out. This doesn't exclude part sharing from econo models, its about application.

Within "sports cars" you've got various ranges. Whether its supercars, like the Lamborghinis and Paganis of the world, or grand tourers like the Aston Martins and Jaguars, to roadsters like the Lotus Elise and Porsche Boxter, or the nimble corner carvers like the Silvia and M3.


By this definition, the WRX is more likely to count as a sports car than a Clubsport. The Impreza is designed to be a rally car, of which the WRX is the homologated model. Hence, the design philosophy is sports (and the lower spec models are just bread and butter 'fillers'). The Clubsport is, at heart, a done-up fleet vehicle. Subaru built the Impreza to rally (and under the rules needed homologated cars to qualify). Holden took an existing car and made it circuit race. If the WRC didn't exist, neither would the Impreza. If V8 Supercars didn't exist, the Commodore would still be around.

The Impreza range was designed with rallying in mind, and the models then trickle "down" into the cheap models from the goal of making a car that you can throw around a dirt track at high speeds, whereas the Commodore range is designed as a family vehicle in mind, and then modified "up" into a tourer.
That difference in design philosophy is what separates sports car from sports model.

Note that this doesn't inherently mean that there's anything wrong with sports models. There are some great ones out there, that would give sports cars a run for their money point to point. In the end, though, its still no sports car, and it doesn't reward the driver in the same way that a sports car will.

[royale]

Holy shit, getting close to 100 replies, and our third on-topic post.

Dont know about the WRX/Impreza thing, I would have thought the original design would have been for a generic mid-size vehicle, but subsequent development had rally in mind.

[scathing]

Originally posted by royale
Dont know about the WRX/Impreza thing, I would have thought the original design would have been for a generic mid-size vehicle, but subsequent development had rally in mind.

As far as I'm aware, after rallying the Liberty / Legacy, they realised they needed something smaller. With the homologation rules, they needed to make road-going cars.

Did the Impreza range launch back then without a WRX?

[V_Max]

One would imagine that an entire model range whose platform was not at that time shared by anything else, would be somewhat of an excessive investment for what was (I think) then a fairly small, independent manufacturer, to be competitive in WRC?

[royale]

Originally posted by scathing
As far as I'm aware, after rallying the Liberty / Legacy, they realised they needed something smaller. With the homologation rules, they needed to make road-going cars.

Did the Impreza range launch back then without a WRX?

I dont think the WRX was part of the original line-up.

edit
I stand corrected
http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/Impreza/Impreza2.html

There is no special history behind the Impreza. The car was chosen as a potential WRC champion mainly because it was smaller (lower inertia) than the Legacy, its predecessor. Subaru clearly wanted to be world champion so they put a lot of hard work into the Impreza, Prodrive took on from there to lead the car to the world title.

Launched in 1994 the Impreza was immediately available in a 4 wheel drive turbo charged version delivering 211Bhp (217Bhp for the 1999 European model).
/edit

[Salted_Chipmunk]

My take on a sports car is that it isn't a mass produced car, developed for impressive handling and performance. Accessories are a minimum on these car, hardly any creature comforts like Aircon, TCS, ACS and that. A car that you actually have to think about driving when driving, rather than stop, go, turn.

My perfect sports car that i'd love to have, Ford RS200. (Or a close second, Ford Sierra RS 500)

Bewdiful. Made in 1986 1.8L turbo, mid mount AWD, and goes like a shower of shit. Shame that there are only 200 ever produced by Ford.

I loved how they were limited to Rally-X after one of the first people to drive one in the RAC killed himself, apparently the thing was just too powerful for its time.

[DrDivad]

what about the Lancia Delta Integrale, 2.0 litre turbo alfa lookin' thing with 200horsepower or some such :)

[Salted_Chipmunk]

What about it??? :D

Tis quite nice, i'd rather have one of those over a WRX.

[royale]

Originally posted by Salted_Chipmunk
What about it??? :D

Tis quite nice, i'd rather have one of those over a WRX.

For a day...maybe...but for everyday, I'll keep the rex wagon- 'High speed camping vehicle'.