FRS made top ten daily driver sports cars

[rookietopro_frs]

Happy that it made the list once again, I have so much fun driving my FRS.

[Fenixlongbow]

Kinda surprised that no one has mentioned "drivers car" though i admit thats probably the same as the supercar and hypercar categories.

Is there a universal agreed upon definition? If not then technically its open to everyones point og view or interpretation.

Admittedly i do not classify my 86 as a sport car, but a drivers car. That for me is all about the overall experience and how "connected" you are to car. Raw driving pleasure.

The only 2 other cars i have ever driven that i would classify as a drivers car is the s2000 and the DC2 integra type r.

But thats just my point of view

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

The idea behind minimally modified to be competitive in motorsports suggests that a purpose designed chassis requires fewer changes to actually work well in a competition. Your Coronet as lovely and fast as it is in RT form was not specifically designed with motorsports in mind whatsoever. Same goes with he WRX. True, initially roadsters fit these design goals best since why does a race car need a roof? Answer is that races occasionally take place in the rain (and also drivers like all over protection in a crash.) The definition of Sportcar grew to include coupes and reflect this reality.

I get that this definition doesn't fit everyone's concept. It is imperfect, and I as much stated that (as well as a few other points you still felt the need to attempt to argue for some reason.) Undoubtedly trying to define anything subjective will have holes. The idea is to be as true as possible to the concept. Motorsports car. Sportscar. That is the root of the term. The definition I prefer was conceived by a man who had a deep understanding motorsports, the automobile industry, car culture and language who was in the biz longer than most of us have lived. Not just "some guy who wrote a book." That kind of minimization attempt suggests you got kinda mad or something. Look man, you were disagree with on the internet. Your tone is your prerogative. But come on.

EDIT: Please read later post in conjunction with this.

Please look at the picture closely what are they advertising it doing?
For that matter the T in R/T stands for track.



It was not an attempting to minimize in any way. I have never heard of the guy before and to me he is just some dude who wrote a book. I am not mad in any way the subject matter just makes it appear that way.

[bcj]

Could buy these off the dealers lot.
These and the Coronet are pretty much twins territory in my mind.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Cole

Sure. However, welding a tiny strip of metal in the middle of an exhaust tip doesn't make it a quad exhaust.

Wow you're mentally ill. Every-time I say something you bring up something about my car. Please get help and stop obsessing on me.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

The idea behind minimally modified to be competitive in motorsports suggests that a purpose designed chassis requires fewer changes to actually work well in a competition. Your Coronet as lovely and fast as it is in RT form was not specifically designed with motorsports in mind whatsoever. Same goes with he WRX. True, initially roadsters fit these design goals best since why does a race car need a roof? Answer is that races occasionally take place in the rain (and also drivers like all over protection in a crash.) The definition of Sportcar grew to include coupes and reflect this reality.

I get that this definition doesn't fit everyone's concept. It is imperfect, and I as much stated that (as well as a few other points you still felt the need to attempt to argue for some reason.) Undoubtedly trying to define anything subjective will have holes. The idea is to be as true as possible to the concept. Motorsports car. Sportscar. That is the root of the term. The definition I prefer was conceived by a man who had a deep understanding motorsports, the automobile industry, car culture and language who was in the biz longer than most of us have lived. Not just "some guy who wrote a book." That kind of minimization attempt suggests you got kinda mad or something. Look man, you were disagree with on the internet. Your tone is your prerogative. But come on.

OK I dug a little deeper.
The book was written in 1963. At that point in time I would say his vision of sports cars aligned pretty much with what mine is. Yes some would have been fixed roof but overall he was talking small, light, two seaters not "any" car as the definition states.
It was not until a couple of years after the book was released that things got turned upside down for that definition. The late 60 produced several new classifications of cars that would technically meet his definition but would not be accepted as sports cars. The Mustang, Camaro, and Dart gave use the "Pony" car class. The large coups such as the R/T, Impala SS and Galaxy 428s became factory produced race cars and introduced the "Muscle" car category. Cars such as the Celica, 240Z, and even the much maligned Corvair brought the GT cars into a class in their own right.
By the 1963 definition any of these cars could have been called a "sports" car as they were all production vehicles but I doubt these were what he had in mind when he termed the definition.


This all reflects my frequent comment that the definition has changed many times over the years and there is no "right" answer.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Wow you're mentally ill. Every-time I say something you bring up something about my car. Please get help and stop obsessing on me.

What's obsessive about the comment? I looked at your build thread once and the image of your janky exhaust mods has been forever burnt into my mind

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

EDIT: Please read later post in conjunction with this.

Please look at the picture closely what are they advertising it doing?
For that matter the T in R/T stands for track.

It was not an attempting to minimize in any way. I have never heard of the guy before and to me he is just some dude who wrote a book. I am not mad in any way the subject matter just makes it appear that way.

That's a great old advertisement. My family have always been big into Mopar. So I have some background. So now it's old guys fighting about cars time... R/T = "Road/Track" in Mopar speak, i.e. "sporty for the road", not "competition car." Dodge gave and still gives R/T to many of it's sportier cars, and to most of their muscle cars back in the day. Let's not forget about what the "R" and just mention the "T". Looking at Dodge's lineup over the years and it's clear that serious models were rarely ever given the R/T designation as there were usually models above them in performance. The "T" was a way to get people thinking their car is more capable than it is. Chrysler's naming scheme still works that way today. R/T is sporty, SRT is decidedly more serious.

I know you're aware of this but Muscle cars are well known to be built on repurposed passenger car chassis like the the "B" chassis Coronet. 400bhp for 5000lbs of Chicago steel. An unmodified muscle car is sporty no doubt, but it's no Sportscar. I think Colin Chapman would agree.

You probably also already know this, so it's for anyone that cared to read through this mess. The Coronet had a sister car that was further improved to make it actually suitable for competition. That was the Super Bee (B for "B" chassis).

All in all, it still took a lot of extra hardware to make the Coronet R/T perform and survive in any sort of competition. The SuperBee fixed this. That is things that commonly broke on the muscle car R/T model when pushed hard. Beefier suspension, tires that could actually hold the load, a ram air hood that actually worked, and most importantly an uprated 4 speed manual transmission. The R/T was a muscle car for the street. The SuperBee was meant for the weekend warrior. It sold in very low volumes mostly due to the added cost. In later years the marketing positions for these cars would change. The Coronet would return to it's sedan roots in favor of the sportier Challenger. The Super Bee would be reused as a trim package, but when talking about the Coronet for the purposes of this discussion, I believe the above to be most accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Super_Bee

R/T



Super Bee

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

That's a great old advertisement. My family have always been big into Mopar. So I have some background. So now it's old guys fighting about cars time... R/T = "Road/Track" in Mopar speak, i.e. "sporty for the road", not "competition car." Dodge gave and still gives R/T to many of it's sportier cars, and to most of their muscle cars back in the day. Let's not forget about what the "R" and just mention the "T". Looking at Dodge's lineup over the years and it's clear that serious models were rarely ever given the R/T designation as there were usually models above them in performance. The "T" was a way to get people thinking their car is more capable than it is. Chrysler's naming scheme still works that way today. R/T is sporty, SRT is decidedly more serious.

I know you're aware of this but Muscle cars are well known to be built on repurposed passenger car chassis like the the "B" chassis Coronet. 400bhp for 5000lbs of Chicago steel. An unmodified muscle car is sporty no doubt, but it's no Sportscar. I think Colin Chapman would agree.

You probably also already know this, so it's for anyone that cared to read through this mess. The Coronet had a sister car that was further improved to make it actually suitable for competition. That was the Super Bee (B for "B" chassis).

All in all, it still took a lot of extra hardware to make the Coronet R/T perform and survive in any sort of competition. The SuperBee fixed this. That is things that commonly broke on the muscle car R/T model when pushed hard. Beefier suspension, tires that could actually hold the load, a ram air hood that actually worked, and most importantly an uprated 4 speed manual transmission. The R/T was a muscle car for the street. The SuperBee was meant for the weekend warrior. It sold in very low volumes mostly due to the added cost. In later years the marketing positions for these cars would change. The Coronet would return to it's sedan roots in favor of the sportier Challenger. The Super Bee would be reused as a trim package, but when talking about the Coronet for the purposes of this discussion, I believe the above to be most accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Super_Bee

The R/T was perfectly capable on the drag strip. And as such was designed for competition (when wasn't stated in the original definition by the way).
The R/T was the top level back then.
Ironically you show a 70 Super Bee that is built on exactly the same platform as the R/T. They were the same car with some fancy goodies (tail and gauges) on the Bee. In fact the Bee was the lower performance version of the R/T not the other way around.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1968-...-super-bee.htm

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by bcj

Could buy these off the dealers lot.
These and the Coronet are pretty much twins territory in my mind.

Let's not confuse history. The RoadRunner and Coronet were based off similar platforms, but what you posted was a SuperBird which had so many modifications to try and make up for it's chassis limitations that it was far from a twin to the Coronet R/T.

The Super Bird shard most of it's components with the Dodge Charger Daytona and for the most part used the fenders and hood from the Coronet as well as many shared parts from the Mopar parts bin suitable to the "B" chassis. The iconic SuperBird aero treatment was designed for speedways and fit with the Coronet hood and fenders better. Underneath, the SuperBird had much more in common with the SuperBee that I noted above than any other model Coronet (including the R/T.) Due to the added cost of making the platform actually competitive both Plymouth and Dodge sold so few SuperBirds/Bees that the models only existed for a short time. These were not purpose designed chassis, so they were more suited to the role of muscle car than Sportscar. Indeed, you could order one from any showroom but how else would you get it? I don't really see how that contributes to the differentiation here, but am open to hearing. Remember, the idea behind Stock Car racing was to market regular passenger cars as being capable on the track, but even the Stock cars of the 70's were far removed from their passenger car beginnings, still they had to be publicly available for sale to meet competition eligibility requirements.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The R/T was perfectly capable on the drag strip. And as such was designed for competition (when wasn't stated in the original definition by the way).
The R/T was the top level back then.
Ironically you show a 70 Super Bee that is built on exactly the same platform as the R/T. They were the same car with some fancy goodies (tail and gauges) on the Bee. In fact the Bee was the lower performance version of the R/T not the other way around.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1968-...-super-bee.htm

I don't think drag racing fits into any definition of sportscar including both your preferred (2 door, roadster) and mine (minimal modification) as anything can be a drag car. That's a little pendantic. Let's stick to circuits as sportscars do.

Sorry to say but I think author of the article you're referencing lacks understanding. I guess why he writes for "howstuffworks." and not maybe Allpar.com https://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/super-bee.html

Essentially the R/T was the most luxurious model in the lineup, having amenities like air conditioning, cosmetic aero, etc. The SuperBee as an answer to the RoadRunner stripped out that stuff and beefed up the performance parts (as a more track focused car should.)

Here's a quote from the article and some ad copy:

The 1970 Dodge Super Bee, with a completely new grille, was promoted with an ad featuring **** Landy purportedly saying (in words that sound remarkably like the rest of the ad copy):
[IMG]https://www.allpar.com/photos/dodge/superbee/****-landy.jpg[/IMG]The ’70 Dodge Super Bee was designed to provide a full-sized car with a lot of performance and a minimum of gingerbread. ... that’s why Super Bee’s standard engine is the husky 383-cubic-inch V8 with the heads right off the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BOVZ0IQ"]big 440 Magnum[/ame], which has got to be the hot setup! Super Bee is truly the budget supercar for the man who wants a big-car performance without spending a bundle for it.
The Super Bee I tested had the swingin’ optional Six Pack setup... three mind-blowing two-barrel Holley carbs on a new high-rise manifold, all bolted on the 440 Magnum engine. Biggest problem was getting off the line without smoking it. Feather foot definitely required. The hood has hinges this year, nice when you check the oil, and the scoops feed directly into the Holleys.”

Goofy I know, but it does spell out Dodge's positioning of this particular models' performance.

As we've learned with the shrinking of the "true" Sportscar market, people say they want Sportscars, but actually they really want comfortable, fast performance cars that look like they can run hard on a track.

Here's another quote:

"The Dodge Super Bee was a limited production muscle car from Dodge division produced from 1968–1971. The original Super Bee was based on the Dodge Coronet, a 2-door model only and was produced from 1968–1970. It was Dodge’s low-priced muscle car, the equivalent to Plymouth Road Runner, and was priced at $3,027. Available with Hemi engine, this option increased the price by 33% so only 125 models were sold with this engine option. The Super Bee included a heavy-duty suspension, an optional Mopar A-833 four-speed manual transmission, with high performance tires, and a stripe (with the bee logo) wrapped around the tail. The name "Super Bee" was derived from the "B" Body designation given Chrysler's midsized cars which included the Coronet."

[Tcoat]

The definition has gone from "Any production car that, with minimal modification, can be used competitively in motorsports"


To "certain production cars that are a purpose designed chassis that it does not share with any other vehicle and is used competitively in motor sports but not drag racing since it isn't a real motorsport"


This pretty much narrows things down to what I consider to be sports cars.




For the record I do not now nor have I ever thought an R/T was a sports car. It is just a very good case sample of how the 54 year old definition from the book is meaningless by today's standards and accepted definitions.
Oh, and drag racing is a motorsport the same as any type of racing is. To claim it is not is just plan wrong.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Wow you're mentally ill. Every-time I say something you bring up something about my car. Please get help and stop obsessing on me.

Hey, be nice, @Cole isn't "mentally ill" ........ he just has some psychological challenges he is dealing with .......

I've got to go now ....... off to my quiet place and hummmmm for a while.


humfrz

[bcj]

Was only saying that the birds were specifically made to go racing around an actual track,
and were successful for several years until everyone else told mommy and made them stop.

Race car, but not sport car by any stretch that I can see.

Don't have a dog in that race.
Other than my dad bought a new '70 Coronet with a 318, 2bbl and auto.
What a massive barge, though i did like the front bumper derp eyes.