BMW M6

[Raza]

The SSR might possibly be a sports car by deffinition, but to most car enthusiasts, the SSR is a slow, heavy, poor-handling truck that has been lowered 6 inches with the roof chopped off and the bed covered.

Exactly. The same way a 350Z, 911, or Corvette could be considered a sports car by enthusiasts while a 50-year-old definition says that they are not.

The Corvette is a sports car.  The Z06 is not.  Remember, a targa, like the Elise, is an open top, and therefore falls into the category of a sports car.

The SSR has a bed, like a pickup truck.  Therefore, it is indeed a pickup truck and probably is designed for pulling or hauling loads.  By your definitions, the Lightning and Ram SRT10 are both sports cars.

[giant_mtb]

I consider the Lightning and SRT10 to be sport trucks, not sports cars.

[TBR]

I am still trying to find out why a convertible top makes cars sportier.    

[TBR]

Also, the SSR doesn't have a bed, it has a large, enclosed trunk. I don't believe the lid is even removable.  

[Raza]

The SSR might possibly be a sports car by deffinition, but to most car enthusiasts, the SSR is a slow, heavy, poor-handling truck that has been lowered 6 inches with the roof chopped off and the bed covered.

Exactly. The same way a 350Z, 911, or Corvette could be considered a sports car by enthusiasts while a 50-year-old definition says that they are not.

Yeah...350Z, 911, and Vette are deffinitely sports cars, no doubt.  What deffinition says they aren't?

Raza.  

Fifth Gear defines a sports car as a 2 seat, 2 door, rwd car with a manual transmission and an open top.

That one?  Well then what would a 911, Z, or Vette be?    They aren't supercars, exotics, or musclecars (though the Vette could be)...that deffinition isn't very good.

A Vette is a sports car, I used it as an example several times.  The 911 (which has 4 seats) is a GT and the 350Z (which has a fixed roof) is a GT as well.  You can get iffy on the 350Z roadster, which by some definitions would be a sports car and by some it wouldn't.  Some say no coupe based roadsters (as in this model) and some say as long as it's an open top.  I tend to fall into the "designed as an open top" crowd, but it could go either way, depending on whether they designed the cars simultaneously or not.  But since the coupe came out first, it might still be considered a GT.  

[Raza]

I consider the Lightning and SRT10 to be sport trucks, not sports cars.

Which they are.  You would be correct.

[giant_mtb]

I thought a GT was a coupe with 4 seats...?  Hmm I'm all confused.  Or is that a 2+2?  :blink:  

[TBR]

The SSR might possibly be a sports car by deffinition, but to most car enthusiasts, the SSR is a slow, heavy, poor-handling truck that has been lowered 6 inches with the roof chopped off and the bed covered.

Exactly. The same way a 350Z, 911, or Corvette could be considered a sports car by enthusiasts while a 50-year-old definition says that they are not.

Yeah...350Z, 911, and Vette are deffinitely sports cars, no doubt.  What deffinition says they aren't?

Raza.  

Fifth Gear defines a sports car as a 2 seat, 2 door, rwd car with a manual transmission and an open top.

That one?  Well then what would a 911, Z, or Vette be?    They aren't supercars, exotics, or musclecars (though the Vette could be)...that deffinition isn't very good.

A Vette is a sports car, I used it as an example several times.  The 911 (which has 4 seats) is a GT and the 350Z (which has a fixed roof) is a GT as well.  You can get iffy on the 350Z roadster, which by some definitions would be a sports car and by some it wouldn't.  Some say no coupe based roadsters (as in this model) and some say as long as it's an open top.  I tend to fall into the "designed as an open top" crowd, but it could go either way, depending on whether they designed the cars simultaneously or not.  But since the coupe came out first, it might still be considered a GT.

Proving my earlier post regarding pompous and arrogant behavior, are you? You act like you have already won the debate and are just explaining how it works. Well, you're out numbered here wildly and the debate is still alive and kicking.  

[Raza]

One of the dangers of knowing everything is being called a know it all.

The SSR is listed as a truck on Chevy's website, and the bed cover is removeable.  

[Raza]

I thought a GT was a coupe with 4 seats...?  Hmm I'm all confused.  Or is that a 2+2?  :blink:

A GT is a 2 door, 2 or 4 (2+2 as well) seat, RWD or AWD car with a fixed roof or an AWD open top car that fits all other qualifications

[TBR]

One of the dangers of knowing everything is being called a know it all.

The SSR is listed as a truck on Chevy's website, and the bed cover is removeable.

Is it any easier to remove than the typical trunk lid? Probably not. It certainly was designed to be left on the vehicle most of the time.  

[ifcar]

The SSR might possibly be a sports car by deffinition, but to most car enthusiasts, the SSR is a slow, heavy, poor-handling truck that has been lowered 6 inches with the roof chopped off and the bed covered.

Exactly. The same way a 350Z, 911, or Corvette could be considered a sports car by enthusiasts while a 50-year-old definition says that they are not.

The Corvette is a sports car.  The Z06 is not.  Remember, a targa, like the Elise, is an open top, and therefore falls into the category of a sports car.

The SSR has a bed, like a pickup truck.  Therefore, it is indeed a pickup truck and probably is designed for pulling or hauling loads.  By your definitions, the Lightning and Ram SRT10 are both sports cars.

The SSR is rated for "light" trailer duty, the same rating as a Passat. It certainly was not designed with hauling in mind.

And I'm not trying to create any definitions here, I'm trying to show why there shouldn't be any. Too many exceptions, not the least of which being the fact that an SSR fits into your definition while a Corvette Z06 does not.

My point is that there should not be such rigid rules as to what makes a "sports car" and what doesn't, and that even the basic guidelines have been updated in the minds of essentially everyone but yourself.

[giant_mtb]

I thought a GT was a coupe with 4 seats...?  Hmm I'm all confused.  Or is that a 2+2?  :blink:

A GT is a 2 door, 2 or 4 (2+2 as well) seat, RWD or AWD car with a fixed roof or an AWD open top car that fits all other qualifications

Thank you for clarifying. ^_^

[Raza]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?  

[TBR]

I thought a GT was a coupe with 4 seats...?  Hmm I'm all confused.  Or is that a 2+2?  :blink:

A GT is a 2 door, 2 or 4 (2+2 as well) seat, RWD or AWD car with a fixed roof or an AWD open top car that fits all other qualifications

Thank you for clarifying. ^_^

Quit encouraging him!

[TBR]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

No, the problem is that your definition is wrong and pretty much everyone on here agrees that it is wrong. Let me ask you once again, what is it about a convertible top that makes a car more sporty?

[Raza]

If, if you've got a grudge with definitions, you might want to call up Webster's and Oxford and tell them to get a fire going...they've got some burning to do.  

[Raza]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

No, the problem is that your definition is wrong and pretty much everyone on here agrees. Let me ask you once again, what is it about a convertible top that makes a car more sporty?

My definition is correct.

And nothing, necessarily.  It's just a name--things are named and we associated things with them.  There are plenty of sedans (3 series, S4, C55, et al) that are car sportier than several coupes (Eclipse, Sebring, Grand Am).  However, that does not make them coupes.  

[giant_mtb]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

I consider a Blazer an SUV.

[Raza]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

I consider a Blazer an SUV.

I use the terms interchangeably.  The SUV was created by putting a roof on a pickup truck.  So, in essence call it a truck is nonspecific compared to calling it an SUV.  It's like saying "car" instead of "sedan".

[TBR]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

No, the problem is that your definition is wrong and pretty much everyone on here agrees. Let me ask you once again, what is it about a convertible top that makes a car more sporty?

My definition is correct.

And nothing, necessarily.  It's just a name--things are named and we associated things with them.  There are plenty of sedans (3 series, S4, C55, et al) that are car sportier than several coupes (Eclipse, Sebring, Grand Am).  However, that does not make them coupes.

Why is it correct? Because you say so? You know I used to like you, but in this debate you have proven yourself to be just as pompous and arrogant as ChrisV.

And, I ask you once again, what is it about a convertible top that makes cars more sporty? Just answer the question!  

[ifcar]

If, if you've got a grudge with definitions, you might want to call up Webster's and Oxford and tell them to get a fire going...they've got some burning to do.

If that's the best response you can come up with, I suppose I already won.    

[giant_mtb]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

I consider a Blazer an SUV.

I use the terms interchangeably.  The SUV was created by putting a roof on a pickup truck.  So, in essence call it a truck is nonspecific compared to calling it an SUV.  It's like saying "car" instead of "sedan".

That makes sense.

[Raza]

You see, herein lies the problem.  The Z06 does not fit the qualifications of my definition.  Neither does the SSR.  Only in your perception do you think it does. Again, I ask you, is a two door Blazer a coupe?  Or a two door truck?

No, the problem is that your definition is wrong and pretty much everyone on here agrees. Let me ask you once again, what is it about a convertible top that makes a car more sporty?

My definition is correct.

And nothing, necessarily.  It's just a name--things are named and we associated things with them.  There are plenty of sedans (3 series, S4, C55, et al) that are car sportier than several coupes (Eclipse, Sebring, Grand Am).  However, that does not make them coupes.

Why is it correct? Because you say so? You know I used to like you, but in this debate you have proven yourself to be just as pompous and arrogant as ChrisV.

And, I ask you once again, what is it about a convertible top that makes cars more sporty? Just answer the question!

I'm not being pompous (I am though, often arrogant).  But the thing is that this is what I've heard and read from several respectable sources.  

What about "respecting each others' beliefs"?

What makes it sportier?  The experience.  There's nothing like a convertible or open top car, not windows, nor sunroofs can make up for having the roof put behind you.  Therein lies the point--it's not sportier, it's about the experience.  A GT can be as sporty or sportier than a sports car, as a sedan can be sportier than a coupe.  That doesn't make a GT a sports car as much as it doesn't make a sedan a coupe.  

And I'm not the one that's resorted to insults, Tim.

[Raza]

If, if you've got a grudge with definitions, you might want to call up Webster's and Oxford and tell them to get a fire going...they've got some burning to do.

If that's the best response you can come up with, I suppose I already won.  

I had a serious response earlier.

Definitions exist to give things an finite description.  Saying a car is a GT and not a sports car is not an insult, it's simply calling a dog a dog and a cat a cat.  A dog is not a cat, and a cat is not a dog.  That doesn't mean either one isn't possibly a good and viable pet, it just means a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog.

[Raghavan]

Raza, you're living in the old days. why is a miata or mr-2 considered sports cars when 911's and other so called 'GT's' are sportier in almost every single way?
you're living in the past, raza.

[ifcar]

If, if you've got a grudge with definitions, you might want to call up Webster's and Oxford and tell them to get a fire going...they've got some burning to do.

If that's the best response you can come up with, I suppose I already won.  

I had a serious response earlier.

Definitions exist to give things an finite description.  Saying a car is a GT and not a sports car is not an insult, it's simply calling a dog a dog and a cat a cat.  A dog is not a cat, and a cat is not a dog.  That doesn't mean either one isn't possibly a good and viable pet, it just means a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog.

But your definition, simply put, is no longer accurate. In fact, I believe you've found the only remaining source that has not updated its definition.

In short, your definition here would be the equivalent of calling a neutered dog by a different name as one that was left...intact, and criticizing anyone who dared to call them both dogs.

[TBR]

By delaying your reply to a very simple question you were insulting me, if not directly.

You are allowed your own opinions and beliefs if you don't attempt to impose them on others, that is what you have been doing this thread. I don't care what you consider to be a sports car, but don't tell me that my considerations are incorrect.

The elements that make a sports car a sports car should be ones that actually make a car more sporty, not ones that optimize the experience.  

[giant_mtb]

I say we (you) stop arguing about it.  

[Raza]

By delaying your reply to a very simple question you were insulting me, if not directly.

You are allowed your own opinions and beliefs if you don't attempt to impose them on others, that is what you have been doing this thread. I don't care what you consider to be a sports car, but don't tell me that my considerations are incorrect.

The elements that make a sports car a sports car should be ones that actually make a car more sporty, not ones that optimize the experience.

No, that's not the point of a definition.  A sports car is supposed to be about the experience.

So should the Miata not be considered a sports car since the 911 is sportier?  No, that doesn't make sense either.  I didn't make the definition, I'm just sticking to it.

And how is trying to ask you whether your question is relevant or not an insult?  I made an analogy answering your question.