VW says it has sold over 100,000 TDI diesels in America this year

[MX793]

Slippery slope.



But yes, they are.

Actually, they aren't.  Those terms come from the world of non-motorized conveyances (horse-drawn vehicles and litters).

[2o6]

Actually, they aren't.  Those terms come from the world of non-motorized conveyances (horse-drawn vehicles and litters).

And these days, they are whatever the manufacturer calls them

[Madman]

Is a regular cab Ranger a sports car too?

Of course not.  Anything with an open cargo bed clearly falls into the "Truck" category.

Also bear in mind sports cars don't necessarily have to be fast.  Plenty of British sports cars from the '50s and '60s weren't particularly quick by any stretch of the imagination, but they are still sports cars.

[Soup DeVille]

And these days, they are whatever the manufacturer calls them

No, we simply can't have the liars who do car marketing have control over these terms. Madness would ensue.

[CJ]

Has anyone had a chance to compare VW's TDI in the new Golf/Jetta/Passat to the gasoline options? How much power does it feel like it gives up in everyday/spirited driving?

Everyday driving.. Absolutely none. Spirited? The TDI isn't as good. That torque is so hard to ignore, but it does run out of steam.

[MX793]

And these days, they are whatever the manufacturer calls them

Please show me a vehicle marketed as a sedan or station wagon that doesn't meet the classic definition of the describing body style.

[AltinD]

Please show me a vehicle marketed as a sedan or station wagon that doesn't meet the classic definition of the describing body style.

What about 'coupe'?

[12,000 RPM]

Of course not.  Anything with an open cargo bed clearly falls into the "Truck" category.

So if I removed the hatch from my Z it would be a truck 

[cawimmer430]

The SLK is *barely* a sports car. The rest are not.

And the only reason most of these cars exist is not because people genuinely want diesel performance cars. It is because the EU's asinine fuel taxes and stance on consumption forces people into cars like this. Again, in places where fuel is at its natural price, nobody wants diesel performance cars, because without $10/gallon gas they don't make sense.

And again, only the SLK is a sports car and that is marginal. The rest of these cars all have 4 seats, and in some cases 4 doors. Please find me a magazine that calls a Panamera a sports car.

How is the SLK "barely" a sports car? Not every sports car will drive like a Boxster or Z4, but that doesn't mean they're not sports car. The SLK is definitely a capable sports car in its own way. Do you consider the Fiat 124 Spider or a Triumph Spitfire to be "barely" a sports car as well?

And most people here still buy GASOLINE-POWERED performance cars. There are a few diesel alternatives, but they're aimed at people that was a blend of performance, fun and fuel economy.

[cawimmer430]

No.  And please find me a magazine that considers them a sports car.  And mind you, competing with a sports car does not make it a sports car.

I know that a sports sedan is not a true sports car, but my point was that there are sporty diesel cars currently in production.

And here are just some magazines which label a 1-Series M coupe for example as a "sports car". I personally don't care if the number of seats defines a sports car. A car that drivers and handles well and was built for such a purpose is in my lax view a "sports car".

http://www.sportauto.de/einzeltests/bmw-1er-m-coupe-im-test-mehr-sportwagen-braucht-eigentlich-niemand-3731920.html

http://www.welt.de/motor/article11510171/Diesen-Power-BMW-werden-Sportwagen-fuerchten.html

I don't consider the 1er Hatchback to be a sports car. It's sporty, but it's not as sporty as the 1er coupes, which definitely drive and handle better. They're "sports cars" for the "masses" if you will.

The TT and 1 series have too many seats.  The 1 series is a coupe in a line of small family cars that include a hatchback.  It's no more a sports car than a Civic or Accord coupe.  The TT is FWD or AWD.  And that's not even mentioning that they are both closed top (although the TT is available as an open top car, it's still disqualified for other reasons).

The second generation Lotus Elan was FWD and by most accounts it was even considered a well-driving and well-handling sports car.

[MX793]

How is the SLK "barely" a sports car? Not every sports car will drive like a Boxster or Z4, but that doesn't mean they're not sports car. The SLK is definitely a capable sports car in its own way. Do you consider the Fiat 124 Spider or a Triumph Spitfire to be "barely" a sports car as well?

The SLK makes too many compromises in the name of comfort/luxury to be considered a real sports car (the heavy, complicated retractable hardtop being a big one).  It's really more a GT car.  That doesn't mean it isn't a serious performance car (indeed, there are many GT cars that will run circles around true sports cars), just that it's not a "sports car".

[cawimmer430]

I have a very lax view of what a sports car is or can be.

A MINI Cooper S for example is in my book a "sports car". Why? It's sporty, quick, handles well, is fun to drive in its own way and it was BUILT for sport/fun.

I make a clear distinction between the broad term sports cars and PERFORMANCE CARS, however.

[MX793]

I have a very lax view of what a sports car is or can be.

A MINI Cooper S for example is in my book a "sports car". Why? It's sporty, quick, handles well, is fun to drive in its own way and it was BUILT for sport/fun.

I make a clear distinction between the broad term sports cars and PERFORMANCE CARS, however.

All sports cars are performance cars, not all performance cars are sports cars.

[cawimmer430]

The SLK makes too many compromises in the name of comfort/luxury to be considered a real sports car (the heavy, complicated retractable hardtop being a big one).  It's really more a GT car.  That doesn't mean it isn't a serious performance car (indeed, there are many GT cars that will run circles around true sports cars), just that it's not a "sports car".

I see your point and you're not wrong.

In my opinion any car that's designed for a degree of sporty driving can be considered a "sports car". As I said, I have a very lax view of what a sports car is, namely if it drives, handles and goes well, it's "sporty" enough for me (and most people, I would assume). Hence my reasoning that cars like a 1er Coupe, Audi TT or even a Volkswagen Scirocco can be labeled as sports cars.

Just my two cents.

[cawimmer430]

All sports cars are performance cars, not all performance cars are sports cars.

So a Fiat 124 Spider, Triumph Spitfire, Austin Healey 100 or Alfa Romeo Spider are "performance cars"? Even in their day these cars weren't that fast and they weren't about flat-out speed and acceleration.

They were designed for nimble handling. I consider them sports cars, not performance cars. Again, that's just me.

[MX793]

Handling is one facet of performance.

[veeman]

So Porsche would not consider the 911 a sports car, but the Cayman is?  The Nissan GT-R is not a sports car?  The BRZ/FRS are not sports cars?  That goes against television, print, and auto manufacturer nomenclature. 

[Soup DeVille]

So Porsche would not consider the 911 a sports car, but the Cayman is?  The Nissan GT-R is not a sports car?  The BRZ/FRS are not sports cars?  That goes against television, print, and auto manufacturer nomenclature. 

That doesn't mean its wrong. To this day, the FIA defines sports cars as having no roof. The earliest reference I've ever found to the term was in a chronicle of Bugatti's racing history, and it lists the early definition of "gentleman's cars" (that is to say, performance cars) to fall under four groups: touring, grand touring, sporting, and raceing (sic). The defining attribute of s ports car was having a folding or no roof, and fenders on all four wheels. Grand touring cars had roofs, and racing cars had no fenders (open wheeled).

Is all that still 100% relevant? Perhaps not entirely, but it doesn't change the meaning of the words either. Is it something to be concerned about? Not in the slightest.

[Soup DeVille]

So a Fiat 124 Spider, Triumph Spitfire, Austin Healey 100 or Alfa Romeo Spider are "performance cars"? Even in their day these cars weren't that fast and they weren't about flat-out speed and acceleration.

They were designed for nimble handling. I consider them sports cars, not performance cars. Again, that's just me.

Standards of performance are bound to change. That's irrelevant. I n order for it to have any meaning at all though, the name should apply to a specific configuration and intent.

A sports car is an open, two place car that in a pinch can be raced.

[AutobahnSHO]

So if I removed the hatch from my Z it would be a truck 

it was on the brat

[12,000 RPM]

So Porsche would not consider the 911 a sports car, but the Cayman is?  The Nissan GT-R is not a sports car?  The BRZ/FRS are not sports cars?  That goes against television, print, and auto manufacturer nomenclature.

Mercedes calls the CLS a coupe, and models with the 2.0 liter engine the x250. Marketing is irrelevant.

[Madman]

So if I removed the hatch from my Z it would be a truck 

Yes.





Okay, seriously, your hatchless Z would not be a truck.  But, if Nissan were to make a Z-based vehicle with a functional cargo bed then, yes, it would be a truck in the same way the El Camino was a truck.  You can even call it a "Sportstruck" if you must, but it's still a truck.

Oh, and just for clarification, I consider the Porsche 911 a sports car even though it has a back seat.  Why, you ask?  Because the back seat in the 911 is really just for show (and to appease insurance companies) and, in reality, is little more than a padded parcel shelf.  The only way your going to carry two normal-sized people back there is if you hack them to bits and put them there a piece at a time.  Since I have no wish to commit double homicide just to prove a point, you'll just have to take my word that a 911's back seat does not fit the criteria of "functional".  And, as such, any car with a "functional" back seat can not be a sports car.  A sports coupe, yes, but not a sports car.

[Byteme]

So a Fiat 124 Spider, Triumph Spitfire, Austin Healey 100 or Alfa Romeo Spider are "performance cars"? Even in their day these cars weren't that fast and they weren't about flat-out speed and acceleration.

They were designed for nimble handling. I consider them sports cars, not performance cars. Again, that's just me.

It makes sense to classify a car as a sports car, GT or whatever in terms of it's intended useage, not by how many seats,what wheels are driven, etc.

[Raza]

Slippery slope.



But yes, they are.

Do tell. 

[Raza]

So Porsche would not consider the 911 a sports car, but the Cayman is?  The Nissan GT-R is not a sports car?  The BRZ/FRS are not sports cars?  That goes against television, print, and auto manufacturer nomenclature.

Neither the 911, nor the Cayman, nor the GT-R (hint, it has GT in the name), nor the BRZ/FR-S are sports cars.  They are all GTs.  All have a fixed roof, all but the Cayman have four seats.  Some will argue that the Cayman is a sports car, but I would not. 

[veeman]

I understand the rationale that Raza and Madman as well as others are using to define a sports car (although Madman and Raza differ regarding a fixed roof or not).  According to Webster dictionary you are correct.  It is not common usage in print and media speak.  Nissan itself lists the GT-R under the heading of sports car in its USA website.  It depends on how much of a purist you are. 

[Raza]

I understand the rationale that Raza and Madman as well as others are using to define a sports car (although Madman and Raza differ regarding a fixed roof or not).  According to Webster dictionary you are correct.  It is not common usage in print and media speak.  Nissan itself lists the GT-R under the heading of sports car in its USA website.  It depends on how much of a purist you are.

Mercedes considers the CLS a coupe, but that does not make it so. 

[Char]

This thread 

[cawimmer430]

This thread 

The Nissan Quest is definitely a sports car!!!

[2o6]

Do tell.

Who made up the definition in the first place?