Resident rage quitter Mark Baruth has an editorial in TTAC crying about the death of sports cars, speaking to his experience as a journalist in an Evora 410 to how "great" they can be and how we need more simple and lightweight cars. I was going to reply there but they were already 50 replies deep... no point in typing up a response nobody will read.
For me, the reasons are manifold, and I don't think they are unique just to me. I enjoy driving engagement, good chassis balance, and higher than average performance. I don't enjoy
- excessive tire/road noise
- dealing with impracticality
- jarring ride quality
Plus you have to factor in that across most of the US, roads and traffic are getting worse, so for most people the ability to open a sports car up and enjoy it in its element is getting more and more restricted. Can something like a sedan or crossover match the driving experience of a sports car? Obviously not, but due to changing road parameters that's almost becoming a good thing. If I were in the Northeast, after my experience driving my Z there, I'd want something like an X3 35i on the balloniest tires possible. And sedan wise some of the sportiest offerings today are definitely on the subjective realm of driving experience of sports cars of yesteryear, at least in some aspects. They are definitely there objectively.
And the prospect of a 2nd car just doesn't make sense for me and I imagine most people. My garage and driveway are 2 cars wide and we park inside in the winter. I had 3 cars this winter and it was a PITA doing the shuffle. Back when I had a choice between a sports car and a "normal" car I jumped in the normal car more because it beat me up and fatigued me a lot less on my commute.
One unique factor to me is my motorcycle which enables a level of engagement and performance most cars I've ever driven can match. While being much cheaper to own and easier to deal with maintenance/parking wise. Only thing that sucks about it is suiting up and the injury potential.
So have car buyers just become weak or is there due cause for people to have moved away from sports cars?
Disposable income is at an all time low.
* Cities using traffic tickets to generate revenue that should be raised using taxes instead.
* Speed limits lowered to satisfy revenue and NIMBY agendas.
* Cops explicitly incentivized to write as many tickets as possible.
* Punative insurance spikes when caught speeding.
* Fuel costs going up.
It sucks. The solution is to get a slow sports car: Miata.
I don't want to jinx myself, but I drive spiritedly and don't have too much trouble with the law. I think that's a different issue, though I did get ticketed a good bit more in my Z. But I think that was due to the bored cops in the neighborhood I was living in at the time.
Here's a good example I think I mentioned before. Guy at my job used to have a Boxster GTS I think. He drove like a grandpa. 5 under the limit everywhere. It infuriated me. He recently traded it in. For what you ask? GLC Coupe :lol: I'd wager many of the sports car trades over the last decade have gone that way, even if people didn't need the added utility.
I'm pretty sure its all about disposable income. The average new car transaction price is way up, wages are flat-ish, and good paying jobs come attached with 5-6 figures of student loan debt. At the other end of the spectrum, the super expensive almost exotic stuff, sales seem to be pretty good to booming.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 15, 2018, 02:21:20 PM
I'm pretty sure its all about disposable income. The average new car transaction price is way up, wages are flat-ish, and good paying jobs come attached with 5-6 figures of student loan debt. At the other end of the spectrum, the super expensive almost exotic stuff, sales seem to be pretty good to booming.
Sign of the times. The Neo Gilded Age.
That's what happens when productivity gains from technological progress are socked away by a fraction of a fraction of the population.
Housing costs have effectively doubled in any city with good jobs. Student loans are at an all time high.
Quote from: Laconian on March 15, 2018, 03:04:16 PM
Sign of the times. The Neo Gilded Age.
That's what happens when productivity gains from technological progress are socked away by a fraction of a fraction of the population.
Good time to be in the luxury goods business.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 15, 2018, 03:35:42 PM
Good time to be in the luxury goods business.
Explains why every luxury auto manufacturer wants to sell you a yacht to go with your car.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 15, 2018, 04:02:15 PM
Explains why every luxury auto manufacturer wants to sell you a yacht to go with your car.
And custom luggage to fit in the boot.
CRV.
I'm doing my part :dance:
(https://i.imgur.com/kUxmU5V_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
I didn't buy Vette new (If I could afford a C7 I would've) but I'm in the minority that still want a proper Sports Car and a DD/Winter car. Hell I might even add a pick up to my stable soon! But I agree with the guys saying people don't have the extra money to blow on "A Toy." I also think this generation is the same generation that was raised in Explorers, Suburbans and Caravans so they relate to all these CUV/SUV/Tall wagons. Just my .02!
A lot of it is non-sports cars offer just as good or better driving experience, plus of course much better practicality - Camaro, Mustang, GTI/Golf R, WRX/STI, Focus ST/RS, etc.
Modern sports cars are junk and then if you want to buy one with more "raw" driver feel and involvement you pay exponentially more money... and after all that money you still don't have the feel or involvement of a decent sports car made in the late 90s or early 00s.
So why bother with new sports cars when they drive like an SUV... Just buy an SUV
When family cars and SUVs can return sub 6-second 0-60s while carrying kids and groceries, and people can't afford weekend cars anymore...I can see why sports car sales are declining.
My next car may be a sports car, but who knows. I get the visceral experience from my bikes that are missing from many modern sports cars, and at a much cheaper ownership cost.
YEa the motorcycle thing is worth repeating. I saw a guy on an FZ-07 today... he was a total noob but I was still jealous. My bike is in pieces right now
I don't buy sports cars at the moment because other expenses impede it (building family life).
I don't think that generally speaking it's an economic issue. Data shows people earn more in real terms today whining notwithstanding. It's about evolving tastes and priorities. Whole categories of spending, like tech, are relatively new and millenials give them a higher priority than cars. Roads tend to be crowded. Many cities are congested and polluted limiting the appeal of sports car ownership. There even are alternatives (Uber et al) to overall car ownership in general.
And also, yeah, I think cars have become more inert at legal speeds specifically. Very few people track.
Bikes do give the greatest thrill no question. Unfortunately along with a high multiplier of the risk of dying compared to a sports car.
For a person with kids, it's very limiting to have a car with no backseat or tiny backseats. Kids don't just play outside after school and in the summer anymore like they mostly did when I was a kid. Everything is an organized adult supervised activity. To these activities they need to be dropped off and picked up. A sports car is useless for me. I can't take it anywhere. Also if you put your kid in the front passenger seat nowadays, you might get reported to child protective services.
"Hi honey, I have a late meeting with my boss at work and won't be home till 6. On your way home from work, you gotta pick up junior from karate class."
"Oohh, sorry honey, I can't. It was a nice day so I brought my sports car to work...Can I Uber him a car?"
"Hi honey, I know it's a beautiful Sunday morning and you're just about to go golfing with your friend, ... I need for you to take junior to soccer practice. It's on your way to the greens."
"Oohh, sorry honey...I was gonna take my sports car... It's only 5 miles. He can walk it. Tell him to face the oncoming traffic. Better yet have him take his bike. Tell him to bike with the traffic..."
"Hi honey, I ran over your sports car by mistake. I think it's totaled. I wanna go with you this time while you pick out a replacement car, O.K."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iza5db5Zvk
Sounds like having kids is terrible.
;)
*looks at sig, shrugs*
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 17, 2018, 04:07:42 AM
Sounds like having kids is terrible.
;)
I was done with sports cars before I had kids. Sometimes I do kind of want a BRZ though
It's because people don't want to drive anymore, they want to text their way to their final destination.
Given how awful traffic and roads are getting for most people, is that a bad thing?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 18, 2018, 04:44:08 AM
Given how awful traffic and roads are getting for most people, is that a bad thing?
There are plenty of places where "traffic" doesn't exist. "Most" people don't live in big cities there, bud. Awful roads, though...fuck.
You don't have to live in a big city (i.e. NYC) to have to deal with traffic. The average US commute keeps getting longer and longer because of it. Most of my coworkers don't live in a "big city" but we all have to deal with the same traffic :huh:
You're turning into an unthusiast.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 16, 2018, 06:35:34 PM
YEa the motorcycle thing is worth repeating. I saw a guy on an FZ-07 today... he was a total noob but I was still jealous. My bike is in pieces right now
Did you crash it again?
Quote from: Raza on March 17, 2018, 10:39:11 PM
It's because people don't want to drive anymore, they want to text their way to their final destination.
Yup.....
Quote from: Raza on March 18, 2018, 09:45:26 AM
Did you crash it again?
No, why? Are you hoping I do to validate your cowardice?
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 18, 2018, 08:10:02 AM
You're turning into an unthusiast.
Hardly, I enjoy the G and am already speccing out my next build. There's a track night at Charlotte Motor Speedway in ~3 weeks, might take the G. I need to hit up Onslaught. Also gonna shoot for 2 track days on the bike this year, as well as 3-4 kart days (already did 1). I read and post on TTAC and TCL daily, have a few auto rag subscriptions, Forza when I can. Watching a MotoGP race right now. My enthusiast punch card is pretty holey in real life.
But I also like to follow the auto business.... understanding the motivations and machinations behind it hardly makes me an enthusiast. What have I said here that's incorrect or untrue?
The boy who cried track day.
I can see why this is happening.
When I was growing up, most guys were at least somewhat into cars, had dream cars, had posters of supercars, played racing video games. Now it seems like fewer and fewer people are into cars. There are just too many other things to obsess over with the internet and social media. Even I'm not as into cars as I used to be.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big-reads/heres-whats-happened-to-japanese-car-modifying-culture
The decline of the car culture in Japan was big news a few years ago, considering how car crazy that place was in the 1980s and 90s.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 18, 2018, 11:02:08 AM
No, why? Are you hoping I do to validate your cowardice?
Triggered. You said your bike was in pieces, I was legitimately asking. I'd never want you to have another crash.
Getting the suspension redone and tires replaced.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 19, 2018, 03:12:23 AM
Getting the suspension redone and tires replaced.
Was the suspension worn out or are you changing something?
Depends who is asking.....
Quote from: 565 on March 18, 2018, 01:25:56 PM
I can see why this is happening.
When I was growing up, most guys were at least somewhat into cars, had dream cars, had posters of supercars, played racing video games. Now it seems like fewer and fewer people are into cars. There are just too many other things to obsess over with the internet and social media. Even I'm not as into cars as I used to be.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big-reads/heres-whats-happened-to-japanese-car-modifying-culture
The decline of the car culture in Japan was big news a few years ago, considering how car crazy that place was in the 1980s and 90s.
That was an interesting read. They indicated that law enforcement had really come down hard on street racing and so now you have very wealthy Japanese driving tricked out supercars at the speed limit; at least in Tokyo.
There was a bullshit "big data" writeup a couple weeks ago called "OUT OF CONTROL: The Deadly Toll Of Street Racing In LA"
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-street-racing/
Do you know what the actual toll came to? 179 people over 17 years. Ten a year. Regrettable, but across a timespan that broad and a population as large as LA, it's peanuts.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 19, 2018, 08:34:44 AM
Depends who is asking.....
Well, I'm not your wife, so you can tell me the truth. :lol:
I was itching to get rid of my G when I was living in the Atlanta suburbs. It is most definitely NOT a good car for the 1 1/4 minute lurches from red light to red light that is life in metro areas. A Prius is a much better car for doing that.
But when I moved out to the country I changed my mind: the G has come into its own - it's a lot of fun, as would be a legit 2-seater sports car. But rural America is not where the wealth is: the money for discretionary items like sports cars is in the nation's metro areas. But the environment to enjoy them is not. So the sports car has to be a weekend entertainment proposition - not a daily driver. Which means you need a 3-car garage: SUV for the missus, Prius appliance for your hellish commutes, and the Corvette/Miata/BRZ in the third bay. That's a minuscule proportion of the population in the sports car niche.
I'm going to fork the thread and all if cars are just too damn expensive and that's causing the decrease in popularity
Sure you can look at car prices adjusted for inflation over the last 20 years and say it's flat- but what happens when you adjust it against average disposable income? Compared to 20 years ago health care costs have exploded, families are now picking up large cell phone and internet monthly bills, and many young people have college loans the size or mortgages...
Maybe staying flat with inflation just isn't going to cut it anymore for the automobile.
Quote from: r0tor on March 19, 2018, 03:09:50 PM
I'm going to fork the thread and all if cars are just too damn expensive and that's causing the decrease in popularity
Sure you can look at car prices adjusted for inflation over the last 20 years and say it's flat- but what happens when you adjust it against average disposable income? Compared to 20 years ago health care costs have exploded, families are now picking up large cell phone and internet monthly bills, and many young people have college loans the size or mortgages...
Maybe staying flat with inflation just isn't going to cut it anymore for the automobile.
WORD!
If we are going to price on cost inflation we should price on performance & content inflation too. From that POV cars today are still very cheap. A 2018 Fit is basically as roomy, fast and nice as a 1993 Accord. But it costs like half after inflation. Same story with sports cars
Quote from: Morris Minor on March 19, 2018, 11:18:41 AM
I was itching to get rid of my G when I was living in the Atlanta suburbs. It is most definitely NOT a good car for the 1 1/4 minute lurches from red light to red light that is life in metro areas. A Prius is a much better car for doing that.
But when I moved out to the country I changed my mind: the G has come into its own - it's a lot of fun, as would be a legit 2-seater sports car. But rural America is not where the wealth is: the money for discretionary items like sports cars is in the nation's metro areas. But the environment to enjoy them is not. So the sports car has to be a weekend entertainment proposition - not a daily driver. Which means you need a 3-car garage: SUV for the missus, Prius appliance for your hellish commutes, and the Corvette/Miata/BRZ in the third bay. That's a minuscule proportion of the population in the sports car niche.
Yep, pretty much. But instead of a Prius I went with a 4Runner. Same difference :lol:
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 16, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
I don't buy sports cars at the moment because other expenses impede it (building family life).
I don't think that generally speaking it's an economic issue. Data shows people earn more in real terms today whining notwithstanding. It's about evolving tastes and priorities. Whole categories of spending, like tech, are relatively new and millenials give them a higher priority than cars. Roads tend to be crowded. Many cities are congested and polluted limiting the appeal of sports car ownership. There even are alternatives (Uber et al) to overall car ownership in general.
And also, yeah, I think cars have become more inert at legal speeds specifically. Very few people track.
Bikes do give the greatest thrill no question. Unfortunately along with a high multiplier of the risk of dying compared to a sports car.
I think it might also be related to the fact that the typical car drives and handles much better than it did several decades ago. Today, even a Toyota or Honda non-sports car can have good pickup and good handling. In my early driving days, this was not the case, as many of the regular and/or econobox cars were underpowered, handled poorly, steered poorly, etc.
For the person who isn't a full blown enthusiast, a more average car can deliver the driving fun that the person craves without having to resort to a sports car.
Quote from: Morris Minor on March 19, 2018, 11:18:41 AM
I was itching to get rid of my G when I was living in the Atlanta suburbs. It is most definitely NOT a good car for the 1 1/4 minute lurches from red light to red light that is life in metro areas. A Prius is a much better car for doing that.
But when I moved out to the country I changed my mind: the G has come into its own - it's a lot of fun, as would be a legit 2-seater sports car. But rural America is not where the wealth is: the money for discretionary items like sports cars is in the nation's metro areas. But the environment to enjoy them is not. So the sports car has to be a weekend entertainment proposition - not a daily driver. Which means you need a 3-car garage: SUV for the missus, Prius appliance for your hellish commutes, and the Corvette/Miata/BRZ in the third bay. That's a minuscule proportion of the population in the sports car niche.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. If I lived in a more rural area I'd probably buy a fun car again. In a metro area it just doesn't get utilized.
Quote from: Lebowski on March 20, 2018, 07:19:34 AM
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. If I lived in a more rural area I'd probably buy a fun car again. In a metro area it just doesn't get utilized.
Not only that, but in the average metro area half the time you're too busy worry about curbing a wheel or bending a rim in a pothole.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 20, 2018, 09:09:19 AM
Not only that, but in the average metro area half the time you're too busy worry about curbing a wheel or bending a rim in a pothole.
Yeah, that stuff too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 20, 2018, 06:22:58 AM
If we are going to price on cost inflation we should price on performance & content inflation too. From that POV cars today are still very cheap. A 2018 Fit is basically as roomy, fast and nice as a 1993 Accord. But it costs like half after inflation. Same story with sports cars
I don't know... Hatches and econo cars have had 150-200hp since the early 90 or late 80s. I'd put the handling of some of the late 90s examples up against newer items anyday as well.
Higher priced cars have definitely progressed with technology.
What economy cars (compact/subcompact segment) had 150+ hp before 1996? Outside of special performance trims like the Civic Si or GTI, the only one that comes to mind is higher trims of the Dodge Neon (150 hp HO 2.0).
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 10:23:25 AM
I don't know... Hatches and econo cars have had 150-200hp since the early 90 or late 80s. I'd put the handling of some of the late 90s examples up against newer items anyday as well.
Higher priced cars have definitely progressed with technology.
Ehhh. Not many, and the ones that did were the special editions. Even hot hatches like the Civic Si and Focus SVT had only 160-170 in the early 2000s. Go back to the early '90s and it was 110-125 for comparable models.
I remember the Suzuki Aerio was remarkable in its class because it made 140hp. Wow, so much powah - enough to make you forget about how bizarre the rest of the car is...
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 10:56:40 AM
What economy cars (compact/subcompact segment) had 150+ hp before 1996? Outside of special performance trims like the Civic Si or GTI, the only one that comes to mind is higher trims of the Dodge Neon (150 hp HO 2.0).
The Escort RS Cosworth; a veritable supercar in '92 and an honest homologation special was in the 220 HP range; an output handily exceeded today by a run of the mill Subaru or Civic.
They aren't as much fun; but they are faster.
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 10:23:25 AM
I don't know... Hatches and econo cars have had 150-200hp since the early 90 or late 80s. I'd put the handling of some of the late 90s examples up against newer items anyday as well.
Higher priced cars have definitely progressed with technology.
Only ones I can think of are the DSMs and the GS-Rs. Everything else was capped around 140HP. Wasn't till the early 00s when everyone threw their hat in the ring (RSX, SRT-4, WRX, SE-R Spec-V, Celica GT-S, Cobalt SS etc.). And all of those cars didn't cost much more than the "hot" hatches from the 90s after inflation. We def get more for our money now; for all intents and purposes a Civic is what an Accord was and a 3 is what a 5 was.
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 10:56:40 AM
What economy cars (compact/subcompact segment) had 150+ hp before 1996? Outside of special performance trims like the Civic Si or GTI, the only one that comes to mind is higher trims of the Dodge Neon (150 hp HO 2.0).
Probe GT, MX6, Celica GTs, Civic SI, Integra, 240SX, DSMs... Too many to name actually
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Probe GT, MX6, Celica GTs, Civic SI, Integra, 240SX, DSMs... Too many to name actually
None of those are economy cars.
Economy cars = Civic, Corolla, Sentra, Escort, Mirage, Cavalier, Tercel, 323/Protege, Elantra, Accent, Festiva, Metro, Neon, Impreza, etc...
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Probe GT, MX6, Celica GTs, Civic SI, Integra, 240SX, DSMs... Too many to name actually
Probe GT/MX-6 were the same car and had a whopping 164HP. Also not economy cars by any stretch
No Celica GT ever had more than 134HP.
Mid 90s Civic Si had 125HP.
Already mentioned GS-R.
240SX had 155HP and was not an economy car.
Already mentioned DSMs.
Since there are too many to name lets hear some others. 325iS? 3000GT? Corvette Z06? :lol:
Probe GT/ Celica GT are kind of another dying class of cars that you don't see much of anymore. Things like the Mazda 6 or Camry V6 seem like about as close as you'll get today.
I think that demographic switched to CUVs pretty enthusiastically.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 20, 2018, 03:22:47 PM
Probe GT/ Celica GT are kind of another dying class of cars that you don't see much of anymore. Things like the Mazda 6 or Camry V6 seem like about as close as you'll get today.
The Probe/Celica/MX-6/Prelude/240SX/DSM/etc segment were arguably pony cars. Sporty small coupe based on a pedestrian sedan platform (except the 240SX). They competed with the base Mustang and Camaro (or even the lower end of the V8 trims in terms of price in some cases). Speaking of, in the first half of the 90s, Non V8 Mustangs had either the 105 hp 2.3L 4-banger (later Fox generation) or the 145 hp Essex V6 (early SN95) and Camaros had either the 140 hp 3.1 V6 (Gen3) or the 160 hp 3.4 V6 (Gen4).
For good reason in my opinion. Cars that sacrifice as much as those couples did in practicality have to pay back with more than looks.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 20, 2018, 06:08:11 PM
For good reason in my opinion. Cars that sacrifice as much as those couples did in practicality have to pay back with more than looks.
Who cares about practicality when buying a 2 door sports car! I'm sure people knew ahead of time that their Celica wouldn't hold as much crap as a Camry! People now a days want one vehicle to carry passengers like a Minivan, Haul like a HD Sierra and handle like a Huracan no matter the weather! They're all Spoiled brats if you ask me! LOL!!!!
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 20, 2018, 02:13:31 PM
Probe GT/MX-6 were the same car and had a whopping 164HP. Also not economy cars by any stretch
No Celica GT ever had more than 134HP.
Mid 90s Civic Si had 125HP.
Already mentioned GS-R.
240SX had 155HP and was not an economy car.
Already mentioned DSMs.
Since there are too many to name lets hear some others. 325iS? 3000GT? Corvette Z06? :lol:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/toyota-thunder-trd-celica-gt-s-road-test
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 01:42:22 PM
None of those are economy cars.
Economy cars = Civic, Corolla, Sentra, Escort, Mirage, Cavalier, Tercel, 323/Protege, Elantra, Accent, Festiva, Metro, Neon, Impreza, etc...
You said economy or subcompact... I said hatches and econo cars. All of the cars I listed apply to one or both criteria... and yes they are all econo cars as all of them had far far more premium offerings
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/toyota-thunder-trd-celica-gt-s-road-test
That's a GT-S, not a GT. And it came out in the late 90s (1999).
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 07:30:00 PM
You said economy or subcompact... I said hatches and econo cars. All of the cars I listed apply to one or both criteria... and yes they are all econo cars as all of them had far far more premium offerings
No, I said economy car, compact or subcompact segment (lest you toss in something like a mid 90s Taurus). The cars you listed were not economy cars. In their base trims, with base engines, they were priced near the top end of the econo car class. In their upper trims, they were priced comparably with V8 Mustangs and Camaros (not economy cars). If you want to argue their base trims were "economy cars", fine. None of them made even 150 hp in their base trims. The 4 banger Probe/MX-6 made 130 hp. Excluding the rare and expensive All-Trac Celica of the early 90s, no Celica before '99 made over 135 hp. The base ST made ~105 hp and the upmarket GT and GT-S trims made 130-135 from a 2.2L. Base Integras were ~140 hp. Base 1st gen DSMs made either 92 or 130 hp from either a 1.8L or 2.0L engine depending on year, 2nd gens got the 130 hp motor as base in the later 90s. The Civic Si of the first half of the 90s was 125 hp. It didn't see 150+ until 1999 when they revived the nameplate with a 160 hp engine. The 240SX was priced above the "economy car" price segment even in base trim. Before '91, it only made 140 hp.
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/toyota-thunder-trd-celica-gt-s-road-test
Since when is 2000 part of the 80s and early 90s
Dont do this man, take the L like a man and keep it pushing.
"Hatches and econo cars have had 150-200hp since the early 90 or late 80s. "
Patently false. Let's move on.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 20, 2018, 06:08:11 PM
For good reason in my opinion. Cars that sacrifice as much as those couples did in practicality have to pay back with more than looks.
Most of them were quite fun to drive.
I think this notion that any sporty car needs to be supremely capable is part of the problem with the segment. Even in the early days of sports cars, sports cars weren't necessarily the fastest things on the road. An old MG or Fiat Roadster would get left in the dust by many family cars of the 60s. But they were light and tossable and fun. As sporty cars have become increasingly more capable, they are less fun on the street.
I feel it's the same problem the sportbike segment had for many years. Manufacturers kept chasing numbers and finally you had sportbikes that were exceedingly hardcore and unfriendly to beginners. They lost sight of the fun in favor of filling out the stat sheet. Now we're seeing simpler, more friendly entry level sportbikes again.
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 08:11:11 PM
That's a GT-S, not a GT. And it came out in the late 90s (1999).
I wrote GTS? Do I need to remember from 20 years ago there was a hyphen???
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 08:24:50 PM
No, I said economy car, compact or subcompact segment (lest you toss in something like a mid 90s Taurus). The cars you listed were not economy cars. In their base trims, with base engines, they were priced near the top end of the econo car class. In their upper trims, they were priced comparably with V8 Mustangs and Camaros (not economy cars). If you want to argue their base trims were "economy cars", fine. None of them made even 150 hp in their base trims. The 4 banger Probe/MX-6 made 130 hp. Excluding the rare and expensive All-Trac Celica of the early 90s, no Celica before '99 made over 135 hp. The base ST made ~105 hp and the upmarket GT and GT-S trims made 130-135 from a 2.2L. Base Integras were ~140 hp. Base 1st gen DSMs made either 92 or 130 hp from either a 1.8L or 2.0L engine depending on year, 2nd gens got the 130 hp motor as base in the later 90s. The Civic Si of the first half of the 90s was 125 hp. It didn't see 150+ until 1999 when they revived the nameplate with a 160 hp engine. The 240SX was priced above the "economy car" price segment even in base trim. Before '91, it only made 140 hp.
How the f is a Probe GT a pony car - it was a fwd "sport compact" which we now call a "hot hatch".... and oh by the way, it sat below the Mustang
The Civic is an econo box. The probe, Celica, DSMs, and all other sport compact cats directly competed either the 2 door Civic.
Holy crap... Calling a sport compact a pony car in the mid to late 90s would start a brawl
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 08:38:34 PM
How the f is a Probe GT a pony car - it was a fwd "sport compact" which we now call a "hot hatch".... and oh by the way, it sat below the Mustang
The Civic is an econo box. The probe, Celica, DSMs, and all other sport compact cats directly competed either the 2 door Civic.
The Probe was originally slated to replace the Mustang (ergo, it was designed to fill the role of a pony car), lest we forget... Pricing actually heavily overlapped with the Mustang. The Probe in '93 cost $12.8K in base trim and $15.1K in GT trim. The Mustang LX5.0 of that year was $14.8K and the GT was 15.8K (base LX was under 12K). Even if we look at '94, when the SN95 came out and was a fair bit more than the Fox, the Probe was 13.9K or 16.2K and the Mustang was 13.6K for the base and $17.5K for the V8.
A Turbo DSM in '94 was $18.6K for the FWD model and over $20K for the AWD. Not even close to an econo car. '93 240SX was $15K for the base model and $17.5K for the SE. Again, well outside of econocar. IIRC, a top of the line, fully loaded Civic EX was like 15K then.
A liftback is not rightly a hatchback. 90s Civic Si was a hot hatch. The VW GTI is a hot hatch. Mazdaspeed 3 is a hot hatch. A DSM is not a hot hatch any more than a liftback Mustang or a Camaro or Corvette is. They were called "sport compacts" in their day because people didn't seem to want to use the pony car label for something that wasn't from an American brand (or something that wasn't RWD). In spirit, they were pony cars. Similar pricing, similar concept to the original Mustang (sporty coupe built on an economy car platform).
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 08:36:03 PM
Most of them were quite fun to drive.
I think this notion that any sporty car needs to be supremely capable is part of the problem with the segment. Even in the early days of sports cars, sports cars weren't necessarily the fastest things on the road. An old MG or Fiat Roadster would get left in the dust by many family cars of the 60s. But they were light and tossable and fun. As sporty cars have become increasingly more capable, they are less fun on the street.
I feel it's the same problem the sportbike segment had for many years. Manufacturers kept chasing numbers and finally you had sportbikes that were exceedingly hardcore and unfriendly to beginners. They lost sight of the fun in favor of filling out the stat sheet. Now we're seeing simpler, more friendly entry level sportbikes again.
I don't know that a sports car has to be supremely capable to justify itself.... for example I think the Miata and BRZ are good balances/offerings. My thing with cars like the MX-6 and Celica was that they existed alongside sedans with the same engines that cost about the same (or less?). MX-6 was fun to drive, sure. Was it any more fun to drive than the 626 with the same engine, or the Contour with Ford's equivalents? Doubt it. Was the Celica more fun to drive than the Camry when it had it's 2.2, or the Corolla with its xZZ engine? Maybe by a hair, but the practical tradeoff was so huge the calculus didn't quite even out for most people.
Bit by bit people and manufacturers had the realization that fun to drive didn't have to equal a sports car or 2+2 coupe. Which I think is a good thing. Doesn't make sense for people to have to choose. I think that, more than anything else, is probably what killed sports/sporty cars.
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2018, 08:59:30 PM
The Probe was originally slated to replace the Mustang (ergo, it was designed to fill the role of a pony car), lest we forget... Pricing actually heavily overlapped with the Mustang. The Probe in '93 cost $12.8K in base trim and $15.1K in GT trim. The Mustang LX5.0 of that year was $14.8K and the GT was 15.8K (base LX was under 12K). Even if we look at '94, when the SN95 came out and was a fair bit more than the Fox, the Probe was 13.9K or 16.2K and the Mustang was 13.6K for the base and $17.5K for the V8.
A Turbo DSM in '94 was $18.6K for the FWD model and over $20K for the AWD. Not even close to an econo car. '93 240SX was $15K for the base model and $17.5K for the SE. Again, well outside of econocar. IIRC, a top of the line, fully loaded Civic EX was like 15K then.
A liftback is not rightly a hatchback. 90s Civic Si was a hot hatch. The VW GTI is a hot hatch. Mazdaspeed 3 is a hot hatch. A DSM is not a hot hatch any more than a liftback Mustang or a Camaro or Corvette is. They were called "sport compacts" in their day because people didn't seem to want to use the pony car label for something that wasn't from an American brand (or something that wasn't RWD). In spirit, they were pony cars. Similar pricing, similar concept to the original Mustang (sporty coupe built on an economy car platform).
The Probe became a "Probe" because the pony car faithful flipped the hell out at the thought of a fwd 4cyl mostly Japanese car being a "Mustang".
In no way shape or form has a sport compact from the 90s ever or will ever be considered pony cars. They were the polar opposite and sold and marketed to the polar opposite side of the automotive spectrum. End of story.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:37 AM
The Probe became a "Probe" because the pony car faithful flipped the hell out at the thought of a fwd 4cyl mostly Japanese car being a "Mustang".
In no way shape or form has a sport compact from the 90s ever or will ever be considered pony cars. They were the polar opposite and sold and marketed to the polar opposite side of the automotive spectrum. End of story.
Polar opposite? What was the pony car? The archtype of the breed was a plain compact/economy car platform fitted with a sleek, sporty body. It used the same same engines as the economy car it was based on, too. The fact that it was RWD and offered a V8 was merely a coincidence of the times (pretty much every American vehicle in 1964 was RWD and offered a V8, including many "economy cars" like the Falcon and Nova). The idea was to take a stodgy commuter car and make it sexy and fun. It wasn't until later that a big emphasis was put on performance and the horsepower wars between the Mustang and Camaro of the later 60s. The earliest Mustangs had a reputation of being "secretaries' cars" because they weren't fire-breathing, hairy-chested brutes, but sporty, fun, attractive small cars (very much like the sport compact segment in its day, which also appealed to women). A pony car does not need to be a serious performance car. That's a misnomer, and one of the distinguishing differences between a pony car and muscle car. Muscle cars have to be high performance, big-engine vehicles, pony cars do not. A Mustang or Camaro without a V8 is still a pony car. A Chevelle/Malibu without a V8 is not a muscle car. That later, big block pony cars pushed into muscle car segment territory has led many to associate muscle car and pony car as being the exact same thing. They aren't.
What were the sport compact class (Probe, MX-6, DSM, Prelude, Celica, etc)? They were plain, boring economy/family cars fitted with sportier, sexier bodies and characters. Not just 2-door versions of their mainstream platform-mates (unlike an Accord or Civic coupe, or 2-door Falcon before), but full rebodies. The original Celicas, before transitioning to FWD along with the cars they shared platforms with, were RWD, like the mainstream models they shared platforms with at the time. Looked a heck of a lot like a scaled down Mustang of the time, too. Very much a pony car in its original form and the later versions were of the same spirit, ergo, also pony cars. The Probe was supposed to be the 4th generation Mustang in the late 80s and, yes, backlash from Mustang fans (particularly from the Mustang as a muscle car, "gotta have dat V8" crowd) about the notion of a Japanese-designed car with FWD and without a V8 being a Mustang caused Ford to change plans. Doesn't mean it's not a pony car. Just means that many of the Mustang faithful/traditionalists didn't like it. As the traditional muscle car was basically dead by the late 80s, the V8 Mustang and Camaro were kind of the closest substitute for the muscle car crowd and that group did not take kindly to losing another affordable, V8 performance platform. But all of the uniquely bodied sport compacts, like the Probe or MX-6 or Prelude or DSM, were in spirit and essence what the original pony car was built to be. They were following the exact same formula as the original Mustang.
A sport compact is a sporty version of a compact or subcompact. They all have roots in econoboxes. They were all in the lower tier of their brands. There was intense hatred between pony car owners and sport compact owners. There was a reason after the Probe was dropped as a Mustang candidate it was still produced for 2 generations plus the Cougar afterwards - they were different cars with completely different buyers then the Mustang/Camaro. They we're about handling and driving Dynamics wrapped in a cheap platform - not about an engine and straight line speed.
There is no way to spin a Civic, Probe, Celica, DSM, 240SX as a pony car. The idea is contrary to the existence of the cars.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 07:20:45 AM
A sport compact is a sporty version of a compact or subcompact. They all have roots in econoboxes. They were all in the lower tier of their brands. There was intense hatred between pony car owners and sport compact owners. There was a reason after the Probe was dropped as a Mustang candidate it was still produced for 2 generations plus the Cougar afterwards - they were different cars with completely different buyers then the Mustang/Camaro. They we're about handling and driving Dynamics wrapped in a cheap platform - not about an engine and straight line speed.
There is no way to spin a Civic, Probe, Celica, DSM, 240SX as a pony car. The idea is contrary to the existence of the cars.
There's intense hatred between different make of pony car owners. Have you missed the endless Mustang vs Camaro battles, debates, and arguments that have raged for 50 years? Why would their respective fans treat any other pony car competitor differently?
Pony cars were not originally about big engines and straight line speed, either. They were about affordable, fun, attractive, sportiness. The early Mustangs earned their performance chops on road courses, not the strip. They competed in touring car racing. A Mustang won the BTCC in 1965. The first high performance version of the Mustang was the road-racing-focused Shelby GT350. Only when the Big 3 started dropping big-blocks into them in the late 60s and early 70s, pushing certain trims into the muscle car category, did they start to earn a reputation for being drag-strip bruisers. A pony car is a pony car regardless of what's under hood. A '68 Mustang with the straight 6 is as much as pony car as a '68 with a 390 big-block under hood. And as the traditional muscle cars, your Chargers and Chevelles and Torinos, died out in the late 70s and 80s, the V8 Mustangs and Camaros were the last bastions of cheap V8 power and that's where the muscle-car crowd ended up turning. Which in turn left a large portion of the Mustang/Camaro/Firebird segment buyers as members of the "gotta have a V8", "Spend my Thursday nights at the drag strip" crowd. These guys weren't pony car fans, they were muscle car fans. These are the same people that turned their noses up at base Mustangs and Camaros not fitted V8 engines and derided them as "not real Mustangs/Camaros". Pony car fans like pony cars, not just the ones with big engines.
Ford was able to sell sport compacts alongside Mustangs for a variety of reasons. Yes, they did appeal to different types of buyers despite a fair bit of overlap. One could argue that a 6-cylinder Mustang convertible and a fire-breathing Shelby GT500 in 1969 also appealed to different sorts of buyers. The sport compacts were more modern in styling. They had a lower cost of ownership, between better fuel economy and lower insurance rates. They fared better in wintry conditions for those driving them year-round (except the 240SX). They were often a bit more refined. You weren't shamed by the muscle-car crowd for buying one without the big engine, nor did they have the stigma associated with the muscle-car crowd of the time (mullets, rednecks, trailer parks...). Back before the "gotta have a V8" crew sunk their teeth into the segment, folks who bought "sport compacts" in the 90s were the same sort of folks who bought lower trim, 6-cylinder Mustangs and Camaros/Firebirds back in the 60s and 70s. The emphasis on cheap straight-line speed over other virtues that defined Fox and SN95 era Mustangs, and 3rd and 4th generation Camaros, was also a result of the wants of muscle car guys who transitioned to buying Mustangs and Camaros after the muscle cars died out. But the very notion of "fun, sporty car built on mainstream/economy car bones" is the very formula of "pony car".
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2018, 08:18:34 AM
There's intense hatred between different make of pony car owners. Have you missed the endless Mustang vs Camaro battles, debates, and arguments that have raged for 50 years? Why would their respective fans treat any other pony car competitor differently?
The Ford vs. Chevy debate is one of the most infantile things out there. LOL YOU DRIVE A FORD YOU MUST LIKE SUCKIN DICK.
Holy fuck... Only on carspin would someone argue a Civic SI is a pony car. "Pony car" in and of itself requires it to be a domestic brand and up until today was a long hood short deck proportion affordable compact car with rwd. A fwd Japanese sporty compact clearly fits this description.
But hey, thanks to carspin history revisionism I'm suddenly a former pony car owner :popcorn: :muffin:
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 08:41:30 AM
Holy fuck... Only on carspin would someone argue a Civic SI is a pony car. "Pony car" in and of itself requires it to be a domestic brand and up until today was a long hood short deck proportion affordable compact car with rwd. A fwd Japanese sporty compact clearly fits this description.
But hey, thanks to carspin history revisionism I'm suddenly a former pony car owner :popcorn: :muffin:
Nobody said a Civic Si. The car being debated about here was a Probe GT.
And yeah, you are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pony_car
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 08:41:30 AM
Holy fuck... Only on carspin would someone argue a Civic SI is a pony car. "Pony car" in and of itself requires it to be a domestic brand and up until today was a long hood short deck proportion affordable compact car with rwd. A fwd Japanese sporty compact clearly fits this description.
But hey, thanks to carspin history revisionism I'm suddenly a former pony car owner :popcorn: :muffin:
Never said the Civic was. No Civic is a pony car. I was specifically talking about the uniquely bodied sport compacts based on mainstream platforms (Probe, MX6, DSM, Prelude, Celica). Cars based on economy car bones but that didn't share aesthetics with their platform mates. That was the formula of the original Mustang and why a Mustang, regardless of engine option, is a pony car but a Falcon coupe or convertible was never considered such even when fitted with a V8. The Civic coupe is the same as a Falcon coupe was, a 2-door version compact/economy car with common styling (and often shared body parts). And a hatchback (as distinct from lifting fastback) is definitely not a pony car. That's the hot hatch segment. Now the Integra/RSX, which shared the Civic's platform but with a totally unique aesthetic, I would argue was a pony car. Existence of the sedan version of older Integra generations would give me some pause on those, though.
By what definition is a pony car limited only to American-branded cars? Because the arch-type happened to be produced by an American company? Does that mean that only German cars can be hot hatches because the VW GTI defined the segment (though, like the Mustang, was technically not the first of its kind)?
Is this Mercury a pony car?
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ya64XmgY--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/mw0yenhzr1zv8uq8tewt.jpg)
Don't conflate the nature of all cars of the 60s with inherent traits of a pony car. All American cars in the 60s, including economy cars, were RWD. Practically all of them, including economy cars, offered a V8 engine. Neither of these are inherent traits of a pony car. And while the Mustang popularized the "pony car", hence the segment name, it wasn't the first affordable sporty compact car out of America. The Corvair Monza and first Barracuda both beat it to market, the former by several years, and were both very similar in concept (economy car with a sporty body and character). The Corvair Monza was, in fact, the car the Mustang was targeting as its chief competitor and is considered a member of the pony car class even though it never had a V8 and didn't even have the engine in teh front. Regardless, last I checked, the proportions of the Probe, MX6, Integra, Prelude, DSM, 240SX, Celica, et al featured a relatively long hood and relatively short deck rear deck. So from a general proportions standpoint, these cars fit the mold.
From Wiki (which in turn links to other source material):
QuoteThe cars could carry four people while featuring a sporty design. Many of the offerings came with economical six-cylinder or small V8 engines.[17] The basic two-door "Pony Car" characteristics were thus set:[18][19]
Stylish and sporty long hood, short deck, and "open mouth" styling
Affordable base price (under $2,500 — in 1965 dollar value)
"Off-the-shelf" mass production components
Wide range of often lucrative options to individualize each car
Youth-oriented marketing and advertising
And
QuoteTellingly, while most pony cars were available with more powerful engines and performance packages—enough to propel some into the muscle car realm—the vast majority were sold with six-cylinder engines or ordinary V8s.[20] The initial pony cars "were sporty compact cars for the masses."[21]
And a Celica or Probe or MX6 fails to meet these criteria how, exactly?
Figured it was because young people don't give a shit about driving any cars period. And they really don't give a shit about sports cars. And youth is what pushed sales of sports cars/coupes back in the day.
Unless you're talking high end stuff.
And in 1993 If you had come into my Ford/Mazda bodyshop and told the Ford guys my MX-3 GS was a pony car they would've called you every bad name in the book.
And if you'd told me that too I'd do the same unless you're way bigger then me. Then I'd do it behind your back.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 21, 2018, 09:09:53 AM
Nobody said a Civic Si. The car being debated about here was a Probe GT.
And yeah, you are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pony_car
Have you read that?
Quote from: Onslaught on March 21, 2018, 09:30:37 AM
And in 1993 If you had come into my Ford/Mazda bodyshop and told the Ford guys my MX-3 GS was a pony car they would've called you every bad name in the book.
And if you'd told me that too I'd do the same unless you're way bigger then me. Then I'd do it behind your back.
...How little we knew back then...
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2018, 09:25:19 AM
And a Celica or Probe or MX6 fails to meet these criteria how, exactly?
By absoliyely defining a segment that was absolutely not a Pony car?
Since you love wiki so much
QuoteThere is no precise definition and the description is applied for marketing purposes to a wide variety of models, but typical "sport compacts" are front engined, front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive coupés, sedans, or hatchbacks driven by a straight-4 gasoline engine. In most cases, they are versions of mass-market cars that are factory produced with additional features and upgrades. Performance-oriented sport compacts generally focus on improving handling and increasing performance by engine efficiency, rather than increasing engine size. Sport compacts often feature external body modifications to improve aerodynamics or house larger wheels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_compact
Quote from: Onslaught on March 21, 2018, 09:30:37 AM
Figured it was because young people don't give a shit about driving any cars period. And they really don't give a shit about sports cars. And youth is what pushed sales of sports cars/coupes back in the day.
Unless you're talking high end stuff.
And in 1993 If you had come into my Ford/Mazda bodyshop and told the Ford guys my MX-3 GS was a pony car they would've called you every bad name in the book.
And if you'd told me that too I'd do the same unless you're way bigger then me. Then I'd do it behind your back.
And if you go to a CUV driver today and tell them they're driving a station wagon, they'll probably have a similar response. Just because people choose to be in denial doesn't make them right.
There was a certain image associated with the "traditional" pony car segment in the late 80s and 90s that prompted marketers of sport compacts to not want to brand their vehicles as "pony cars", and a certain set of Mustang/Camaro buyers that didn't want to be associated with other sport compacts (the same group that barely tolerated the existence of non-V8 Mustangs/Camaros). But you can call a duck a "water fowl" all you want, it's no less a duck. Pony cars are a sub-type of sport compact and many, but not all, cars that were marketed in the 90s merely as "sport compacts" would also fall neatly under the pony car category.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 09:48:55 AM
Have you read that?
Yes; and nowhere did it say either RWD or American made are necessary.
I wouldn't think of a Probe as a pony car either; but its clearly not a hatchback or an economy car. The term I remember was "date car," and the Prelude more or less defined the segment.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 10:01:53 AM
By absoliyely defining a segment that was absolutely not a Pony car?
Since you love wiki so muchhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_compact
Okay "driven by straight 4" then. I can see that to a certain extent; how many 150-200 HP four bangers were there in the early '90s?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 21, 2018, 10:12:00 AM
Okay "driven by straight 4" then. I can see that to a certain extent; how many 150-200 HP four bangers were there in the early '90s?
I just listed a bunch... Good grief
Not to mention these cars weighed a good 25-30% less than modern equivalents
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 10:01:53 AM
By absoliyely defining a segment that was absolutely not a Pony car?
Since you love wiki so muchhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_compact
Did you read that article?
QuoteAccording to Motor Trend in a comparison entitled "Small, Fast, Fun", the sports compact car has to accomplish the multiple duties of a "family car" and a "daily driver" - thus having more than two doors and seating at least four passengers - while also being "fun to drive" on all roads and in town.
By that definition, a Probe is not a sport compact, as it has only 2 doors (a liftback is not a door).
Or we can go by this:
QuoteThere is no precise definition and the description is applied for marketing purposes to a wide variety of models, but typical "sport compacts" are front engined, front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive coupés, sedans, or hatchbacks driven by a straight-4 gasoline engine. In most cases, they are versions of mass-market cars that are factory produced with additional features and upgrades.
The Probe was not a performance version of a mass-market car (unlike a Golf GTI, Civic Si, Impreza WRX, or Sentra SE-R would be), it was it's own model. And the GT didn't have an I4 engine. So it fails to meet the criteria given here as well, though the author opens by saying that the definition is nebulous to begin with.
Pony cars are a subset of sport compact, depending on which of the "not precisely defined" definitions you care to choose, though not by the examples taken from wiki above (which the cars you're debating me on also fail to meet). Not every sport compact is one, but sport compacts like the Celica, Probe, MX-6, RSX, DSM, or Prelude certainly fit the mold. Meanwhile, sport compacts like the WRX, GTI, Civic Si, or Sentra SE-R do not.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
I just listed a bunch... Good grief
Not to mention these cars weighed a good 25-30% less than modern equivalents
Most of which only did so in 6 cylinder guise.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 21, 2018, 10:10:30 AM
Yes; and nowhere did it say either RWD or American made are necessary.
I wouldn't think of a Probe as a pony car either; but its clearly not a hatchback or an economy car. The term I remember was "date car," and the Prelude more or less defined the segment.
I'm really failing to find any history of a non domestic or fwd car ever being called or marketed as a pony car.
Maybe you have better luck finding some examples?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 21, 2018, 10:23:37 AM
Most of which only did so in 6 cylinder guise.
The only part of my list that had a V6 was the probe/mx and that was a damn 2.5L engine in the 2nd gen that might as well have been a 4cyl (but thankfully not because it sounded so much better)
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2018, 10:20:49 AM
Did you read that article?
By that definition, a Probe is not a sport compact, as it has only 2 doors (a liftback is not a door).
Or we can go by this:
The Probe was not a performance version of a mass-market car (unlike a Golf GTI, Civic Si, Impreza WRX, or Sentra SE-R would be), it was it's own model. And the GT didn't have an I4 engine. So it fails to meet the criteria given here as well, though the author opens by saying that the definition is nebulous to begin with.
Pony cars are a subset of sport compact, depending on which of the "not precisely defined" definitions you care to choose, though not by the examples taken from wiki above (which the cars you're debating me on also fail to meet). Not every sport compact is one, but sport compacts like the Celica, Probe, MX-6, RSX, DSM, or Prelude certainly fit the mold. Meanwhile, sport compacts like the WRX, GTI, Civic Si, or Sentra SE-R do not.
http://www.superstreetonline.com/features/1508-10-most-influential-sport-compacts-of-the-90s/
Why do I see no mention of pony cars and plenty of "liftbacks"? Why again is the Probe even mentioned?
How about finding anywhere in this universe a stereotypical sport compact car being called a pony car (other than your head)
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 10:27:17 AM
I'm really failing to find any history of a non domestic or fwd car ever being called or marketed as a pony car.
Maybe you have better luck finding some examples?
Called? well I just did. Was the Camaro ever marketed as a pony car? Does that change anything?
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
I just listed a bunch... Good grief
Oh?
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Probe GT
Not a 4-cylinder, last I checked. And the Turbo in the Gen1 car was only 145 hp.
QuoteMX6,
Not with a 4 cylinder.
QuoteCelica GTs,
Not until 1999
QuoteCivic SI,
Not until 1999
QuoteIntegra
Yep
Quote240SX
Yep, barely. But not technically a sport compact per the Wiki article.
QuoteDSMs
Yes, in turbocharged form.
3/7. Grade = F
Quote... Too many to name actually
You couldn't even name half a dozen...
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 10:34:47 AM
http://www.superstreetonline.com/features/1508-10-most-influential-sport-compacts-of-the-90s/
Why do I see no mention of pony cars and plenty of "liftbacks"? Why again is the Probe even mentioned?
How about finding anywhere in this universe a stereotypical sport compact car being called a pony car (other than your head)
This article was instantly invalidated when they included the Miata and MR2. Not sport compacts by any definition you're arguing. Unless we're going to toss in any small, reasonably affordable (2nd gen MR2 turbos were NOT cheap... $47K in today's dollars starting price) 4-cylinder sporty/performance car as a "sport compact".
Why we arguing about FWD cars in a sports car post. FWD cars are not sports cars.
Bottom line is that despite what any solid definitions there may or may not be, nobody thinks of Probes or 240SXs when someone says pony cars; and the original statement; that more performance is available now in compact offerings than was in the late '80s to late '90s is so self evident its ridiculous to argue.
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2018, 10:40:47 AM
Oh?
Not a 4-cylinder, last I checked. And the Turbo in the Gen1 car was only 145 hp.
Not with a 4 cylinder.
Not until 1999
Not until 1999
Yep
Yep, barely. But not technically a sport compact per the Wiki article.
Yes, in turbocharged form.
3/7. Grade = F
You couldn't even name half a dozen...
Oh here we go, the king of internet semantics...
Oh that's right, you can't lump in a 2.5L V6 designed to compete but differentiate yourself from a 4 cyl in with 4 cylinders. How dare I. Also, you really want to be a dickhead over 5hp on the first gen turbo? Be my guest.
Sorry the Celica had 200hp in the 80s
Sorry, Honda's B16A engine had 160hp in the 1989 Civic SiR and CRX siR
Sorry DSMs existed
Sorry the MR2 turbo had 200hp
Sorry, there were examples of the Imprezza and Lacer well above 200hp.
Sorry, the damn Omni GLH existed in the mid 80s.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 11:04:13 AM
Oh here we go, the king of internet semantics...
Oh that's right, you can't lump in a 2.5L V6 designed to compete but differentiate yourself from a 4 cyl in with 4 cylinders. How dare I. Also, you really want to be a dickhead over 5hp on the first gen turbo? Be my guest.
You were asked what 4-cylinders made 150+ hp in the late 80s early 90s. This is not a 4-cylinder. That's not semantics.
QuoteSorry the Celica had 200hp in the 80s
Then why did you post a picture of a 1999+ Celica GT-S when called on it?
QuoteSorry, Honda's B16A engine had 160hp in the 1989 Civic SiR and CRX siR
...
Sorry, there were examples of the Imprezza and Lacer well above 200hp.
Are we now expanding to JDM-only?
QuoteSorry, the damn Omni GLH existed in the mid 80s.
:clap:
So stretching your scope into vehicles that were never sold in North America, you have 9. (And you missed some easy gimmes for cars that were actually sold in this market).
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 11:04:13 AM
Oh here we go, the king of internet semantics...
Oh that's right, you can't lump in a 2.5L V6 designed to compete but differentiate yourself from a 4 cyl in with 4 cylinders. How dare I. Also, you really want to be a dickhead over 5hp on the first gen turbo? Be my guest.
Sorry the Celica had 200hp in the 80s
Sorry, Honda's B16A engine had 160hp in the 1989 Civic SiR and CRX siR
Sorry DSMs existed
Sorry the MR2 turbo had 200hp
Sorry, there were examples of the Imprezza and Lacer well above 200hp.
Sorry, the damn Omni GLH existed in the mid 80s.
Those were all pretty rare, or limited editions, or not even available in this country; which goes to the original statement; not many. Which is what was being said; not that such things didn't exist, but that most people couldn't get them and there weren't many options.
And they're all outclassed by what could be found on any decent sized dealer's lot today.
All this talk about Probes, don't forget Ford had the Escort GT in the early 90s. Maybe considered a hot hatch for the time, but only came with 127 hp.
"The first guy says, 'Well I'm an astronaut, so I drive a Saturn.' And the second guy says, 'Well I am a pimp so I drive a cheap Escort.' And the third guy says, 'I got you both beat. I'm a proctologist, so I drive a brown Probe."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 21, 2018, 11:28:18 AM
Those were all pretty rare, or limited editions, or not even available in this country; which goes to the original statement; not many. Which is what was being said; not that such things didn't exist, but that most people couldn't get them and there weren't many options.
And they're all outclassed by what could be found on any decent sized dealer's lot today.
No, my original statement was
QuoteI don't know... Hatches and econo cars have had 150-200hp since the early 90 or late 80s. I'd put the handling of some of the late 90s examples up against newer items anyday as well.
Higher priced cars have definitely progressed with technology.
Which is all accurate and could have been left at that until the Semantics Wonder had to try and classify things as pony cars and other ridiculousness involving rewriting history
It's not accurate. But that clearly doesn't matter to you
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 21, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
It's not accurate. But that clearly doesn't matter to you
Oh look, the classic internet non descriptive saving of face
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 12:46:04 PM
No, my original statement was
Which is all accurate and could have been left at that until the Semantics Wonder had to try and classify things as pony cars and other ridiculousness involving rewriting history
As a general thing, no they didn't. Nothing you listed could be called an econo car. That there were some limited edition hard to get exceptions ( that weren't at that point economy cars) is something that doesn't make it generally untrue.
You should look up what semmantics means. Pointing out blatantly false statements is not semmantics.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
Oh look, the classic internet non descriptive saving of face
I've already explained why in detail. It's clear you won't accept inconvenient facts so there's no point in repeating myself.
Anyway. I'm planning on upgrading the Si this year. Probably in the fall/early winter. Right now in consideration is keep the Si and get a nice AP2 S2K or trade in the Si and get a Type R. I'm leaning towards the Type R cause of convenience. I am the reason this thread exists.
Whew!!! This thread...... :wtf:
Quote from: Xer0 on March 21, 2018, 04:15:31 PM
Anyway. I'm planning on upgrading the Si this year. Probably in the fall/early winter. Right now in consideration is keep the Si and get a nice AP2 S2K or trade in the Si and get a Type R. I'm leaning towards the Type R cause of convenience. I am the reason this thread exists.
Hold out til there's a CRV type-R in the works?
Fuck, this just got harder :hmm:
Quote from: Xer0 on March 21, 2018, 04:15:31 PM
Anyway. I'm planning on upgrading the Si this year. Probably in the fall/early winter. Right now in consideration is keep the Si and get a nice AP2 S2K or trade in the Si and get a Type R. I'm leaning towards the Type R cause of convenience. I am the reason this thread exists.
I know of a nice AP1. $20k takes it home.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 21, 2018, 04:15:31 PM
Anyway. I'm planning on upgrading the Si this year. Probably in the fall/early winter. Right now in consideration is keep the Si and get a nice AP2 S2K or trade in the Si and get a Type R. I'm leaning towards the Type R cause of convenience. I am the reason this thread exists.
If you can get past the looks the Type-R is a no brainer
I can't. The back looks like shelving built from pallet scraps.
Quote from: Laconian on March 21, 2018, 08:08:35 PM
I can't. The back looks like shelving built from pallet scraps.
u talkin sh bout pallets?!
:lol:
Hahaha... how did I miss this