Nope

 

One of the other factors I left out was craftmanship. Not necessarily quality in a Toyota/JD Power sense of the word, nor technological innovation. Certainly, Porsche has achieved plenty of both. Rather, an exotic should include a large amount of hand assembly for the critical parts and demonstrate an attention to detail in fit and finish.

 

If the 430 and the Gallardo are "exotic," so is the 911. However, I really only think cars like the F/X, Enzo, Veyron, Murcielago, and so on are the true "exotics." The modern 911, 430, and so on are true "sports cars." Exotics are such by their performance capabilities, not marketing tricks, such as badge exclusivity games based on high demand/low supply manipulation of the market. Also don't think that a car from 10-15 or more years ago can be considered an "exotic" anymore. It's vintage and somewhat pathetic to consider it an "exotic." Can I get an amen?

 

Sports cars, super cars and exotics are all different to me. Like I said in the first post, I consider a Bentley to be an exotic. It clearly isn't a sports car though. While it is a sports car (maybe even a supercar), the Nissan Skyline is NOT an exotic.

Regarding vintage cars, you have to judge the car based on it's time of production. I think as you go back in models, the argument for Porsche to be an exotic goes up. If it was an exotic as judged against its peers when originally produced, it should hold that same rank now. Lambo Countach? Ferrari Testarossa? I think those are timeless exotics -- just like the original Porsche turbo's.

 

Here's another needle to throw into the hay stack:

Supercar = exotic?

 

Supercar



SSC Ultimate Aero TT, world's fastest production car with a top speed of 256.15 mph.


Supercar is a term generally used for a high-end sports car, whose performance is highly superior to that of its contemporaries. It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine"[1], and 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 rarified atmosphere of its own."[2] but the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. The use of the term can be dependent on the era; a vehicle that may have been considered a supercar in one decade may not be considered the same in another decade.[citation needed] The term supercar may refer to factory-built, street-legal sports cars.[3] Some supercars include some of the features required for race cars, like the roll cage, [4] while other supercars are in general race cars with only the minimum legal required modifications made (e.g. meeting emission regulations, legal tires, limited exhaust note) to be street legal

 

i would consider these exotic.......yr built not included.

http://www.allfastcars.com/fastestcars.shtml

 

I would generally say NO, all supercars are NOT exotics. In fact, some of the vehicles that can perform on what I consider a supercar level are nothing more than a kit car. I would probably put the SSC in the category of a kit car. It is a supercar, but I don't consider it an exotic. Take a Vette motor, bore it out and put on a SC mated to a light weight chasis and body. It seems more like a successful hobby. The new ZR1 will likely have supercar level performance, but I don't consider it an exotic.

I have a similar complaint with modern Lotus'. They undoubtedly have a rich heritage, offer great performance for their niche, are low production volume and have a certain desireability factor. But, it's got a Toyota motor!

 

You know why it has a Toyota motor? Because Toyota does it better!

Toyota also showed Porsche how to update their assembly process in this modern age.

It's a globalized economy where ideas, parts, most everything is shared.

It's rather insular to cast asperion on the Lotus because it has an awesome motor, no? At least it's got no RMS issues.

I rarely call any car an exotic, but I'm participating in this thread because it's fun to jibber jabber about. It's either a supercar (CGT) or it's not (any Corvette, 911).

The only time i use the word exotic is in describing the look of a woman... exotic looking gal she is e.g.

 

Another possible charcteristic of an exotic - the personality behind the marque.
Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus, Rolls, Bugatti, McLaren, Bentley, Maserati, Aston Martin -- all named for their founders. Men of a special talent who built their dream cars. I can't think of a corporate developed "exotic." Who did I miss and who are the exceptions?

 

Accidently posted this on a different topic instead of this one:

The guys on the Elisetalk forums think their $30K-40K 2005-07 Lotus Elises are exotic cars. For me, an exotic car needs to cost as much as a house. An Aston DBS counts as an exotic. A Bugatti Veyron and Carrera GT are supercars; above and beyond an exotic.

To me, the 911 is just a nice sports GT. Athletic GT.

 

This is purely a thread for interesting banter - no definitive right answer to be found (some are clearly wrong though).

I don't mean to denegrate the Lotus. I like and respect them. It just bugs me that they use that motor. On the other hand, it also makes it a vehicle I'd be more likely to consider owning. Other than tea and leather works, the English offer little.... I'm similarly concerned about Porsche diminishing their brand with increased shared parts, technology and manufacturing. (Full disclosure - I once owned a 914, loved it)
Maybe that should be another characteristic of a TRUE exotic -- economics be damned almost entirely, we build our cars like this and our customers will pay for them!

 

Sports GT? The 911? Don't forget GT = Gran Touring. I don't think of the 911 as a touring car. The 928 was/is a GT.

 

i don't consider the 911 a sports car. i consider a mix of sport and gt. like chrono said a sports gt. the only exception is the gt3. pretty damn sporting... to the point of where you would call it a sports car.

a true sports car to me is a ferrari 360, 430, s2000, boxster S..... no back seats. raw. lotus elise. etc. it's not a neg on the 911 that i don't consider a sports car.

 

928 used to be the Grand Tourer. I believe now the 996-997s have evolved to GT status. Before, the 911, 964, and 993s were a bit more raw. They were in the same league as the Corvette. Simply iconic sports car with raw handling.
Why do I call them GTs, A/C, parking sensor,navigation, bluetooth, full leather interior, alcantera headlineer, etc... They're very lush compared to past 911s.