ok, so lets deal with a quandary. The ZO6. Certainly supercar performance by anyone's standards. Definite drool factor. Production is considerably higher than any supercar. It averaged easily 6500-7000 cars annually, some years more some years less.

2001 - 5773
2002 - 8297
2004 - 8635
2005 - 5683
2006 - 6272
2007 - 8159
2008 - 7731
2009 - 3461

54011 ZO6's total almost evenly split between first and second generation models.

comparatively there was only about 23,000 996 Carrera C4S's made for all years. Yet, it is not a supercar. I submit that the ZO6 with double that number is a supercar. It has all the attributes save for low production numbers. Why should that disqualify it. It is not an exotic, we know that.

 

If being expensive and exclusive is a large determining factor on this, than the 996TT would be excluded now due to the fact that you can find decent examples cheaper than an STI. And let's forget about the class war that shows it's ugly face when the guys who paid $115k for the car new meet the guys who paid in the $30s for a clean sub 40,000 mile example. But you cannot deny that the 996TT in stock form was a head turner and was impressive in performance in it's day. So is price a factor? I don't think so. It is natural that it costs alot of money to make a car meet the performance/styling/handling parameters that make it a supercar. But I think that is a side effect of being a supercar not a requirement.

Here is a thought. The 1967 Ford Shelby mustangs were in their day very impressive in the performance category. Now they are rare and expensive to own in clean condition. If price and being exclusive is a large factor as well as the attention getting ability, does this car now become a supercar? I wouldn't think so. I think that the price and it being exclusive would make it collectable and nothing else. The word that sticks in my mind when the word supercar is mentioned is "benchmark". Does that car meet or exceed the benchmark for the top say ~25% of the sports car market during that time? Yet again, my opinion only.

 

Supercar is a very subjective term and probably can't be defined in pure "must go faster than X" or "must be more expensive than Y" or "must be limited to Z numbers" terms. In my mind all you need to do is look at a car and tell if it's a supercar or not. No current variation of Corvette - no matter how fast - qualifies. How can a car that looks pretty much the same as the average Corvette be considered? A Z06 can drive by and nobody would pay it any attention. How can that be a supercar? Additionally, the only Porsche that I would consider a supercar would be the Carrera GT or 918. The only Ford supercar is the Ford GT.

 

resale value today is not indicative of anything. I would say that the 996tt being not so high production car will have values go up considerably. The current sales are not indicative as times are tough and ALL high end cars have taken a hit. 200k mercs going for 40k as well.

But I also disagree that every ferrari is a supercar. Anyone who thinks a 308 ferrari is a supercar should also consider a bread and butter nissan altima 3.5 a supercar. Even in it's day the 308 was no supercar. Being a brand doesn't automatically qualify you as supercar.

 

I truly think you are confusing exotic with supercar. Let me rephrase that. I wonder if you aren't confusing.....The very term supercar signifies performance. Exclusivity is what exotics offer.

I think I will stick with Tiff Needells opinions.

 

-Exclusive
-WOW factor
-Performance
-Cost

GT-R - No
Vette(any vette) - No
Mustang(any mustang) - No
996 - No
997 - No, not even the GT2RS
Carrera GT - Yes
959 - Yes
F40, F50, Enzo - Yes
360,430,458 - No
McLaren F1 - Yes
Ford GT - Yes
Viper - No
Pagani - Yes
Koenigseggs - Yes
Veyron - Yes
Lamborghini excluding Gallardo - Yes

 

Let me ask 2 questions which I think will help in defining what a "Supercar" is:

1. Are factors such as price of entry and a car's "pedigree" considered in determining whether one is a Supercar or not?

Should the Supercar moniker be an irrevocable award, once a car earns it, it will be forever known as a Supercar, or should it be something that is assessed periodically and compared against the current candidates? If a former Supercar is no longer competitive, it loses that title?

The reason I ask is because I see the performances of the NSX and Supra Turbo being frequently mentioned as well as the resale value of the 996 Turbo.

Let's use the 4th generation ('93 - '98 in the U.S.) Supra Turbo as an example. When it was introduced, the automotive journalists didn't know what to do with it. Here is a car that had 320 bhp (the 911 Turbo of that era had 355), it out slalom'ed the 911 Turbo, had a higher skidpad number and had close acceleration numbers. Motor Trend 8/93 issue for those interested in reading it. Road&Track had the Supra more or less matching the Ferrari 512TR's numbers as well. If I could go back to 1993 and conduct a poll, I would be pretty confident in assuming that the majority of the public would see the 911 Turbo and 512TR as Supercars. So why isn't the Supra Turbo a Supercar? Supercar (of its time) performance numbers, low production (less than 6,000 Turbos were sold in the U.S. between '93 - '98). Price of entry? Or lack of "pedigree" because it is a Toyota?

NSX is much of the same story. When introduced in the early 90s, it matched the Ferrari 348's numbers. It also had very low production numbers, but most wouldn't consider it a Supercar. Again, price of entry, or that pedigree thing because it is really just a Honda?

Which brings me to the next question. If the Supra Turbo and the NSX aren't Supercars but their European competitors at the time were (the early 90s 911 Turbos, Ferraris, Espirit Turbos, etc.), are these early 90s European Supercars still Supercars today or have they lost their title? Can a car even lose its Supercar title?

I see posts comparing the performance figures of the NSX/Supra against cars made a decade or two later. But if you were to compare a Mustang 5.0 against a Ferrari 348, the Mustang would win. Heck, it would probably humiliate the later Ferraris (the 355s and the 360s). So should these Ferraris lose their titles because they now struggle against a "lowly" Ford? Or should a Mustang be coined a Supercar now because it is able to beat or match the performance of former Supercars, which is I think what prompted the start of this thread?

Lastly, the case of the 996 Turbo. When introduced in 2000-2001 (depending on where you live), it beat the Ferrari 360 (taking 8 seconds less to reach 0-150 according to C/D) and was very close to Lamborghini Murcielago performance. Certainly Supercar performance back then. One detractor to its claim to status is its relatively poor resale. So should price (resale value in this case) matter? If it doesn, then perhaps the NSX and the Supra Turbo can finally have their Supercar awards. After all, a '01 NSX and a clean Supra Turbo will likely fetch more than what a 996 Turbo is going for these days.

I think in determining Supercar status, while performance figures (at the time of manufacture) plays a large role, exclusivity, pedigree, and price tag also play minor, but still existing roles.

 

AtomicZ, why yes on the Ford GT? I always thought it is comparable to the Gallardo variations and the 430/458 Ferraris in terms of cost, performance and wow factor? I personally never thought to group the Ford GT with the likes of Carrera GT, Enzo, McLaren F1 (which I consider more to be exotics). Just curious.

 

Here's my list of what I consider to be supercars in the modern era (off the top of my head, based on straight-line and/or road-course performance ability and/or overall rarity):

Acura NSX
Audi R8
BMW E46 M3 CSL
Bugatti Veyron
Corvette Z06 and ZR1
Viper
Ferrari (all)
Ford GT
Koenigsegg
Lamborghini (all)
Nissan Skylines and GT-R
Pagani
Porsche 911 Turbo, GT-series and CGT
McLaren
SLR
Lexus LFA
Supra Turbo
Aston Martin (some)

However, if I narrow this list to 'Exotics', it looks like this:
Bugatti Veyron
Ferrari F40, F50, Enzo
Ford GT
Koenigsegg
Lamborghini (everything but Gallardos)
Pagani
Porsche CGT
McLaren
SLR
Lexus LFA

 

I wouldn't consider the 348, F355, 360, NSX or supra turbo to be a supercar. I even find it difficult to swallow that the 996TT is a supercar in stock form. But the Ford GT is a supercar any way you want to look at it. And I dislike almost everything about that car, but it is a supercar. I think that only calling a european car a supercar would be biased. The ZR1 and the gt2RS is a supercar anyway you want to look at it too. Unless the list of supercars is only a 250k and up? But that would just be silly.

 

Any sprts car that makes you go WOW!!!

 

From Wikipedia:
Supercar is a term used most often to describe an ultra-high-end "exotic" automobile, whose performance is superior to that of its contemporaries. It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car".[1] Stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match," "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own".[2] However, the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. So-called vehicles are typically out of the ordinary and are marketed by automakers to be perceived by the public as unusual. The supercar can take many forms including limited production specials from an "elite" automaker, standard looking cars made by mainstream companies that hide massive power and performance, as well as models that appeal to "hardcore enthusiasts" from "manufacturers on the fringe of the car industry."[3]

 

It hurts a car's supercar status to have lower version variants or be the pumped version of a "normal" car. Most people can't tell the difference between a Carrera or GT2 RS. Posches have a bit of that "it" quality because they are built so well and don't fall apart after 10 years.

All the corvette variants are univerally BS. With the exception of the ZR1 they will be less than desirable in 5 years. Anyone drooling over the last gen Z06?

It's the recurring theme people can't can't put their finger on.

 

Hey guys,I think a super car and an exotic are to totally different autos.My opinion is a super car has to be very good at all aspects of performance,daily drivable,daily livable,have serviceability avaliable and have special features built in above the norm of the performance car.....As always the autos cost has a part to play in it but we have to be the judge of what we think its worth paying for that privilege to get enjoyment out of it and call it OUR supercar.......My opinion is that a 996 was and now even more so, because of the market hit,the best afforable super car in the world and still tops in the whole list of super cars.....Just my opinion....

 

Interesting thread and topic. The obvious fact is technology (and the application price point) has spread so fast over the past years that great engineers from a number of OEM's have applied it toward 'lower' price point cars achieving and at times beating 'supercar' performance. Personally, I've always defined 'exotic supercars' as those you really can't or wouldn't drive on a daily basis....and I believe those involve cars that cost in the 250k+ range. The issue is many of those exotic cars are getting their asses kicked by cars that cost much less....blurring the boundaries and beliefs that certain buyers have when they write a 300k check.

Personally I believe a supercar is defined mostly by performance and less around price point. Those buyers who need the badge for exclusivity deserve to get their asses kicked by a modded GTR....