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

[GoCougs]

Well, if I do have it wrong, SMG vs. DSG in 2005 isn't too material IMO - SMG in 2005 was still very exotic and one of the principal, though not only or necessary, trait of the super cars of that time. Ford GT didn't have one, but that alone doesn't discount it from being a super car.

[12,000 RPM]

Well, if I do have it wrong, SMG vs. DSG in 2005 isn't too material IMO - SMG in 2005 was still very exotic and one of the principal, though not only or necessary, trait of the super cars of that time. Ford GT didn't have one, but that alone doesn't discount it from being a super car.

Werent you just saying the Ford GT isn't a supercar because of its price etc etc

[Raza]

Well, if I do have it wrong, SMG vs. DSG in 2005 isn't too material IMO - SMG in 2005 was still very exotic and one of the principal, though not only or necessary, trait of the super cars of that time. Ford GT didn't have one, but that alone doesn't discount it from being a super car.

If?   

I mean, most of your criteria are totally arbitrary--saying it has to be a V10 or V12 would discount a lot of cars traditionally viewed as supercars, like the lower end mid-engine Ferraris.  Now, I don't consider them supercars, but for other reasons.  Cylinder count is a stupid criteria; power and performance are far more important to the title than how they get there.  SMGs might have been "exotic", but the far superior DSG made it to market in 2003 on the Audi TT.  When the Ford GT came out, it retailed at $150,000; not much off an entry level Ferrari.  As it was well within that performance category, well above average car price (even above luxury car price), and the top of the line automobile of its maker, it's clear that it's a supercar. 

Your attempts to define a supercar in a way that excludes the GT falls flat when the only car with one of your criteria for the time period is a lowly Golf-based 2+2.

[GoCougs]

Watch the strawman - I said circa 2005, the MY intro of the Ford GT. Buy yeah, show me a car circa 2005 that doesn't have a V10 or V12 and is without pretty much all the significant super car factors I listed and I'll show you a car that isn't a super car. Ford GT just isn't there.

A number of other cars have super car power and performance - Corvette ZR1, GTR, 911T - but will never be super cars.

[GoCougs]

Werent you just saying the Ford GT isn't a supercar because of its price etc etc

Yes.

[Raza]

Watch the strawman - I said circa 2005, the MY intro of the Ford GT. Buy yeah, show me a car circa 2005 that doesn't have a V10 or V12 and is without pretty much all the significant super car factors I listed and I'll show you a car that isn't a super car. Ford GT just isn't there.

A number of other cars have super car power and performance - Corvette ZR1, GTR, 911T - but will never be super cars.

The ZR1 is based on a lower model, so is the 911 Turbo, which is why they're not supercars.  GT-R is questionable. 

[GoCougs]

The ZR1 is based on a lower model, so is the 911 Turbo, which is why they're not supercars.  GT-R is questionable. 

GTR ain't nowhere near a super car. I also forget the Audi R8 too - not a super car though it's closer than the Ford GT.

[Raza]

GTR ain't nowhere near a super car. I also forget the Audi R8 too - not a super car though it's closer than the Ford GT.

I tend to agree that the GT-R doesn't count.

But can you explain to me what the R8 has that makes it closer to a supercar that the GT doesn't?  Or is it completely based on your biases?

[MX793]

I tend to agree that the GT-R doesn't count.

But can you explain to me what the R8 has that makes it closer to a supercar that the GT doesn't?  Or is it completely based on your biases?

DSG, V10 engine, carbon fiber body panels (albeit decorative).

[Raza]

DSG, V10 engine, carbon fiber body panels (albeit decorative).

And yet still no from Cougs. 

I don't even know why I'm bothering.  I don't really care about his definition of a supercar.  I just wanted to point out that he said DSG and none of the cars he mentioned had a DSG.

[MX793]

How about the Koenigsegg CCR?  <10 cylinders, no SMG/DSG.  Was capable of 200+ mph (was the 4th fastest "production" car in the world when it came out).

You also have the Saleen S7.  Again, no DSG/SMG and <10 cylinders (and a poop-rod motor to boot).  Or the SSC Ultimate Aero.  Or anything Noble was making in the mid-2000s (didn't even have 8 cylinders).  There were a number of "supercars" in the mid '00s that didn't have automated gearboxes or 10+ cylinder engines.

The Ford GT was on a bespoke platform, limited production numbers, was mid-engined, cost well into the 6 figures, ran 0-60 and 1/4 mile times up there with the fastest cars of the day, and had a top speed of well over 200 mph.  In 2004, that was a supercar.  And while it didn't use super exotic composites extensively (did have some carbon fiber here and there), it did utilize friction stir welding ($$$$) in constructing the center tunnel and a novel super-plastic forming method for fabricating some of the frame members.  All of the body panels were aluminum, which is pretty uncommon and only found in higher end vehicles.

[SVT666]

I don't even know why I'm bothering.

Now you know why I stopped arguing with him.  You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind.  Kind of like you and sports cars.

[Raza]

Now you know why I stopped arguing with him.  You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind.  Kind of like you and sports cars.

My definition isn't arbitrary and I didn't make it up.  If anything, my definition of a sports car is the furthest thing from arbitrary.  It's based on another definition and it sets unambiguous guidelines for what is and what is not.

[MX793]

Now you know why I stopped arguing with him.  You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind.  Kind of like you and sports cars.

It's apparent that Cougs is a Brawndo drinker.  How else could he win at opinions?  I'll bet he wins at exercise and jumping, too.

[Raza]

It's apparent that Cougs is a Brawndo drinker.  How else could he win at opinions?  I'll bet he wins at exercise and jumping, too.

It's got what plants crave.

[GoCougs]

I tend to agree that the GT-R doesn't count.

But can you explain to me what the R8 has that makes it closer to a supercar that the GT doesn't?  Or is it completely based on your biases?

This:

DSG, V10 engine, carbon fiber body panels (albeit decorative).

However, the rather mundane R8 4.2 exists, knocking it out of contention.

[GoCougs]

How about the Koenigsegg CCR?  <10 cylinders, no SMG/DSG.  Was capable of 200+ mph (was the 4th fastest "production" car in the world when it came out).

You also have the Saleen S7.  Again, no DSG/SMG and <10 cylinders (and a poop-rod motor to boot).  Or the SSC Ultimate Aero.  Or anything Noble was making in the mid-2000s (didn't even have 8 cylinders).  There were a number of "supercars" in the mid '00s that didn't have automated gearboxes or 10+ cylinder engines.

The Ford GT was on a bespoke platform, limited production numbers, was mid-engined, cost well into the 6 figures, ran 0-60 and 1/4 mile times up there with the fastest cars of the day, and had a top speed of well over 200 mph.  In 2004, that was a supercar.  And while it didn't use super exotic composites extensively (did have some carbon fiber here and there), it did utilize friction stir welding ($$$$) in constructing the center tunnel and a novel super-plastic forming method for fabricating some of the frame members.  All of the body panels were aluminum, which is pretty uncommon and only found in higher end vehicles.

With so few of the CCR built (like a dozen) IMO it doesn't qualify for consideration (it's a kit car). The S7 has the other super car attributes - exotic materials, big price tag, exotic styling/design.

Again, if you qualify the Ford GT you also qualify the Z06, since it was a bit better performer and had a bit more extensive use of exotic materials.

[MX793]

With so few of the CCR built (like a dozen) IMO it doesn't qualify for consideration (it's a kit car). The S7 has the other super car attributes - exotic materials, big price tag, exotic styling/design.

Again, if you qualify the Ford GT you also qualify the Z06, since it was a bit better performer and had a bit more extensive use of exotic materials.

Z06 was/is a hi-po version of a more affordable ("normal") performance car, and was itself reasonably affordable (well under $100K).  There was no affordable version of the GT.  Also, the C5 Z06 (which is what was out when the GT came to market) wasn't even close to the GT in performance.

[GoCougs]

Now you know why I stopped arguing with him.  You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind.  Kind of like you and sports cars.

You stopped "arguing" because you lost your most precious "argument" of 'em all, and more than four years on you still haven't fully recovered:

Camaro July 2013 Deliveries (sales): 7,969
Mustang July 2013 Delivery (sales): 5,768
Challenger July 2013 Delivery (sales): 4,271

[SVT666]

You stopped "arguing" because you lost your most precious "argument" of 'em all, and more than four years on you still haven't fully recovered:

Camaro July 2013 Deliveries (sales): 7,969
Mustang July 2013 Delivery (sales): 5,768
Challenger July 2013 Delivery (sales): 4,271

I admitted I was wrong on that like 2 fucking years ago.  Your definition of a supercar is whatever it takes to eliminate a car from a manufacturer you hate.  Pure and simple.

Oh and until the end of July Mustang was outselling Camaro this year and the Camaro only leads the Mustang in sales by 1400 units so things have leveled off and Camaro sales are down 21% so far this year. 

[SVT666]

My definition isn't arbitrary and I didn't make it up.  If anything, my definition of a sports car is the furthest thing from arbitrary.  It's based on another definition and it sets unambiguous guidelines for what is and what is not.

First of all it was more tongue in cheek than anything, but second of all there isn't a single motorsports governing body on the planet that classifies sports cars as convertibles or roadsters.  The FIA defines it as open top or fixed roof, but I'm not going to argue about it since these iron clad definitions that make a Corvette convertible a sports car but a Corvette coupe a GT are fucking ridiculous.

[GoCougs]

I admitted I was wrong on that like 2 fucking years ago.  Your definition of a supercar is whatever it takes to eliminate a car from a manufacturer you hate.  Pure and simple.

Oh and until the end of July Mustang was outselling Camaro this year and the Camaro only leads the Mustang in sales by 1400 units so things have leveled off and Camaro sales are down 21% so far this year. 

Like I said, still not recovered .

It's ridiculous to assert I "hate" Ford. The R8 V10 is more super car than the Ford GT in every measure - costs more, higher end automaker, more power, better performer, DSG, exotic materials - yet it's not a super car either.

[MX793]

Like I said, still not recovered .

It's ridiculous to assert I "hate" Ford. The R8 V10 is more super car than the Ford GT in every measure - costs more, higher end automaker, more power, better performer, DSG, exotic materials - yet it's not a super car either.

When adjusted for inflation, the R8 V10 actually starts at a lower price than the GT did.  And they make the same horsepower.

[AltinD]

Funny, after a year or so, I just saw a Ford GT today .... no matter what Cougs says, that car is a super car .... the R8 not really.

[GoCougs]

When adjusted for inflation, the R8 V10 actually starts at a lower price than the GT did.  And they make the same horsepower.

Looking at their configuration the I'm getting ~$190k which is more than the intro 2005 $139,995 price of the Ford GT.

[MX793]

Looking at their configuration the I'm getting ~$190k which is more than the intro 2005 $139,995 price of the Ford GT.

The Ford GT came out as a 2004 model year car (I'm looking at the January 2004 issue of C&D in which they pitted it against the Ferrari 360 and 911 GT3) and was priced at $150,000.  The Audi R8 V10 starts at $151,200.  I'm guessing you're looking at a V10 Plus model (with some options), which starts at $170,545.

EDIT:  Looking at the August '05 Comparo, the GT had a starting price of $143,345.  Still, accounting for inflation, that is more than $151K today.

[r0tor]

Ironically, last night I watched the "worlds worst car" episode of Top Gear where James May nominated the Ford GT for worst car ever

[SVT666]

Ironically, last night I watched the "worlds worst car" episode of Top Gear where James May nominated the Ford GT for worst car ever

The problem with his nomination is that he didn't have a single good reason for the nomination except for the comedic scenes of Clarkson tied to a tree.

[r0tor]

His main point was that it was a cheap knockoff of an icon... and therefore terrible.  He absolutely has a point.

[GoCougs]

The problem with his nomination is that he didn't have a single good reason for the nomination except for the comedic scenes of Clarkson tied to a tree.

Clarkson made Ford buy his GT back after about a month of ownership because it was such a POS...