Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganthrithor
I don't think you can call a car a sports car based on absolute performance stats. Personally I think the term "sports car" should refer to a car that prioritizes involving the driver in the act of performance driving. I don't think they have to be high-performance cars-- although they certainly can be-- but I do think that big cars which abstract the driving experience through layers of computerization should be considered sports cars.
That's just me though-- I'm that guy who doesn't "get" GT-Rs, etc. When I think sports car I think Miata, Elise (and other small British roadsters), pre-GT car 911s, 914s, RX-7/8s, S2ks, the twins, etc: all cars that were reasonably small, sporty, and provided a pretty pure driving experience. Some of these were fast cars and some were slow cars, but they all focused primarily on driving as an activity as opposed to pure performance.
I don't really know what to call the Camaro. The obvious category is "muscle car" but from what I've seen / read they apparently handle quite well (albeit through the use of tons of clever electronics). I'd say its too big, heavy, and computerized to be a sports car, too unrefined to make a good GT car, and too refined to be a classical muscle car. Idk, it's a mystery.
Just my 0.02 filthy American dollars.
|
I'm just bored at work so I'll just continue with this discussion even though I don't think I have a real point nor do I necessarily disagree with you. Let's throw in two additional ambiguous/subjective terms we all like to use to try to add to the confusion. The twins are sometimes called "driver's cars" or "fun cars". Although I haven't sat it a new Camaro, it would be hard to say it isn't a "fun car" but might be an easier argument to say it isn't a "driver's car" due to bad visibility, numb feeling (making this up), heaviness, etc. But since the 3 terms aren't mutually exclusive, it really doesn't make a difference. See I told you I don't have a point. My only point maybe is that going a 1/4 mile really fast can be very fun (and for some never gets old) and even sporty by some estimates. Plus the exhaust note coming from a big displacement American muscle engine is pretty badass (one common trait of a sports car).
How can you say the GT-R's, Evo's, and STIs aren't sport cars? They're fun, sporty, and driver's cars (not to mention insanely fast). I feel one relevant analogy can be found in the camera world. Shooting in full auto mode with a full-frame DSLR like a 5D Mark III can yield you very good results even though you may not necessarily be a good photographer. A good photographer, like Ansel Adams, can get you just as nice of a photo with a fully manual film camera (using deep expertise & experience about lighting, white balance, composure, focal lengths, aperture, ISO, etc) where you have to manually make all the settings yourself. Your definition of sport cars is comparable to a full manual film camera, but when the best digital DSLRs can do a better job much faster and cheaper using computers. (I'm sure there are similar analogies in the music industry between digital vs vacuum-tube amps, etc.)
End points: Be happy that we're so lucky to have such a diverse selection of so many good cars to choose from. Don't worry about categorizing stuff. Don't hate on the guys picking the Camaros and Mustangs (although I would never in a million years get one of those - I would probably get a Corvette though).