Don't you think that the determination of whether a car's performance falls into the category of supercar is also based on it's performance figures at the time of manufacture? Nobody here can deny that the performance of the 959 fell into a supercar category compared to the performance of the other cars of it's time. Hell it was fast even compared to 2000 standards with 0-62mph being in 4.1 seconds stock. For example today you can buy 4 door cars that can do 0-60 in the 4 second range. With the modern smart suspension technology out there now you can make even a heavy car handle quite well. And because of that the proper sports cars have gotten better too. So I think the standards of supercars today are different today than say 1985. Their is no doubt that the testarossa was a supercar for it's time, but today you can get a stock carrera that is quicker and handles better. My thoughts above may not be the true way a supercar is viewed and determined, but it is good food for thought.

 

The GTR is not based on any other car, nor is the f430 or DB9 (though it has variants). I was just naming a few other cars that are "borderliners"

I think the gt3rs and gt2rs are awesome and amazing cars but I can't call them supercars. Same with the Gallardo variants. It has to be a purpose built in my opinion.

SLR is a ground-up car. It makes it in my book.

 

Good points. I appreciate the input.

 

I agree. The standards are different.

I think we certainly have 4-door cars in this day and age that might be considered 'supercar' worthy, depending on your definition of the term.

 

Excellent point. Which is why I brought up the Shelby's 12 second quarter mile. In a day and age where SUV's are now in the 12s, the GT500 no longer performing in a "special" category.

 

In my opinion, the term supercar comes with many facets. First one that comes to mind is performance, both in straight line positive and negative acceleration as well as cornering ability and side busting skid pad talents... Then there is the visceral connection between the driver and the senses that it excites when being pushed to the limits. Another one would be the "awe" factor, as explained above.

Mustang, relatively decent performance, likely fun to drive, and is a looker on some avenues.

I feel there is definitely a difference between an "exotic" and a "supercar", and the ones that really stand out to me are the ones that slide right in the middle, cars like the Pagani Zonda R, Ferrari F40 & Enzo, and the CGT to name a few.

 

i think it comes down to a number of variables in performance, aesthetics, price. it has to be a car that performs at the top during that time. it has to look like something "special" or unique so that it is different from other cars, it has to have a price that would match its exclusivity and rarity. when all of this is combined you get cars like the zonda, cgt,f40,f50,enzo,slr, etc

of course there could be borderline cars to consider such as the 670sv, gt2rs, gt3rs, etc but i would consider them to be just more exclusive sports cars...

 

Ya, I absolutely agree. When talking about 'exotics', the list becomes much smaller. IMO, the Veyron tops the exotic list that also includes Paganis, Koenigseggs, Mclarens, select Ferraris, and the CGT.

 

Com'n guys...the definition of supercar is easy. It has to look good in a photo!

 

Ha ha. Question asked, and answered.

 

Case in point...



...not a supercar!

 

HA HA

 

Scott, your upcoming R1K should beat any production car performance numbers, and be a blast to drive as well, where would you classify it?

 

Performance wise, I'd put it very near (if not at) the top of food chain for 100% street cars. So yes, in my personal opinion, it will be a supercar all the way. Definitely not exotic, however.

All comes down to our personal definition of the terms, though.

 

Not to complicate things, but "supercar?"