Sports cars: a mid-market hole?
 

There have been a lot of complaints that a modestly boosted BRZ STI at say $32-34k US would be too expensive and that there are other more desirable coupe sportscar options at that price tier. But what are these? Leaving aside buying used, in my comparative shopping I'm seeing a big price gap between the twins / Miata and the next level up (I am ignoring the 370Z here as it's more of a Japanese muscle car, does poorly in comparative reviews, and is teetering on its last legs before a re-do).

Here in Canada you have in the next tier (all prices CAD):

1. base C7 at $53k (a big price drop from the C6 but still almost twice the price of the BRZ)

2. base Cayman at $59k

3. base Z4 at $53k

4. TT coupe at $49k

These are all very large price jumps up from the twins. The only thing somewhat related in the $35-40k window is the Golf R at $40k (!!), but of course it's not really a sports car. There appears to be a huge hole in the sportscar market that some smart car maker should take advantage of.

i think that by the time people can afford more than a 25k car, they are more pulled towards the grand touring type or at the very least expect more luxuries than what a pure sports car would provide. expensive sports cars (that dont have their names carved in stone on the automotive landscape) usually do well for a while but everyone who wants one and can afford one has already bought one soon after the release and then the cars go by the wayside.

Gen Coupe V6, V8 Stangs and Camaros. That's what I consider the next tier up, along with the 370Z you discounted.

Essentially you're right though; the "affordable" "sports" cars range from the mid-20s to the mid 30s with the next real tier starting in the high 40s to 50s and into the 60s. As you move up market you get more "car" for the money: something that has the possibility to be versatile (read: not always stiff) or perhaps less versatile (more track focused), more liveable (posher interior, sound deadening, etc.), brand/badge recognition, and most importantly MORE powerful.

I think most things you're going to find in the 40s range are going to be GT cars with bigger engines to carry that heft and "prestige" you don't get with a $25K car. Imagine if you tried to balance power, fun, liveability, trackability, etc. and you get a jack-of-all-trades master-of-none kind of car. That works for most people, but others are looking for a niche vehicle. True sports cars are a niche market and they are priced like so; which is where we return to the businessman's sports car...the GT car that has more mass appeal and makes easier sales.

That mid-market hole is why I'm driving an FR-S. There's really nothing as lightweight or responsive until you hit Cayman territory.

If you're willing to buy used, the Cayman S and Lotus Elise would fit the bill nicely.

It's more of a internal problem with Subaru. Pricing it at 32-34k would eat into sales of the WRX STI.

But if they plan on making the next WRX STI into a bargain GTR-killer out the box and price it in the mid 40k range, then they should be fine.

I feel like there might be a market for something like the sw20 mr2, which would be lighter than an frs in the modern day. The 370z is what I think of as the closest thing from a high up perspective, since it's supposed to be a serious sports car in some sense with good acceleration but with a reasonable amount of space. A mid engined car that looks sexy, is lightweight (like 23-2400lbs) but not so tiny you can't put groceries in it without a struggle, a reasonable 180hp or something to make it S2000 fast is totally doable. I'm basically describing a Celica gts with more safety to meet regulation, chopped rear seats and length for 100 pounds weight saving and the engine in the back. Give it more horsepower and it'll have the street cred to sell at 30k.

There's a reason low-priced RMR cars don't exist anymore.

What about mid priced? The MR2s sold at a premium considering the hardware they packed but the absolute cost was pretty low.

Let me amend that; there's a reason there's no MR2 on sale anymore.

I think most people classify the muscle cars and grand tourers as sports cars, so the only hole is really visible to enthusiasts that want a particular type of vehicle that has certain specifications.

Mk3 didn't sell well but that was for a good reason: practicality. The previous 2 generations had decent luggage space for a sports car and the 3rd gen would too if it weren't a stupid soft top.

Yes, 3rd generation was an abject failure due to the trunk space. RMR cars are difficult to work on; the maintenance on them will always cost more simply due to labor. That's another reason you don't see an entry level RMR...people looking at entry level sports cars are NOT looking for expensive maintenance and usually can't afford it anyway.

3rd gen MR2 was also a failure because it was freaking HIDEOUS. I would have bought one if they hadn't been so damned hard to look at. How they managed to make a small roadster look so boring and slab-sided is beyond me. About as sexy a shape as a bar of Dial soap...

I think the main problems with the looks were the crappy headlamps and ugly fenders. If they made it a hardtop there would at least be conveniently accessible space behind the seats for small baggage. Maintenance is not that bad though, the one thing that is hard to get to in the engine bay is the throttle body, the rest is okay. The car could use a few inches at the end for aero and decramping things imo, plus it would look better.