Not really. You can get a Cayman for not a whole lot of money that has sharp handling and is fast in a straight line. Or a Carrera S or Carrera 4S. Or a BMW Z4. Or a 350Z, STI, or Corvette. All of these are WELL south of the supercar line.

There's more to a sportscar than just going around a corner fast. If that's all it was then everyone would drive go-carts.

“If you can’t go fast on 90 horsepower, 900 horsepower probably won’t help you.”

Bob Hall...designer of the MX5 Miata

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/mazda-miata/

But if you CAN go fast on 90 horsepower, you can go a lot faster on 300 horsepower. That's driver skill, not car ability. The post I was replying to wasn't addressing driver skill at all, only car ability. It said that to go fast around a corner and in a straight line you had to have a supercar. Which is wrong.

The "I need more power" illness is cured by track time and/or getting your ass whooped by Honda shitboxes in the canyons..

This is the crux of the matter, how do people define 'fast'? How do people define 'sports car'?



[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car"]Sports car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Argue as you wish, it's all semantics and there's no winning on the internet.

Yeah, actually, I really do understand. My last toy was a 350Z, and for a number of years I drove an MR2 turbo, running 15 psi boost.

But I've also owned 2 914s, and '87 MR2, a Midget, a Miata, and other assorted "fun-to-drive" sports cars.

So this time I had to decide whether I wanted a stoplight warrior, or another "fun-to-drive" sports car.

For about the same price as the FR-S, I could have bought a 1-2 year old low-mileage 370Z. "Fun-to-drive" won...no regrets.

Right, not a whole lot of money. Only twice the price of an FR-S.

All a lot more expensive.

Closely priced but sub-par handling, heavy and clunky gearbox. Fast in a straight yes but it sacrifices handling probably due to being on the cheaper side. An FR-S apparently feels more sporty in handling.

Not a sports car

Again, price point.

Go-karts can be insanely fast btw but that's a go-kart, not a car. You can use the same argument and say we should all drive sportbikes. I don't know where you are going with that.

Of the cars you listed, are those supercars? No, I guess not but I question what people really want from the FR-S anyway. To be on the same playing field of most of the cars you listed, you're basically asking the price of the car to double. Then it comes down to, why the hell would anyone buy it at that price when companies like Porsche are already doing it better? It just takes away the prime reason for buying an 86. It's cheap and sporty. Sure many believe it lacks horsepower but the cost cutting has to come from somewhere.

I blame the Germans. They started it. Seriously, alot of us (older middle aged guys) grew up with racing light to light. It was all about traction and weight to HP. Maybe it was easier back then to use larger rear tires and a larger motor and/or FI to increase the HP. Sounded better and possibly easier than dropping alot of weight. The market responds by building larger cars that require alot of HP to appease this older generation. I agree that nimble speed requires very little HP, but alot of HP and torque can be fun.

IMO the HP wars started with platform sharing. If you can develop a single large, expensive engine (that's large enough to also serve as an engine for SUVs, minivans, and sedans), then throw that engine into essentially a sedan platform minus two doors and call it a 400 hp "sports car", why not?

It's by far the cheapest way to develop a 400+ hp coupe, even if it weighs 3500-4000 lbs. The average consumer doesn't really care, aside from complaining about gas prices. But that's an issue to take up with the President right?

I like the horsepower I'm pretty sure I'd have been in a ditch by now if this had too much more.

A MR2 Spyder just won the STR Class at the Mineral Springs Pro Solo. If he is lucky, he might have 160 crank HP. He beat a 370Z, a bunch of s2000s and a bunch of MX-5s. It is not always about HP. Even in autox.

I think it became "all about HP" because most Americans only drive in urban or suburban settings. Sporty driving is beating the guy in the next lane to the next stoplight. Therefore, it cannot be a sports car if a V-6 Camry or V-6 minivan can get to the next light before them. V-8 Pony car or sedan? Forgeddaboudit!

Where I was going with that is that you said:
Or paraphrased, "If you're not satisfied with the power of a BRZ then you don't know what a sports car is and probably shouldn't be driving one."

and,
Basically saying that a normal car can either be fast in a straight line or fast around corners, but only supercars can do both. Which is wrong, as I pointed out with my examples. And price point doesn't matter. A Corvette is not a supercar. Neither is a Cayman. Nor even a Carrera S or Carrera TTS.

Questioning what people want out of the car and saying they probably shouldn't be driving it are two different things.

So? Price was not mentioned in your previous statements. You said that only supercars could go fast around corners and in a straight line. I provided examples to the contrary. When picking my examples, I arbitrarily set the supercar line at $200K, but even that isn't reflective of what is or isn't a supercar. A Ford GT was less than that when it came out, but it is definitely a supercar.


Maybe they didn't like Porsche's reputation for reliability. Or maybe they didn't want to have to drop the entire engine to change the spark plugs. Or maybe they couldn't afford one. But there are people on this forum with BRZs that cost more than $50-60K, which is the price of a Cayman or a Corvette. I don't presume to know their motivations.

It might take away your prime reason for buying one, but maybe not everyone's. And cost cutting was not mentioned anywhere in your assertion that real sports cars only went fast around corners.

http://i1372.photobucket.com/albums/...ps23686088.jpg
I pulled this image from the EPA's annual report on the subject, http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/fetre...ds-archive.htm

Thanks EPA.

I didn't say "only"

It was:

I didn't say "only".

I used Porsche as just one example. Even based on all the examples you provided, it's clear the FT86 would have a lot more competitors.

Of course it's not going to be the same as everyone's. I've seen many examples of people who can clearly afford something more expensive yet they still bought it. However I still believe that price has been a major factor for most people who decided to buy it.

See my quote above. Perhaps subtle but I did mention it.

The one thing I will agree on is that I was wrong in implying that all sports cars are just fast around corners and not in the straights. I just wanted to emphasize that their nimbleness is the selling point and what truly classifies them as sports cars.