What constitutes a "Supercar"?
#61
03-06-2011 | 05:57 PM
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,696
From: Portland Oregon
Rep Power: 187
It is in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supercar
Seeing very expensive is somewhat subjective that leaves a little for interpretation. But centrally mounted engine is cut and dry. I must admit that the definition isn't how it has been used nor is it how it interpret it, but it is what it says.
Seeing very expensive is somewhat subjective that leaves a little for interpretation. But centrally mounted engine is cut and dry. I must admit that the definition isn't how it has been used nor is it how it interpret it, but it is what it says.
#63
03-06-2011 | 06:22 PM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,214
From: Colorado
Rep Power: 396
It is in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supercar
Seeing very expensive is somewhat subjective that leaves a little for interpretation. But centrally mounted engine is cut and dry. I must admit that the definition isn't how it has been used nor is it how it interpret it, but it is what it says.
Seeing very expensive is somewhat subjective that leaves a little for interpretation. But centrally mounted engine is cut and dry. I must admit that the definition isn't how it has been used nor is it how it interpret it, but it is what it says.
If Jeremy Clarkson says it's a supercar, then it's a supercar
#64
03-06-2011 | 07:27 PM
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,696
From: Portland Oregon
Rep Power: 187
LolIn the end titles are for people who needs somebody else to tell them they have good taste. For every superduperexoticturbobadassspendallyourmoney mobiles there are out there, their is some guy with more money than sense to buy it without knowing what they are buying
If you like to rock a turbocharged 800hp pink bug then sweet. That is what it is all about anyways. Just don't bull**** yourself about what it is or isn't.
#65
03-07-2011 | 12:41 AM
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 812
From: Dallas
Rep Power: 52
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.
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.
#68
03-07-2011 | 06:46 AM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,214
From: Colorado
Rep Power: 396
LolIn the end titles are for people who needs somebody else to tell them they have good taste. For every superduperexoticturbobadassspendallyourmoney mobiles there are out there, their is some guy with more money than sense to buy it without knowing what they are buying
If you like to rock a turbocharged 800hp pink bug then sweet. That is what it is all about anyways. Just don't bull**** yourself about what it is or isn't.
I think it is obvious, that there is no set std for supercar. And it seems that the definition is quite broad. An RX7 turbo could be a supercar in Zimbabwe. It is all relative. However, I think the Europeans have a better grip on it than we do, due to a lack of emotional involvement. Maybe we can gather what cars Jeremy has called a supercar and make that our supercar list.
#72
03-07-2011 | 10:26 AM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,036
From: here and there
Rep Power: 92
Great thread! Lots of insightful posts that have great points. I will only quote 2 to keep it simple.
The term once earned can not be revoked no more than Jesse Owens can be stripped of his 1936 gold medals or Neil Armstrong stripped of the title Astronaut.
The qualifications to earn the title/designation are always on a sliding scale, so performance numbers that helped earn supercar status in the 90's no longer help a car qualify today.
One other thing - I have always believed that Supercar applied to serial-ongoing models limited only buy the number of buyers per year and that there is an even higher status of Hypercar that applies to one-offs - limited production run special halo cars that did not meet serial-ongoing model status.
Hypercars started with the 288GTO and 959 and continued with F40, F50, Enzo, GT1, Carrera GT, 918, Mclaren F1....................... they are not ongoing models despite demand and they are not improved versions of ongoing models.
4 of the 7 Supercars of the 80's (the ultimate 80's magazine comparison)
In order for a car to hit these categories - exotic and supercar - there needs to be a certain exclusivity to it, in addition to price of admission. There have been cars that have been difficult to obtain - example the Mini GP - yet I don't know that anyone would call that a supercar. So, a car that is exclusive, yet lacks performance doesn't qualify.
Certainly it has to be more than just performance. If you were looking at straight line performance, then a Subaru WRX would qualify, yet I doubt that anyone is looking to get one so that they can claim ownership of a supercar. In this case, performance isn't enough, since there is NO exclusivity.
In my mind, there are three things that allow a car to qualify as a SuperCar. One is the drool factor. If you see the car, and you can't help but stare at it as it recedes into the distance, you have hit the drool factor. The other qualification is difficult to obtain when new. Any car becomes less expensive over time. But the ability to buy one when new sets a standard. And last is performance. To a large extent, this helps a car meet the drool factor. You yearn to drive it, to be seen in it, to own it.
I won't consider the standard 911 as a supercar. Yet a Turbo, the 959, nearly any Ferrari, Lambo and others attain that status. The car's initial price certainly puts it into the category of unobtainium for the normal car buyer. And performance at the time it was new puts it in an exclusive class of cars.
Certainly the existence of cars like the Veyron set a new standard. But if a car needed to meet that standard to be a supercar, we now have a very exclusive fraternity that only the oil sheiks can afford. I would hope that any definition of supercar would allow it to become at least a possibility for the normal person. The exclusivity keeps "everyone" from owning one.
larry
Certainly it has to be more than just performance. If you were looking at straight line performance, then a Subaru WRX would qualify, yet I doubt that anyone is looking to get one so that they can claim ownership of a supercar. In this case, performance isn't enough, since there is NO exclusivity.
In my mind, there are three things that allow a car to qualify as a SuperCar. One is the drool factor. If you see the car, and you can't help but stare at it as it recedes into the distance, you have hit the drool factor. The other qualification is difficult to obtain when new. Any car becomes less expensive over time. But the ability to buy one when new sets a standard. And last is performance. To a large extent, this helps a car meet the drool factor. You yearn to drive it, to be seen in it, to own it.
I won't consider the standard 911 as a supercar. Yet a Turbo, the 959, nearly any Ferrari, Lambo and others attain that status. The car's initial price certainly puts it into the category of unobtainium for the normal car buyer. And performance at the time it was new puts it in an exclusive class of cars.
Certainly the existence of cars like the Veyron set a new standard. But if a car needed to meet that standard to be a supercar, we now have a very exclusive fraternity that only the oil sheiks can afford. I would hope that any definition of supercar would allow it to become at least a possibility for the normal person. The exclusivity keeps "everyone" from owning one.
larry
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.
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.
The term once earned can not be revoked no more than Jesse Owens can be stripped of his 1936 gold medals or Neil Armstrong stripped of the title Astronaut.
The qualifications to earn the title/designation are always on a sliding scale, so performance numbers that helped earn supercar status in the 90's no longer help a car qualify today.
One other thing - I have always believed that Supercar applied to serial-ongoing models limited only buy the number of buyers per year and that there is an even higher status of Hypercar that applies to one-offs - limited production run special halo cars that did not meet serial-ongoing model status.
Hypercars started with the 288GTO and 959 and continued with F40, F50, Enzo, GT1, Carrera GT, 918, Mclaren F1....................... they are not ongoing models despite demand and they are not improved versions of ongoing models.
4 of the 7 Supercars of the 80's (the ultimate 80's magazine comparison)
Last edited by The racerx; 03-07-2011 at 10:30 AM.
#73
03-07-2011 | 01:33 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,015
From: MN
Rep Power: 276
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.
-WOW factor - Self explanatory. If you don't get this one then please quit reading this thread.(this comment not directed at anyone - just a generalization)
-Performance - Not the top dog but high up on the food chain.
-Cost - I list cost last because I feel it is the least important factor of a supercar but, the FGT was pricey when it came out and it is holding it's value better then most.
FGT may not quite have the WOW factor of a CGT, Enzo or McLaren F1 but it does turns heads.
The Gallardo is mass produced. It is not the top model in the Lamborghini line-up. Pretty badass with a couple turbos bolted on but to me it is not a supercar.
430/458 again are not the flagship for their brand and Ferrari will build as many as they can sell.
Last edited by AtomicZ; 03-07-2011 at 01:36 PM.
#74
03-07-2011 | 04:57 PM
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 553
From: Los Angeles, CA
Rep Power: 79
It's not just based on price. When most of these supercars came out, they were the fastest road cars out there. It's not their fault that technology has progressed so far so quickly and that a Ferrari 458 Italia is faster around Fiorano than an Enzo Ferrari was. That's just what happens over time. You can be sure that whatever top level supercar Ferrari make next will be faster than any car they've made before.
