Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys
I was about to make this point, and here Tcoat has helped me out.
While the term "sports car" is actually quite open to debate, an actual GT car has pretty defined parameters. A GT and a sports car both have capable engines, precise steering, 2 doors, and for the sake of argument, drive the rear wheels.
Where the GT differs is that luxury is not compromised in its sportiness. It's a Grand Tourer; capable of allowing the driver to cross the continent without discomfort and offering up the amenities found in actual luxury vehicles, while simultaneously offering up sports car power and handling. I literally did this in my MK3 (Nashville to LA in 30 hours with a friend), and honestly we could've driven an LS400 and probably have been only slightly more comfortable the entire trip.
My point is simply (in the context of this conversation regarding C&D); if it's not a GT, then its just a sports car.
@ Guff Thanks man! I've been lining myself up to buy a twin for a few months now and have started posting around again because of it. |
Valid argument. I don't buy the 'MK3 is but MK4 isn't' notion but that's a moot point... I personally consider a Supra a GT car and consider this:
to be Toyota's "Sports Car" of the 90's with the Celica as the "sporty" car. My only experience with a Supra was a 95' N/A automatic, not exactly the bonafide Supra poster car but the proportions felt like all of 177" (an NSX is 174", a 911 or RX-7 are 168", an Esprit 172", an F355 167", etc.) with it's nose filled with inline 6 goodness... which was ditched in racing for a boosted 4 cylinder, right? Point is, in addition to the stated length, it personally felt like a bigger car to hustle around the corners... but not like a Corvette, now that I think about it.. huh... Anyways... GT or GT sport or Sport.. The Supra/FT-1 is gonna be cool if they deliver on concept!