evo Analogue Supercar test- F1, F40, F50, Noble, Carrera GT, Murci, Zonda...

[SVT666]

Just as I thought.  You have no idea.

[Raza]

The GT fits the bill of a supercar perfectly.  Low and wide, 200mph+ top speed, 6 figure price tag, mid engine.  I'd be thrilled to have one over most cars in this group. 

[veeman]

this argument is futile.  i don't think there is a strict definition of "supercar" which is held standard by automotive journalists/publications. 

not that wikipedia is an automotive authority but it's usually pretty accurate:

"A supercar is a very expensive and fast sports car.[1][2] Supercars are marketed by automakers as unusual and include limited production specials from an "elite" automaker, standard-looking cars modified for power and performance, as well as models that appeal to enthusiasts from smaller manufacturers.[3]
"Supercar" is also a label custom car retrofitters reserve for their showcase, one-of-a-kind project vehicles; typically these are very extensively modified collectible muscle cars, sports cars or grand touring automobiles updated to the very latest "streetable" racing technology.[4][5]"

[12,000 RPM]

A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar.  A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.

[Galaxy]

A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar.  A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.

Allright, but if a supercar gets spanked by a car made from mass production parts, is it really a supercar?

[Raza]

this argument is futile.  i don't think there is a strict definition of "supercar" which is held standard by automotive journalists/publications. 

not that wikipedia is an automotive authority but it's usually pretty accurate:

"A supercar is a very expensive and fast sports car.

That just ruled out most of the cars in this test.

[SVT666]

A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar.  A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.

What the fuck are you talking about?  The only part on the GT that is shared with any other Ford vehicle is the block design.  It's not even made from the same material. 

[GoCougs]

this argument is futile.  i don't think there is a strict definition of "supercar" which is held standard by automotive journalists/publications. 

not that wikipedia is an automotive authority but it's usually pretty accurate:

"A supercar is a very expensive and fast sports car.[1][2] Supercars are marketed by automakers as unusual and include limited production specials from an "elite" automaker, standard-looking cars modified for power and performance, as well as models that appeal to enthusiasts from smaller manufacturers.[3]
"Supercar" is also a label custom car retrofitters reserve for their showcase, one-of-a-kind project vehicles; typically these are very extensively modified collectible muscle cars, sports cars or grand touring automobiles updated to the very latest "streetable" racing technology.[4][5]"

A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar.  A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.

Ford GT just didn't have the tech of they day. Carbon fiber use in any meaningful manner? Nope. High winding N/A V10 or V12 motor? Nope. Any sort of ultra slick tech like the magnetic shocks? Nope.

There were/are very few super cars. Ford GT was not, is not, nor will ever be one of them.

[hotrodalex]

Why do supercars have to have special tech? Why do they have to have a V10 or V12? Why do they have to use carbon fiber? (Ferrari is getting away from carbon fiber right now, does that mean their cars will no longer be supercars?)

[SVT666]

Why do supercars have to have special tech? Why do they have to have a V10 or V12? Why do they have to use carbon fiber? (Ferrari is getting away from carbon fiber right now, does that mean their cars will no longer be supercars?)

F40 used a twin turbo V8 so it can't be a supercar either. 

[SVT666]

Ford GT just didn't have the tech of they day. Carbon fiber use in any meaningful manner? Nope. High winding N/A V10 or V12 motor? Nope. Any sort of ultra slick tech like the magnetic shocks? Nope.

There were/are very few super cars. Ford GT was not, is not, nor will ever be one of them.

Cougs, your trolling is well below par in this thread.

[MX793]

A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar.  A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.

What, outside of the engine and maybe some switchgear, was "mass-produced" about the GT?  It was hardly a parts bin car.

If a supercar can't use any mass produced parts, or modified mass produced parts, there pretty much are no supercars.  Even if you limit it to major subsystems like engines and transmission, you eliminate the vast majority of cars from the category.

Your criteria rules out everything Noble has ever made as a supercar.  They use modified versions of other companies' mass produced motors in all of their cars (Ford Duratec V6s in everything up to the M600 and a Volvo V8 in the 600).  Also rules out the Saleen S7, Audi R8, Lambo Gallardo, Pagani Zonda, the original Koenigsegg CC8S, Spyker C8, and even the McLaren F1 (its engine was just an upgraded version of the mass-produced M70 used in the 7- and 8-series).

[12,000 RPM]

Allright, but if a supercar gets spanked by a car made from mass production parts, is it really a supercar?

Sure.... any yutz with a GT-R and a checkbook can build something that will spank anything but a Veyron. A lot of the early supercars were really bad to drive. Still supercars though.

[GoCougs]

Why do supercars have to have special tech? Why do they have to have a V10 or V12? Why do they have to use carbon fiber? (Ferrari is getting away from carbon fiber right now, does that mean their cars will no longer be supercars?)

How can they be "super" without being, um, super? The VERY few super cars of any particular day have a certain tech (and price) level. In ~2005 that was lots of carbon fiber, V10 or V12 engine, space frame chassis, and DSG tranny. If said car didn't have at least some of these things, in addition to huge performance and huge price tag, by definition it wasn't a super car of the time. In 2005, only the Carerra GT, 599GTB, Enzo, Murciélago and some of the boutique novelties (Maserati MC12, McLaren SLR, etc.) were super cars. Some argument can be made for the Gallardo and F430 but that's a tough one for that would almost qualify the Z06 and Viper as super cars too (which they decidedly are NOT).

[hotrodalex]

This is a stupid argument over semantics.

[GoCougs]

This is a stupid argument over semantics.

Because you and SVT666 lost ?

[hotrodalex]

Lost what? I wasn't aware I had even picked sides. I just questioned your definition of a super car and why it has to have certain things, since we already knew SVT's definition.

Either way, putting cars into categories is something losers with no life do. Ford GT is a cool car, Ferrari F40 is a cool car, etc. No need to go all "Sports car vs. GT" on this.

[SVT666]

Because you and SVT666 lost ?

You are a fool and you prove it every time you post in this thread.

[Raza]

Lost what? I wasn't aware I had even picked sides. I just questioned your definition of a super car and why it has to have certain things, since we already knew SVT's definition.

Either way, putting cars into categories is something losers with no life do. Ford GT is a cool car, Ferrari F40 is a cool car, etc. No need to go all "Sports car vs. GT" on this.

At least sports car vs. GT has a real definition.  Supercar isn't really strictly defined by anyone, accepted or not.  As a forum, we tried defining it years ago, and as I recall, by our definition, it would indeed be a supercar. 

[Raza]

How can they be "super" without being, um, super? The VERY few super cars of any particular day have a certain tech (and price) level. In ~2005 that was lots of carbon fiber, V10 or V12 engine, space frame chassis, and DSG tranny. If said car didn't have at least some of these things, in addition to huge performance and huge price tag, by definition it wasn't a super car of the time. In 2005, only the Carerra GT, 599GTB, Enzo, Murciélago and some of the boutique novelties (Maserati MC12, McLaren SLR, etc.) were super cars. Some argument can be made for the Gallardo and F430 but that's a tough one for that would almost qualify the Z06 and Viper as super cars too (which they decidedly are NOT).

Hmm...can you name for me the cars in that list that had a dual clutch gearbox? 

[GoCougs]

Hmm...can you name for me the cars in that list that had a dual clutch gearbox? 

Which list?

[SVT666]

Hmm...can you name for me the cars in that list that had a dual clutch gearbox?

Which list?

The answer is none.

[GoCougs]

[/IwinSPIN]

[hotrodalex]

Uh oh

[S204STi]

Ohshitson

[SVT666]

Fuck me.  I have hated this thing since it debuted, but damn...that angle, colour, and no roof have converted me.

[Raza]

[/IwinSPIN]

Your list of supercars.....

[GoCougs]

Your list of supercars.....

559GTB, Enzo and MC12.

[SVT666]

What's a 559GTB?

[Raza]

559GTB, Enzo and MC12.

Think again.  All those were single automatic clutch transmissions--"F1" style automatics, not DCTs.  Ferrari didn't have a DCT until 2008, with the California.  No car you listed had a dual clutch transmission.