Supercars

[the Teuton]

Oh, trust me, I want that 400 hp Prodrive STI whenever it comes out. 3.5 seconds to 60 mph or so -- now that's a supercar.

Okay, time to get back on topic...

[SVT666]

Oh, trust me, I want that 400 hp Prodrive STI whenever it comes out. 3.5 seconds to 60 mph or so -- now that's a supercar.

Okay, time to get back on topic...

I love that Prodrive concept.  Too bad they'll never build it.

[the Teuton]

I love that Prodrive concept.  Too bad they'll never build it.

Different car. They're supposedly planning on coming out with a 400-450 hp version of the hatchback in limited numbers. It should be beastly.

[S204STi]

Post of the month.

+1

[GoCougs]

I don't know, Cougs. Based on its specs, I'd expect it to churn out some gnarly numbers.

I'm not saying otherwise really, just picking and poking at the unrelenting Mustangism.

[sportyaccordy]

I'm not saying otherwise really, just picking and poking at the unrelenting Mustangism.

It was a somewhat weird comment, but it was still relevant. Relatively normal cars of today would wipe the floor with many cars costing more (especially factoring in inflation) from the past in many contests of performance. Does that make them better cars? Not necessarily. But it speaks a lot to the advances in automotive and manufacturing engineering.

[GoCougs]

It was a somewhat weird comment, but it was still relevant. Relatively normal cars of today would wipe the floor with many cars costing more (especially factoring in inflation) from the past in many contests of performance. Does that make them better cars? Not necessarily. But it speaks a lot to the advances in automotive and manufacturing engineering.

True in general, but in specific the Diablo would absolutely murder an '11 Mustang GT - most any road test anyone cares to Google shows 0-60 under 4 sec and 1/4 mile under 12 sec.

[Raza]

The 458 (According to Ferrari) is faster around a track than an Enzo...that's pretty damn good.

The 458 isn't as "cool" (as subjective as that may be) to me as the 430.  The Gated shifter, the simplistic interior, none of the silly looking air intakes, etc.  I think it looks better, and from what I have heard (which as of now is unreliable because of how new it is) is more involving.  That being said, the 458 from a technological standpoint is one hell of a car. 

My dad's friend has an F430 - 6 speed.  He is waiting for his 458 to show up to his front door.  I'll reserve judgment on it's looks until I see it in the flesh. 

I don't care how fast it goes around a track.

There was a time when Ferrari looked at the Porsche 959 and deemed it too much technology for a car like Ferrari.  That's when they made the F40.  That's the Ferrari I want to see again.  Not some poseur bullshit with an automatic transmission and electronics so advanced that they're one step away from autopilot.  That's not Ferrari to me. 

[Raza]

458 performance > Enzo performance
458 price (x3.5) < Enzo price

Granted with that kind of cold hard logic the GT-R could be rationalized, but at the end of the day the 458 is still a Ferrari... and not a weird one like the 408 or F50; it's a true engineering achievement that still screams with passion. I don't know what more you want lol.

If this weren't a Ferrari, it wouldn't get a free pass.  You can't put a horse up front and call it passionate when there's that much computer tech going on.  If anything, I admire the GT-R even more in light of the 458.  I'd like to see these two automatic only, autopilot machines go up against each other. 

[Raza]

This thread has changed what i think of a supercar. IMO the level of supercar has been taken up to the level of pagoni and veyron

I've always considered "supercar" to be the top.  Cars I don't consider supercars, for example:

911, GT3, GT2
430
458
Gallardo
DB9
DBS
V8 Vantage
SL65 AMG

Cars I do:
599
Murcielago
Vanquish
SLS
SLR

Borderline:
R8

Just a few examples. 

[SVT_Power]

so you're saying an R8 is closer to a supercar than a GT2? 

[Raza]

so you're saying an R8 is closer to a supercar than a GT2? 

Yup.

The GT2 is based on a car that isn't a supercar (the 911) and therefore can't be a supercar itself unless you then consider the base 911 a supercar, which I have trouble with for many reasons.  One, it's not expensive enough.  Two, it seats four.  Three, the performance isn't insane enough.  The R8 is a quandary.  It's got a V8 or V10, it's midengined, it's a range topper, and it's not based on a lesser model.  But I'm hesitating on price and competition, as no one really can seem to decide what cars are to be deemed competitors.  Does it really compete with the 911 C4S?  Then definitely not a supercar.  911 Turbo and SLS?  Then it's definitely in the supercar mix. 

The rules may seem silly, but I think we had a thread on this about a year ago and came up with some criteria on what is and isn't considered a supercar.  The GT2 and proposed GT2 RS are interesting cases; they may jump supercar into "hypercar" territory, which, as of now, remains only loosely defined.

[sportyaccordy]

Yup.

The GT2 is based on a car that isn't a supercar (the 911) and therefore can't be a supercar itself unless you then consider the base 911 a supercar, which I have trouble with for many reasons.  One, it's not expensive enough.  Two, it seats four.  Three, the performance isn't insane enough.  The R8 is a quandary.  It's got a V8 or V10, it's midengined, it's a range topper, and it's not based on a lesser model.  But I'm hesitating on price and competition, as no one really can seem to decide what cars are to be deemed competitors.  Does it really compete with the 911 C4S?  Then definitely not a supercar.  911 Turbo and SLS?  Then it's definitely in the supercar mix. 

The rules may seem silly, but I think we had a thread on this about a year ago and came up with some criteria on what is and isn't considered a supercar.  The GT2 and proposed GT2 RS are interesting cases; they may jump supercar into "hypercar" territory, which, as of now, remains only loosely defined.

Razr

If u consider the F40 a supercar u have to consider the GT2 RS a supercar. They're both based on lesser, plebian  sports cars and they're both the fastest things their respective companies have to offer in their respective model years. Being a purist doesn't seem to be much fun if it centers around arguing semantics....

By the same token I would say the Vette ZR-1 is a supercar as well. A bad one, by comparison, but IMO no less outrageous in performance than a Diablo, but for 1/3 the price. IDK. I don't think unobtainability should be a pre-requisite for supercars. In Mark Wan's review of the 360 Modena on Autozine.org, he said that a supercar can be defined as a car in which 100 MPH can be reached in under 10 seconds (which the 360 was able to achieve). I would say that might be lowered to 8 seconds for cars today.

[Raza]

The F40 may have some roots in a lesser car, but that is not the same thing as being a trim level of another car.  It really is like calling the SL65 a supercar.  The GT2 is the same car, same chassis, and same name and shape as the base 911.  Now mind you, you all love to argue semantics with me, as if a classification takes something away from the car.  The same way that being a GT and not a sports car takes nothing away from being a great performing car, being based on a lesser, non-supercar takes nothing away from the car's qualities.  If you Dodge were to take a Caliber SRT-4, drop in a V12, and make it go around the 'Ring in 7 minutes, that's quite an achievement--but that is not a supercar. 

Supercars have to be viewed in only their contemporary periods; you can't say that a car like the F40 or Enzo is no longer a supercar because the 458 is faster around a track.  That's why you can't have set and specific performance-based statistics to define a supercar, because technology evolves over time and creates faster cars.  It's not a valid metric for defining a supercar. 

[ChrisV]

Raza, the R8 and the Gallardo are the same car. If one is, both are. If one isn't, neither are. A super car doesn't have to be the range topper, if a company ONLY makes supercars. It's like saying the Ghost isn't a luxury car because Rolls also makes the Phantom.

You're right about only comparing them to their era, however.

Supercars should be the passion of one person or a small group of people, and not committee designed, bean counter engineered compromises. Supercars probably shouldn't have the word practical in any dictionary associated with them, unless preceeded by the word "not." They shoud be outrageous/excessive for their time, and should inspire irrational passion in the viewer, and should NOT be attainable easily by the average person (not saying they need to be expensive, however. But if they are inexpensive, they need to have taken much sweat equity to possess/create).

And ignoring them/discounting them to concentrate on "attainable" cars is like saying "I'll never look at art because I can only afford a velvet dogs-playing-cards." Or saying "I'll never appreciate a Frank Lloyd Wright building because I can only afford a double wide." I can't afford supercars, either, but they are still the inspiration for the passion for performance cars.

[Raza]

Raza, the R8 and the Gallardo are the same car. If one is, both are. If one isn't, neither are. A super car doesn't have to be the range topper, if a company ONLY makes supercars. It's like saying the Ghost isn't a luxury car because Rolls also makes the Phantom.

You're right about only comparing them to their era, however.

Supercars should be the passion of one person or a small group of people, and not committee designed, bean counter engineered compromises. Supercars probably shouldn't have the word practical in any dictionary associated with them, unless preceeded by the word "not." They shoud be outrageous/excessive for their time, and should inspire irrational passion in the viewer, and should NOT be attainable easily by the average person (not saying they need to be expensive, however. But if they are inexpensive, they need to have taken much sweat equity to possess/create).

And ignoring them/discounting them to concentrate on "attainable" cars is like saying "I'll never look at art because I can only afford a velvet dogs-playing-cards." Or saying "I'll never appreciate a Frank Lloyd Wright building because I can only afford a double wide." I can't afford supercars, either, but they are still the inspiration for the passion for performance cars.

If they are indeed the same car (though I think that's not totally accurate, I know there are shared aspects of the design and much of the chassis is shared) then I have to say no. 

However, I stand by my ranger topper argument.  The Rolls Royce comparison is not apt in my eyes, since luxury isn't defined by being the top, whereas the term "super" in supercar implies that there is nothing above it:

?adjective
6. of the highest degree, power, etc.

Whereas luxury isn't defined by being above anything else, but simply affording the unnecessary.

[ChrisV]

However, I stand by my ranger topper argument.  The Rolls Royce comparison is not apt in my eyes, since luxury isn't defined by being the top, whereas the term "super" in supercar implies that there is nothing above it:

In that case, there can be only one "supercar" at any given time: whichever car is the top. Not one from each manufacturer, but only one, period. And even if you say only one from each manufacturer, then you have to discount versions of a single model, too. Not all Murceilagos can be supercars, only the top version. Not all F40s could be supercars, only the LM version. Not all McLaren F1s were supercars, only the LM version, etc. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that.

A Gallardo Superleggera is as much a supercar as a Ford GT or even it's own bigger brother, the Murcie.

[Raza]

In that case, there can be only one "supercar" at any given time: whichever car is the top. Not one from each manufacturer, but only one, period. And even if you say only one from each manufacturer, then you have to discount versions of a single model, too. Not all Murceilagos can be supercars, only the top version. Not all F40s could be supercars, only the LM version. Not all McLaren F1s were supercars, only the LM version, etc. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that.

A Gallardo Superleggera is as much a supercar as a Ford GT or even it's own bigger brother, the Murcie.

Now you're taking to the extreme just to be a bit silly.  A supercar is the best that any manufacturer can do, and when viewed in comparison to similar models, it must be competitive.  It's why the Murcielago is a supercar and the Hyundai Genesis is not.  Porsche, for example, has a range topper, the GT2.  Yet, it's not a supercar, and the Carrera GT was.  So in my eyes, currently, Porsche has no supercar.  Again, that takes nothing from the cars, but I don't think any of them fall into that category.  If a car company can do better and has proven that they can do better by putting a model out, I'm not sure how anything that falls short can be considered "super-".

The Gallardo is clearly not the best Lamborghini can do because there is a car above it, the Murcielago, which is the best that they can do.  Now, yes, they did tweak it to make the cars even better, like the LP640, the Reventon, and the like, but I don't think those trim levels of the top car take anything away from them because they did come out afterwards.  Were it other way around, were the LP640, for example, a decontented, lower price version of the Reventon, then its status would be in doubt.

Mind you though, "supercar" is free to be interpreted however you like, as it is loosely and vaguely defined (as opposed to sedan, coupe, wagon, et al), so this is just my view of it.  I don't mean it to be gospel, it's just how I see it.  

[SVT666]

If all a car company makes are supercars, then they're all supercars.

[Eye of the Tiger]

If all a car company makes are supercars, then they're all supercars.

Yeah, but if a supercar company makes a car, is it always a supercar?

[Raza]

If all a car company makes are supercars, then they're all supercars.

I'm sorry, I disagree.  More than one car cannot be the best they can be.  It cannot be super if there is one above. 

[SVT666]

I'm sorry, I disagree.  More than one car cannot be the best they can be.  It cannot be super if there is one above. 

A 599GTB is every bit a supercar as the 458.  It's nearly as fast, if not just as fast, but has a totally different drivetrain layout.  It's a completely different car, but it's definitely a supercar.

[SVT666]

Yeah, but if a supercar company makes a car, is it always a supercar?

No.  Porsche has proven that with the Cayenne, Boxster, Cayman, and Panamera.  But if all they make are supercars, like Lamborghini, then they're supercars.

[Raza]

A 599GTB is every bit a supercar as the 458.  It's nearly as fast, if not just as fast, but has a totally different drivetrain layout.  It's a completely different car, but it's definitely a supercar.

And yet, Ferrari's pricing scheme says the 599 is better than the 458.  Therefore, the 458 is not a supercar.

[the Teuton]

The 458 is the entry level Ferrari, discounting Maserati or the old adage that the entry level Ferrari is a used Ferrari.

[Raza]

The 458 is the entry level Ferrari, discounting Maserati or the old adage that the entry level Ferrari is a used Ferrari.

Precisely.  Entry level can never be super.  To tweak Chris's analogy a bit, it's like saying the Mercedes C class is on the same level as the S class because they're both luxury cars made by the same manufacturer, and the materials, engine, chassis, and technology don't separate them. 

[BimmerM3]

Isn't the California the entry level Ferrari?

[Raza]

Isn't the California the entry level Ferrari?

Oh yes.  Still doesn't make the 458 a supercar.

[the Teuton]

A supercar should be something you don't see every day. I've seen more Gallardos out here than I have Corvettes lately. But I have never seen a Murcielago out here.

There's an exclusivity factor, as well as a performance factor, that's needed.

[Cookie Monster]

A supercar should be something you don't see every day. I've seen more Gallardos out here than I have Corvettes lately. But I have never seen a Murcielago out here.

There's an exclusivity factor, as well as a performance factor, that's needed.

I haven't seen a Mitsubishi in a long time, does that make them supercars?