Yes, I realize this question has been debated many, many times on the internet over the years...but I'm curious if opinions have changed as more cars are released that "blur the lines".

Earlier tonight I posted a thread in the GT-R section about Motor Trend picking the GT-R as the best "Supercar" under $100k. It beat the 2011 Shelby GT 500 with "SVT Performance Package" and 2011 Corvette Z06 with "Ultimate Performance Package" and Carbon Fiber Package" (basically a lightweight ZR1 without the blower). Anyway, Bob (bbywu) asked a great question; "Motor Trend considers a Mustang a supercar"? Well, apparently they do as they refer to all 3 cars as "supercars" and "exotics" in the article.

So my question to you is, what exactly makes a car a "supercar"? Is it MSRP? Is it performance numbers? Is it exclusivity? A combination of all 3? Are there other variables involved? My personal opinion is that it comes down to performance and performance alone (and that an "Exotic" is a entirely different animal), but that's just me.

What are your thoughts? Discuss!

 

Supercar is a term that has been watered down quite a bit in recent years. Apparently a 997 Turbo or a GT-R is a supercar these days.

For me, supercar always meant super exotics that were out of reach to most of us and usually had the performance to match. The Porsche 959 and Carrera GT, Ferrari F50 and Enzo Ferrari, McLaren F1, etc. are just a few that come to mind.

It seems these days that supercar can apply to any higher end sports car (according to some) which has caused the term "hypercar" to come into existence. It's wholly unnecessary to me, but if a Mustang can be a supercar now then I definitely can't call something like a Porsche 918 a supercar as well.

 

So assuming it's a good performer, it sounds like you're definition applies mostly to MSRP. What's the minimum MSRP that you feel is required? $250k? $300k?

 

10 times the average vehicle MSRP seems to me a good mark. That's about $250 - isch?
We do live in the lands of Baseball WORLD Series and Football WORLD Champions, so we can call it whatever sells - right...

 

I think the price point would be the case with an exotic not supercar. I always thought the supercar title pertains to cars that have performance(0-60,60-130, 1/4 mile, handling and results on skid pad) that falls within a certain range. I am not 100% sure though. Those parameters would have to be varying throughout the years as the status quo changes as well.

 

What's the breakdown that Clarkson uses?

Supercars are designed to mess with G-forces...
Hypercars are designed to mess with G-strings!

 

I tend to think about the term "supercars" as a label of performance.

I had brought it up simply because I felt a "supercar" was something that was special, "super" in it's performance. A 12 second sprint in the quarter mile is something that is being achieved by SUVs now. Like the BMW M3, I consider the Shelby to be an amazing ride - robust, fun, quick. To me, in its stock form, it doesn't achieve performance levels to of "supercar."

 

Good question and one we probably will never answer because it's so subjective.

I think the lines between "exotic car" and "super car" tend to blur in most people's mind. If you define a supercar by it's performance then you have a much bigger field. I don't think that 911s and GTRs are exotics, but they are supercars.

What the average joe might consider a supercar is probably best defined by the Carrera GT or F40. Really need to have characteristics of the two terms to be what most people call a supercar.

 

Both exotics and super cars are rarely seen on the streets... one due to its price tag the other due to its speed

 

I feel that a super car is one that when the owner gets to spinning the wrenches on it the platform can handle the increase in power, stop, handle, and turn heads.

 

I think my car is a super car...

 

I find the timing of this discussion to be very interesting. I was just going through some of my old car magazines and read through the August '93 Road&Track comparison of the Ferrari 512TR, the Porsche 911 Turbo, and the Toyota Supra Turbo.

The $38k Supra more or less performed as well as the $99k 911 Turbo and the $189k 512TR. The writer of the article questioned whether the Supra could now be considered an exotic as well, just like its 2 rivals in the comparison test. He answered in the negative because the Supra's exterior design was a compromise (citing the number of vents and slots and the width of the rear fenders) and did not elicit the same emotional response from pedestrians.

I think the article might be onto something. Exclusivity and performance do not seem to be the 2 elements that define a candidate as a supercar. Otherwise, we might have to start considering some of those high powered sedans (CTS-Vs, Panamera Turbo, M5s, AMGs) with low production runs as supercars.

With a "supercar" the general public will know that it is fast, desirable, exclusive, just by looking at it. With the current crop of high powered sedans and SUVs, one would most likely have to explain to the general public what it is capable of, it's price tag, production number, etc. to provoke a possible sense of awe from the public.

 

My opinion is that no variant of a "regular" car is a supercar. Zr1, z06, and 997tt fall into this category. Shelby mustang is a joke to consider a supercar. GTR, DB9, f430, are fast, fun, and pretty but not supercars..

Carrera GT, Koennisegg, Veryron, SLR, Pagani, LFA, Mclaren F1, Enzo, Saleen S7 are all what I consider modern "Supercars"

 

Rudy,

I think you make some very good points. Especially about provoking a sense of "awe" from the general public.

Considering that; I would say that Porsche Turbos/GT2s/GT3s, ZR1s, GT-Rs, M5's/M6's, and Dodge Vipers for example, bring a sense of awe to many people in the general public, depending on the area where they're located.

Sure, in the wealthiest areas of the world, they may not get a second look. But in most areas, where there aren't a lot of exotics on the roads, people get excited over cars such as these. So does that mean they can be considered supercars as well?

 

Honest question: I know all of the others, but what 'regular car' do you believe the GT-R to be a variant of? The only car it comes close to is the R34 Skyline before it (which was certainly not a regular car), but Nissan claims they started with a clean sheet when they built the R35. It's actually not a variant of anything.

Also, I think the GT2 RS and RUF RT12 are definitely supercars, even though they're both variants of the 911. The SLR even though it's based on MB SL series cars. The Superleggera and LP 5XX series cars even though they're based on the regular Gallardo. I also lean heavily towards the regular GT2, GT3RS and ZR1 being supercars as well. I do agree with you on the Shelby, though.