Competitor? Which competitions are you talking about? Levels of modification are typically determined by class first, then capability. And why doesn't autocross qualify?

If you look around this forum (and it doesn't take much) you can find videos of @CSG Mike, @Dave-ROR, @Trackwarrior, @robispec, @Scoobysouth, @ATL BRZ, @Matt Andrews and MANY others "competing" in various events with various levels of modification to their cars against cars costing 2x & 3x their MSRPs or more (other cars which also require modification to be "competitive" with the much cheaper '86 platform).

My benchmark for a sports car is: Does the car have full alignment capability from the factory?

The Miata does. The S2000 does. Carreras do. The 370Z does not. The Mustang does not. The FRS does not.

The 370Z is a GT. The Mustang is a pony car. The FRS is a sporty coupe.

Not everyone will agree with me. I think the Miata is more of a sports car than a lot of higher powered cars.

lol this thread

The above mentioned will agree with me, that if we were driving the more expensive cars, the majority of them would be faster than our FRS/BRZs...

I wouldn't even dream of taking on a C7 or Boss302 with a competent driver with the FRS, unless it was modified heavily enough that the total cost of car + mods is close to the MSRP of the C7 or Boss 302.

I can see where you're coming from and can respect that POV.

But... question for ya on that as a benchmark...

Pontiac G8. The GXP version, which we unfortunately didn't get a ton of here on this side of the Pacific before Pontiac was shut down, it had fully-adjustable suspension from the factory.

Would you consider that a "sports car"? Or does the 4-door-edness of it remove it from contention?

I don't bring it up to be argumentative. Your criteria is an unusual, albeit somewhat logical one; and that particular feature of the GXP was quite unusual for a vehicle, particularly one of its class, so wondered what effect it may have on your thinking.

So now for a sports car to be a 'sports car' it has to perform well in a sporting event? One that you get to arbitrarily pick I presume -- since undoubtedly the Bentley would perform quite well at any number of events depending on what it was put up against (which is the exact statement that could be made about any vehicle ever made).

Would you like to add any more inane qualifiers to your attempts at classifying vehicles as black or white?

The use of exotic materials does not make something "luxurious". One cannot slap some Magnesium and Carbon Fiber into a car and call it a "luxury" car, if that were the case something like, say, A Koenigsegg Agera would be the most luxurious car in the world. Hint: It's not.

You see, what the manufacturers do is use those exotic materials you suggest, and then put the real luxury features on top of them. Your fancy woods, your nice interiors, your soft-touch surfaces, your leathers, your large seats, your navigation, your LCD screens, electronics, air conditioned massage seats, etc, etc. They use the exotic materials to mitigate the weight of the luxurious features, the exotic materials are, by and large, NOT the features themselves.

Any feature that is "a luxury" is, by definition, one that can be done without (that is what "a luxury" is) and therefore automatically fail your entirely arbitrarily assigned "minimal weight" requirement that a sports car supposedly must meet. Any or all of those features could be removed, the needless weight discarded, and the vehicles performance absolutely improve.

I guess since Ferrari went and proved that you could actually strip whatever little "luxury" features were in an F430 out and turn it into an Scuderia, that now turns the F430 into a "GT" and a Scuderia version a proper "sports car".

For that matter, I guess everything north of a KTM X-Bow, Ariel Atom, or Caparo T1 are all "Touring cars". Everything else isn't quite as "Minimal" as it could be. All that stuff outside of an engine, 4 wheels, and a steering wheel is all "at the expense of performance" therefore excluded from being a sports car. Air conditioning? Parasitic drag, costs performance. An interior? Of any sort? Not needed -- and God forbid if you put one in and use anything but the lightest of materials. Just plain ol' uncovered sheet metal bodystampings on the inside for me -- oh, wait, no -- can't use sheet metal, gotta use unobtainium for the body panels. Actually, come to think of it, body panels keep me from obtaining the mystical "minimum weight"...

Oh guess that's too far. I could just ask DAEMANO. He knows precisely what the "minimum weight" is for all vehicles, including that apparently the 2014 Corvette achieves it and is deserved of its' "sports car" title. Of course GM will undoubtedly release a special version in a couple years with all sorts of weight saving measures because they always do, but let's not let that stop us from saying that the '14 Corvette has most definitely achieved an absolute minimal weight.

Or I could just come to the realization that the world isn't black and white where everything fits into nice, neat little buckets. The world of "sports cars" exists across a continuum of vehicles. From tiny, slow roadsters, to incredibly fast supercars; and from stripped-down vehicles that barely quality as street-legal, to ultra-lux hyper-exotics; and practically infinite variations in between.

It's specific to a trim level, so no, I wouldn't consider it a sports car. Either every trim of a given model has full adjust-ability, or it doesn't. On a side note, I've seen some BADASS sleeper GXPs... although I suppose the whine gives them away at WOT ;)

I realize this is a very black and white definition, and there are exceptions to the rule (e.g. Panamera, FF, some SUVs, etc.)

The exaggerated tone of your response is defensive (at the least) and because of that this will be my final reply to you. I think John Stuart said we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

On the definition of a sports car:
I'll try and explain in another way. Fan is an abbreviation for Fanatic. Sports car is an abbreviation for Motorsports car (which may be what is driving @CSG Mike 's requirement of an adjustable suspension, I don't know this for a fact but you bring up a valid point to him above). I guess there are always exceptions (variety is the spice of life).

The general definition I follow is the one I've read from Paul Frere', Hans Stuck, Csaba Csere, Randy Pobst and many others over the last 30 years I've been a motorsports fan. It is not solely MY definition, but it does make a lot of sense. The Wikipedia definition is very close so I'll just stick to that. It is indeed subjective. The '86 with very minimal modification makes a fine Motorsports car. It was designed with this as a tennat over touring cars like the Gen Coupe, 370z, and any other muscle car. The new Mustang seems to still fall in either of those categories (GT or Muscle car depending on the power train), but it clearly doesn't have the design direction of cars like the '86, Miata, or S2k (which the aforementioned drivers, and writers define as sports cars).

On luxuries:
Luxurious items (fine finishes, stylish accoutrements, comfortable seats, comfort items (like a/c, heated seats, etc). Have become lighter due to technological manufacturing and materials advancements. I have seen many luxurious cabins that didn't have an inch of the wood veneer you mention, (or real chrome, or leather). Improved manufacturing processes have refined materials like cf, aluminum, magnesium, high-tech plastics and fabrics from rough (as in the F40) to very fine. High-end sports cars like the Cayman, R8, and the Alfa 4C make extensive use of these materials to provide a luxury experience in a lightweight package that does not compromise performance to the point where they lose focus and drift off into another performance category.

Thanks for the discussion.

More offensive than defensive on my part... which is probably worse.

I think we actually agree in spirit. My only contention was the focus on the phrase "minimum weight", which unless one follows the argument to the extreme of an Ariel Atom, is ultimately a subjective consideration of an objective measure, based on what particular design goals were in play (i.e. "could this has been realistically made lighter given other considerations", "was this fiddily-bit or feature added seemingly needlessly", etc). I'm pretty sure you don't literally mean that only vehicles of an absolute minimum weight - an engine, 4 wheels, and a seat - should be considered.

My apologies for the tone. If we ever were to cross paths for some reason, I owe ya a drink.

Cheers.

I was really excited that the 2015 mustang may drop 400 pounds but 200 is a bit of a disappointment. I will definately wait to see what 2016 or 17 brings with the gt350, mach I etc. i would not get the first year of this car. I want to see if they get rid of the body roll and the numb steering feel.

Damn it Ford! The 2015 Mustang should be a '66 - '68! It is a smaller car, ya know! Build either McQueen's Bullet or the Gone In Sixty Seconds (remake) Eleanore models and you should be golden. "If you build they will come!"
:burnrubber:

3450-200=3350 and 3500-200=3400?
:slap:

lol, sorry but the R8 is a horrible example. Good luck finding one that weight less than 3600lbs, and most are over 3700-3800lbs. Given it's performance competition includes the 911 and Corvette it is 300-400lbs overweight.

Also, :threadjacked:

The sports car "definition" thread has been done a million times. Let's just let it go.

Back OT, I was pretty excited to hear the Mustang was dropping 400lbs. But just 200lbs? It's good, but nowhere near a game changer. I "might" go test drive a new one when it comes out, but probably won't give it much consideration (whereas previously I may have, if 400lbs was indeed the loss).

Isn't c7 3500 lbs?