1st Place
Audi R8 - 220 Points
Base Price - $109,720
Tested Price - $120,970
0-60 - 4.3
0-100 - 10.7
1/4 Mile 12.8 @ 112 mph
5-60 - 4.8
70-0 - 160 feet
300 ft skidpad - .97
Willow Springs International Raceway Lap Time - 1:35.76/94.0 mph
Lane change (mph) - 66.7
Observed miles per gallon - 14
Highs
Ballet-dancer balance and grace, eager responses, telepathic steering, internal combustion rarely sounds better.
Lows
Proportions awkward from some angles, uncomfortable dead-pedal height, blind in the rear quarters.
Verdict
Sports-car perfection from an unexpected source.
2nd Place
Porsche 911 Turbo - 210 Points
Base Price - $123,760
Tested Price - $141,510
0-60 - 3.8
0-100 - 9.2
1/4 Mile 12.2 @ 117 mph
5-60 - 4.8
70-0 - 159 feet
300 ft skidpad - .98
Willow Springs International Raceway Lap Time - 1:38.53/91.3 mph :boring:
Lane change (mph) - 65.0
Observed miles per gallon - 14
Highs
Omigawd thrust, never-fade brakes, limpet grip, gorgeous interior treatment, maximum Porsche mystique.
Lows
Spooky at the limits of adhesion, high interior noise levels, Prussian ride quality, snoot scrapes on driveway ramps.
Verdict
For 911 addicts who have no wish to be cured, Porsche Sturm und Drang just doesn't get any better than this.
3rd Place
Aston Martin V8 Vantage - 191 Points
Base Price - $117,150
Tested Price - $129,110
0-60 - 5.1
0-100 - 12.3
1/4 Mile 13.5 @ 106 mph
5-60 - 5.8
70-0 - 165 feet
300 ft skidpad - .93
Willow Springs International Raceway Lap Time - 1:40.73/89.4 mph
Lane change (mph) - 64.1
Observed miles per gallon - 13
Highs
Appealingly edgy update on classic GT-coupe shape, smooth operator on rough payment, irresistible V8 growl.
Lows
A bit too much body roll, nervous under hard braking, short on muscle among these heavy lifters.
Verdict
A stylish GT sophisticate that's a little out of its depth among these thoroughbreds.
And unexpectedly, the R8 is 3 whole seconds a lap faster than the 997TT!!!
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 29, 2007, 02:46:44 PM
And unexpectedly, the R8 is nearly 3 whole seconds a lap faster than the 997TT!!!
There, fixed. How are these everyday supercars? I was thinking this would be Corvette, GT500, Boxster, Exige S, etc. Those are everyday supercars.
i agree with you hemi except the 911 is more of a DD than the exige. :lol:
Quote from: heelntoe on May 29, 2007, 02:56:58 PM
i agree with you hemi except the 911 is more of a DD than the exige. :lol:
True.
When I think of "Everyday Supercars", then I would have to think it could be a car I would be ok with driving year round.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2007, 02:53:35 PM
There, fixed. How are these everyday supercars? I was thinking this would be Corvette, GT500, Boxster, Exige S, etc. Those are everyday supercars.
That's the title of the article.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 29, 2007, 03:03:49 PM
That's the title of the article.
I know it's the title. I'm not questioning you, I'm questioning C&D.
The R8 is only the second car that I've ever heard of that has a mid engine, AWD layout. From my virtual experience with that layout (and I mean virtual, as in video game), it seems to be a very special application of AWD stability and mid engine dynamincs. Rotate on the way into a corner, and then "catch" and power through. Very interesting concept. I can't say that I wasn't rooting for the 911 Turbo, but the R8 definitely is a strong entry.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
When I think of "Everyday Supercars", then I would have to think it could be a car I would be ok with driving year round.
I'd imagine the R8 would be fine driving year round. You may not want to take it out in a blizzard, but it should be fine in normal winter weather.
I saw a fair share of Porsche 911's driving in Montreal's winter. :huh: The R8 should be just as capable as a 911 4.
Fuck this, I'll take the 911, anyday.
Quote from: ro51092 on May 29, 2007, 03:22:37 PM
Fuck this, I'll take the 911, anyday.
Aston > That
You see that episode of Top Gear where the Stig ran the V8 Vantage, M6, and 911 S down the same stretch of road? The V8 and M6 tied (very impressive since the M6 has 9021bhp and the V8 has 163), but the 911 S beat them by six seconds.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 29, 2007, 03:24:45 PM
Aston > That
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The 911's the enthusiast's ride, the Aston's for the sissy who wants to look cool.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg463877#msg463877 date=1180473992
You see that episode of Top Gear where the Stig ran the V8 Vantage, M6, and 911 S down the same stretch of road?? The V8 and M6 tied (very impressive since the M6 has 9021bhp and the V8 has 163), but the 911 S beat them by six seconds.?
I love that bit. I saw it on Youtube though.
Quote from: ro51092 on May 29, 2007, 03:22:37 PM
Fuck this, I'll take the 911, anyday.
I'd probably be happy to have a regular 911 (or even a Cayman) and save the money compared to an R8, but if it was simply a choice between the 911 Turbo and the R8 I think I'd go with the R8.*
*Note: opinion is based purely on magazines, since I have never driven either of the specified automobiles.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 29, 2007, 03:17:01 PM
I'd imagine the R8 would be fine driving year round. You may not want to take it out in a blizzard, but it should be fine in normal winter weather.
I saw a fair share of Porsche 911's driving in Montreal's winter.? :huh: The R8 should be just as capable as a 911 4.
If I spent that much money on a car, I wouldn't be driving it in the winter...especially in all that salt Montreal uses. But that's just me.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 29, 2007, 03:35:26 PM
I'd probably be happy to have a regular 911 (or even a Cayman) and save the money compared to an R8, but if it was simply a choice between the 911 Turbo and the R8 I think I'd go with the R8.*
*Note: opinion is based purely on magazines, since I have never driven either of the specified automobiles.
i agree and i'll add once I saw the R8 in person at the autoshow, i finally understood how outstanding the design looks in person
Remember right when the Turbo was comming out they kept it in the Northern Hemisphere and made journalists drive it on the snow.?It was putting down some insane numbers, even handicapped by conditions.
If it can handle Sweden it can handle Montreal, though like you, I'd be hesitant to put a car that nice on bad roads.
A regular Carrera on the other hand...my uncle sold his in part because it couldn't make it up his driveway during Wyoming winters.
Carreras are known for their ability to handle snow. Rear engine means great traction. How steep was his driveway?
A kid I knew in high school had a steep, gravel driveway. The E320 had trouble making it up that in the dry.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg463913#msg463913 date=1180475149
Carreras are known for their ability to handle snow.? Rear engine means great traction.? How steep was his driveway??
A kid I knew in high school had a steep, gravel driveway.? The E320 had trouble making it up that in the dry.?
Steeper than some, not as steep as others :huh:
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:30 PM
If I spent that much money on a car, I wouldn't be driving it in the winter...especially in all that salt Montreal uses.? But that's just me.
you could say that about any car. heck, some people called me silly for keeping my alloy wheels on during winter.
For me, I figure if I am going to spend the money to buy a nice car, I am going to drive it as much as possible. :huh:
Wow that R8 performed excellently. I totally underestimated the Audi, thinking it was just a halo car and not a real competitor. It's quite a bit slower than the 911 Turbo in a straight line, but still so completely beat it on the track. The Audi's handling must be pure magic. It's also cheaper than the 911 Turbo as well.
Before I always thought the R8 would be a performance match for the 911 4S, thus the R8 would have been an overpriced alternative. This review shows that at least on a track, it can obliterate a 911 Turbo, and suddenly it's looking like a bargain. I have alot more respect for this car now.
Now I wonder what the V10 version will do. F430 killer?
I"ll take the Vantage. :praise:
Quote from: Raghavan on May 29, 2007, 05:28:31 PM
I"ll take the Vantage. :praise:
:rockon:
As my uncle, and Rohan would say; "Good man."
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 29, 2007, 05:30:03 PM
:rockon:
As my uncle, and Rohan would say; "Good man."
Rohan=me?
Quote from: ro51092 on May 29, 2007, 03:26:59 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The 911's the enthusiast's ride, the Aston's for the sissy who wants to look cool.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg463858#msg463858 date=1180473231
The R8 is only the second car that I've ever heard of that has a mid engine, AWD layout.
If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Put the engine in the middle and have it power all four wheels...
Where's the lovely Zed-oh-six? That's far more of an everyday supercar than the R8--and about $50,000 cheaper to boot.
Gimme a 997 Turbo out of these three.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg463858#msg463858 date=1180473231
The R8 is only the second car that I've ever heard of that has a mid engine, AWD layout.?
Really? What about the Diablo VT from the early 90s. The Murci and the Gallardo too. The Ford RS200 was mid engine AWD too, as well as the Tommy Kaira ZZII. I'm sure there are a few others I'm missing.
Quote from: Raza on May 29, 2007, 03:13:51 PM
The R8 is only the second car that I've ever heard of that has a mid engine, AWD layout.
Really? Which of the following haven't you heard of before:
Lambo Gallardo
Lambo Murcielago
Lambo Diablo
Ford RS200
Bugatti Veyron
Quote from: MX793 on May 29, 2007, 06:18:57 PM
Really?? Which of the following haven't you heard of before:
Lambo Gallardo
Lambo Murcielago
Lambo Diablo
Ford RS200
Bugatti Veyron
Whoa that was kinda spooky..... :confused:
Quote from: 565 on May 29, 2007, 06:19:57 PM
Whoa that was kinda spooky..... :confused:
The fact that you guys named 4 of the same cars or that you forgot the Veyron?
Quote from: Raghavan on May 29, 2007, 06:21:38 PM
The fact that you guys named 4 of the same cars or that you forgot the Veyron?
Well I feel bad about forgetting the Veyron and the fact we named 4 of the same cars isn't is far fetched considering it's a small field. The spooky thing was that Raza posted that comment a LONG time ago, but MX and I responded at about the same time, and both starting with the word "Really?"
Very impressive. I'd have a hard time not picking a 911 but if i was spending this much money I'd go for the GT3. It's the most pure, and involving car in the 911 lineup. Possibly the most pure, and involving car for sale today.
Quote from: 565 on May 29, 2007, 05:23:38 PM
Wow that R8 performed excellently. I totally underestimated the Audi, thinking it was just a halo car and not a real competitor. It's quite a bit slower than the 911 Turbo in a straight line, but still so completely beat it on the track. The Audi's handling must be pure magic. It's also cheaper than the 911 Turbo as well.
Before I always thought the R8 would be a performance match for the 911 4S, thus the R8 would have been an overpriced alternative. This review shows that at least on a track, it can obliterate a 911 Turbo, and suddenly it's looking like a bargain. I have alot more respect for this car now.
Now I wonder what the V10 version will do. F430 killer?
After reading the article, I can't help but think that they were a little scared by the 911TT and thus their lap times were a little slow. Given professional drivers (with balls of steel :lol:), I can't help but think that these lap times might be a little different.
Of course that is not really that important to us plebes. The R8 looks to be quite a performer :ohyeah:.
Scans up on this forum.
http://www.rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?p=96410#post96410
Quote from: ro51092 on May 29, 2007, 03:26:59 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The 911's the enthusiast's ride, the Aston's for the sissy who wants to look cool.
Agreed. And We never see eye to eye.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2007, 02:53:35 PM
There, fixed.? How are these everyday supercars?? I was thinking this would be Corvette, GT500, Boxster, Exige S, etc.? Those are everyday supercars.
Doesn't say "affordable", it says every day, meaning those who can afford it can conceivably use it as their DD (although most won't, especially people in the snowbelt).
If I owned a 997TT, it would be my daily driver.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 29, 2007, 04:25:04 PM
you could say that about any car. heck, some people called me silly for keeping my alloy wheels on during winter.
For me, I figure if I am going to spend the money to buy a nice car, I am going to drive it as much as possible.? :huh:
I'm in the same boat. I figure I get my money's worth out of a car by driving it, not by letting it sit in the garage.
If I ever spend $100k+ on a car you can be damn sure I'll be driving it A LOT.
Quote from: Lebowski on May 30, 2007, 06:59:24 AM
I'm in the same boat.? I figure I get my money's worth out of a car by driving it, not by letting it sit in the garage.
If I ever spend $100k+ on a car you can be damn sure I'll be driving it A LOT.
But would you drive it in weather where the maintenance crews use a shitload of rust-inducing salt and where the morons driving on 3 season tires are sliding through intersections? Not me.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 30, 2007, 07:57:37 AM
But would you drive it in weather where the maintenance crews use a shitload of rust-inducing salt and where the morons driving on 3 season tires are sliding through intersections?? Not me.
I live in FL so don't have to worry about that. I'd probably have a cheap 2nd car if I lived in an area with bad weather.
TheIntrepid: IntrepiDude, did C&D say how they figured that a V8 Vantage belonged in this comparo? Were the "as tested" vehicle weights given? Were there other cars that they wanted but couldn't get in time for the comparo?
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 30, 2007, 07:57:37 AM
But would you drive it in weather where the maintenance crews use a shitload of rust-inducing salt and where the morons driving on 3 season tires are sliding through intersections?? Not me.
I do that to my current car :huh:
Quote from: Nethead on May 30, 2007, 09:11:43 AM
TheIntrepid: IntrepiDude, did C&D say how they figured that a V8 Vantage belonged in this comparo? Were the "as tested" vehicle weights given? Were there other cars that they wanted but couldn't get in time for the comparo?
Nethead, I took these numbers from another website. I'll let you know about this when my C&D comes; which should be today or tomorrow.
Quote from: r0tor on May 30, 2007, 09:16:21 AM
I do that to my current car? :huh:
Did your car cost $100K? I drove my modified Mustang year round here in Calgary, but there's no way I would drive an R8 or an Aston Martin year round.
I'd take a GT3 over any of those cars.
How is an Audi R8 an "everyday" super car? I'll take an E92 M3 with the same HP, 4 seats, and similar performance (admittedly not the same, but we will see) at half the price, thanks. Now THAT is an everyday super car.
Quote from: 565 on May 29, 2007, 06:16:28 PM
Really? What about the Diablo VT from the early 90s. The Murci and the Gallardo too. The Ford RS200 was mid engine AWD too, as well as the Tommy Kaira ZZII. I'm sure there are a few others I'm missing.
Oh wow.
Totally forgot about the Lamborghinis. And everything else.
Brain wasn't working yesterday. I apologize.
I was thinking of the 205 T16.
Wow, I was really out of it.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 30, 2007, 10:15:18 AM
How is an Audi R8 an "everyday" super car? I'll take an E92 M3 with the same HP, 4 seats, and similar performance (admittedly not the same, but we will see) at half the price, thanks. Now THAT is an everyday super car.
I don't think the E92 M3 will be faster than a 997 Turbo around a track, which the R8 destroyed.
Quote from: 850CSi on May 30, 2007, 11:19:11 AM
I don't think the E92 M3 will be faster than a 997 Turbo around a track, which the R8 destroyed.
Agreed. That's why I said "similar". Frankly, this test result is weird. I find it hard to believe but will do so if other mags chime in with similar results. Just not yet.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 30, 2007, 11:25:30 AM
Agreed. That's why I said "similar". Frankly, this test result is weird. I find it hard to believe but will do so if other mags chime in with similar results. Just not yet.
One word: quattro. I really think that explains a lot of the amazing lap times Audis seem to get (anyone remember the C/D comparison with the new TT?)
Have you seen the Fifth Gear where they compared the RS 4 to the E46 M3? Now granted everyone knows the RS 4 is a lot more powerful, but Tiff Needell (a former F1 driver) seemed to think that quattro had more than anything to do with the fact that the M3 just couldn't keep up. They kept talking about how the M3 was more fun but the Audi was a track machine.
Quote from: 850CSi on May 30, 2007, 11:32:58 AM
One word: quattro. I really think that explains a lot of the amazing lap times Audis seem to get (anyone remember the C/D comparison with the new TT?)
Have you seen the Fifth Gear where they compared the RS 4 to the E46 M3? Now granted everyone knows the RS 4 is a lot more powerful, but Tiff Needell (a former F1 driver) seemed to think that quattro had more than anything to do with the fact that the M3 just couldn't keep up. They kept talking about how the M3 was more fun but the Audi was a track machine.
Yes, 4WD sure helps in powering earlier out of corners. But the 911TT has that too, less weight, and a lot more power....
I just checked out the scans over at the RS6 forum, and in the discussion there they mention that EVO has the R8 beating an F430 around Bedford. Basically, only the Enzo was faster than the R8 on that track according to them.
I am very impressed. But I still hate Audis. :banghead:
Quote from: r0tor on May 30, 2007, 09:16:21 AM
I do that to my current car? :huh:
Me too. Cars are meant to be driven. Sure the salt my not be the best for my car but its so much fun driving it in the snow that I just don't care. Thats the reason why I got the car.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 30, 2007, 10:15:18 AM
How is an Audi R8 an "everyday" super car? I'll take an E92 M3 with the same HP, 4 seats, and similar performance (admittedly not the same, but we will see) at half the price, thanks. Now THAT is an everyday super car.
:confused:
I'm not knocking the E92 M3 which I'm sure will be sweet, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "supercar". Although, the same could be said about the Aston as well.
look, the guys at that RS6 site even have a smiley for it: (http://www.rs6.com/smilies/SmileyR8-kiss.gif)
:lol:
Quote from: JYODER240 on May 30, 2007, 12:18:00 PM
Me too. Cars are meant to be driven. Sure the salt my not be the best for my car but its so much fun driving it in the snow that I just don't care. Thats the reason why I got the car.
For an Audi, it seems almost rediculous IMHO to avoid snow. the whole point of an Audi is the AWD. the whole point to AWD is for better traction. The time that the extra traction would be the most helpful is in foul weather.
If you are only going to drive in fair weather, you're better off skipping any AWD car and just stick to RWD.
Quote from: 850CSi on May 30, 2007, 11:32:58 AM
One word: quattro. I really think that explains a lot of the amazing lap times Audis seem to get (anyone remember the C/D comparison with the new TT?)
Have you seen the Fifth Gear where they compared the RS 4 to the E46 M3? Now granted everyone knows the RS 4 is a lot more powerful, but Tiff Needell (a former F1 driver) seemed to think that quattro had more than anything to do with the fact that the M3 just couldn't keep up. They kept talking about how the M3 was more fun but the Audi was a track machine.
After reading the article, I think it has more to do with the fact that the R8 is easier to drive. They talked about being scared of snap oversteer in the 911TT :confused:. BTW, that TT in the C&D article was FWD, not quattro.
QuoteI'm not knocking the E92 M3 which I'm sure will be sweet, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "supercar". Although, the same could be said about the Aston as well.
I think it depends on your definition of supercar. Personally, I don't think any of these are supercars. When I think supercar, I think McLaren F1, Carrera GT, Koenigsegg CC, Pagani Zonda, Saleen S7, etc.
QuoteAfter reading the article, I think it has more to do with the fact that the R8 is easier to drive. They talked about being scared of snap oversteer in the 911TT . BTW, that TT in the C&D article was FWD, not quattro.
Hmm... I stand corrected then.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 30, 2007, 11:51:22 AM
Yes, 4WD sure helps in powering earlier out of corners. But the 911TT has that too, less weight, and a lot more power....
I just checked out the scans over at the RS6 forum, and in the discussion there they mention that EVO has the R8 beating an F430 around Bedford. Basically, only the Enzo was faster than the R8 on that track according to them.
I am very impressed. But I still hate Audis. :banghead:
Wow faster than an F430, and here I thought it would take the V10 version to beat the F430. The new Audi's are awesome.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 30, 2007, 07:57:37 AM
But would you drive it in weather where the maintenance crews use a shitload of rust-inducing salt and where the morons driving on 3 season tires are sliding through intersections? Not me.
Life is short.
I'd have a hard time deciding between these three. I'd probably take one of each :rockon:
The R8 is definitely growing on me.
I'm on the fence. I have a sports car and I have a sports sedan. And, the sports car costs almost three times that of the sedan. So, when I have the option, I'm going to take the sedan in high risk areas. That's what's nice about having two cars that you enjoy driving.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg464917#msg464917 date=1180566185
I'm on the fence.? I have a sports car and I have a sports sedan.? And, the sports car costs almost three times that of the sedan.? So, when I have the option, I'm going to take the sedan in high risk areas.? That's what's nice about having two cars that you enjoy driving.
I fixed it for you? :P.? Seriously though, it must be nice having a Boxter S and a Passat.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 30, 2007, 05:42:38 PM
I fixed it for you :P. Seriously though, it must be nice having a Boxter S and a Passat.
Yes, it is. :lol:
I just wish the Passat was a stick, that's all.
And the part about having two that you enjoy is so that you don't have to feel deprived when you take the other car. I've been told that I should get a diesel to replace the Passat, but I think it's silly to believe that if you have one fun car, you have enough.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg464955#msg464955 date=1180568859
Yes, it is.? ?:lol:
I just wish the Passat was a stick, that's all.
And the part about having two that you enjoy is so that you don't have to feel deprived when you take the other car.? I've been told that I should get a diesel to replace the Passat, but I think it's silly to believe that if you have one fun car, you have enough.
I hear ya :ohyeah:.
Out of these, I will take the R8. But I agree, where is the super bow tie competitor, that is $40-50,000 cheaper, as fast, and I've heard the new handling tweaks have really improved the stability. Oh well, it wouldn't of been a fair fight. :tounge:
Z06 got new rear shocks i think and it really eliminates the twichiness of the car. I think it would've been a great competitor.
Plus it is an everyday supercar, unlike these other cars.
Quote from: goldenlover1101 on May 30, 2007, 08:09:53 PM
Out of these, I will take the R8. But I agree, where is the super bow tie competitor, that is $40-50,000 cheaper, as fast, and I've heard the new handling tweaks have really improved the stability. Oh well, it wouldn't of been a fair fight. :tounge:
Apples to oranges.
Quote from: Raghavan on May 30, 2007, 08:14:24 PM
Z06 got new rear shocks i think and it really eliminates the twichiness of the car. I think it would've been a great competitor.
Plus it is an everyday supercar, unlike these other cars.
How is the Z06 anymore "everyday" than a 911TT, other than price?
Quote from: goldenlover1101 on May 30, 2007, 08:09:53 PM
Out of these, I will take the R8. But I agree, where is the super bow tie competitor, that is $40-50,000 cheaper, as fast, and I've heard the new handling tweaks have really improved the stability. Oh well, it wouldn't of been a fair fight. :tounge:
:confused: Z06!? Doesn't compare, dude. :huh:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 31, 2007, 07:16:33 AM
:confused: Z06!? Doesn't compare, dude. :huh:
Why not, it fits the bill of "everyday supercar" better than the Aston does. Not knocking the Aston, it's a gorgeous car, I just don't think it's performance #s are all that "super".
Quote from: Lebowski on May 31, 2007, 07:34:42 AM
Why not, it fits the bill of "everyday supercar" better than the Aston does. Not knocking the Aston, it's a gorgeous car, I just don't think it's performance #s are all that "super".
It's not the performance that doesn't fit, it's the car. A supercar has to be more than performance, there is a bit of intangibility that comes with the term "supercar", that the Z06 just doesn't have. It's an amazing machine, it's just not a supercar.
That said, I don't think the Aston is a supercar either. The DB9 is not. The closest thing is the Vanquish, which has the pedigree, but the performance is slightly off compared to other supercars. Actually, I don't think the 911 Turbo is a supercar either (the GT2, GT3/RS, CGT, yes). The R8 seems to be, though.
"Supercar", like "hero", is a word thrown about too often.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg465379#msg465379 date=1180618928
It's not the performance that doesn't fit, it's the car.? A supercar has to be more than performance, there is a bit of intangibility that comes with the term "supercar", that the Z06 just doesn't have.? It's an amazing machine, it's just not a supercar.
That said, I don't think the Aston is a supercar either.? The DB9 is not.? The closest thing is the Vanquish, which has the pedigree, but the performance is slightly off compared to other supercars.? Actually, I don't think the 911 Turbo is a supercar either (the GT2, GT3/RS, CGT, yes).? The R8 seems to be, though.?
"Supercar", like "hero", is a word thrown about too often.
I agree the Supercar term is overused, but 99% of the cars I'd consider "Supercars" (Enzo, Zonda F, CGT, among others, I don't think I'd even consider the GT3 a true supercar but maybe the upcoming GT2). But the comparo isn't entitled "Supercars shootout" and it doesn't include cars like that, it's entitled "Everyday Supercars" which in my read means a compromise, cars that can be driven every day but also offer near supercar level performance. IMO the ZO6 and 911TT fit that category as well as anything.
Quote from: ro51092 on May 29, 2007, 03:26:59 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The 911's the enthusiast's ride, the Aston's for the sissy who wants to look cool.
I love Porsches. I've had Porsches. I'll take the Aston, thank you. More capable than any street car needs to be, and looks better than any of the others on this list. Hell, it looks better than pretty much anything else period. And I can appreciate that no matter WHAT kind of driving I'm doing.
I prefer the look of this:
(http://www.astonmartins.com/v8/images/am658.jpg)
To this:
(http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/dennis/20070111/11/1942471463-aston-martin-v8-vantage.jpg)
QuoteWhy not, it fits the bill of "everyday supercar" better than the Aston does. Not knocking the Aston, it's a gorgeous car, I just don't think it's performance #s are all that "super".
For the same reason why we don't compare Evos and STis to M5s and E63s.
Quote from: omicron on June 01, 2007, 07:17:28 AM
I prefer the look of this:
(http://www.astonmartins.com/v8/images/am658.jpg)
To this:
(http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/dennis/20070111/11/1942471463-aston-martin-v8-vantage.jpg)
Omi...you're on crack and I advise that you get yourself into rehab right this minute.
Quote from: Lebowski on June 01, 2007, 06:48:13 AM
I agree the Supercar term is overused, but 99% of the cars I'd consider "Supercars" (Enzo, Zonda F, CGT, among others, I don't think I'd even consider the GT3 a true supercar but maybe the upcoming GT2). But the comparo isn't entitled "Supercars shootout" and it doesn't include cars like that, it's entitled "Everyday Supercars" which in my read means a compromise, cars that can be driven every day but also offer near supercar level performance. IMO the ZO6 and 911TT fit that category as well as anything.
Perhaps the Z06 should have been included. But I didn't write it.
Quote from: omicron on June 01, 2007, 07:17:28 AM
I prefer the look of this:
(http://www.astonmartins.com/v8/images/am658.jpg)
To this:
(http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/dennis/20070111/11/1942471463-aston-martin-v8-vantage.jpg)
That's because you have eyes.
Although this is my favorite picture of the classic V8:
(http://astonmartin.resmoto.com/galerie/v8_vantage/Aston_Martin-V8_Vantage.jpg)
Quote from: 850CSi on June 01, 2007, 08:17:06 AM
For the same reason why we don't compare Evos and STis to M5s and E63s.
But you probably should.
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 09:51:33 AM
That's because you have eyes.
Although this is my favorite picture of the classic V8:
(http://astonmartin.resmoto.com/galerie/v8_vantage/Aston_Martin-V8_Vantage.jpg)
It's so lovely. The new one is nice, but it's just a bit of round and curve and that. A bit too Gordon, who was rather flash.
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 09:51:56 AM
But you probably should.
http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Road_Tests/Rush+Hour.html
Evo vs. STi vs. Clubsport R8
That V8 looks pitiful next to the earlier DB line
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Aston.db5.coupe.300pix.jpg)
I like the new one better
Quote from: omicron on June 01, 2007, 09:56:10 AM
It's so lovely. The new one is nice, but it's just a bit of round and curve and that. A bit too Gordon, who was rather flash.
My big issue is that all the new Astons look the same.
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 10:50:46 AM
My big issue is that all the new Astons look the same.
Certainly the V8 Vantage and the DB9, yes. The Vanquish S gets away with it, but only just.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg466814#msg466814 date=1180716646
My big issue is that all the new Astons look the same.?
This comming from a Porsche guy, sheesh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tave on June 01, 2007, 11:36:01 AM
This comming from a Porsche guy, sheesh. :rolleyes:
Yeah, many 911s look similar, but you can instantly tell the difference between 911s, Boxsters, 944s, 928s, Cayennes, and the like. Besides, the 911 is an evolutionary design. The V8, DB9, and Vanquish, and the upcoming DBS are all of different lines, and the only one that should look like it does is the DB9, since it clearly looks like an evolution of the DB7, and the DB7 looks like it could be part of the DB line. The V8 looks nothing like the original V8, which was another evolutionary design until this new model which looks exactly like the DB9 and Vanquish. And the Vanquish doesn't have any sort of lineage, so I guess it's okay that it looks like the rest.
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 12:22:05 PM
Yeah, many 911s look similar, but you can instantly tell the difference between 911s, Boxsters, 944s, 928s, Cayennes, and the like.
And I can tell the difference between Astons at a glance. it's all in your level of interest. In the '70s or '80s, was it a 912, SC, Carerra or turbo> Oh, look, the flares are SLIGHTLY larger... And the avearge person can't tell the difference between a 928 and a 968. or between a 944 and a 911 slopenose.
As for the rest of that rant, I've said it before, it's a design language, and companies in every type of market pay good money to come up with one that works, from the look of Braun appliances, to Cuisinarts, to Apple products. They are supposed to look like they came from the same place, to instantly identify them with the brand's heritage/image/etc.
I
like the fact that Astons look like Astons, in different sizes and configurations, as they are all attractive, and NONE of them are all that common. Not like there are hundreds of thousands of them running around...
Quote from: omicron on June 01, 2007, 07:17:28 AM
I prefer the look of this:
(http://www.astonmartins.com/v8/images/am658.jpg)
To this:
(http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/dennis/20070111/11/1942471463-aston-martin-v8-vantage.jpg)
Agree 100%.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 01, 2007, 12:58:39 PM
And I can tell the difference between Astons at a glance. it's all in your level of interest. In the '70s or '80s, was it a 912,? SC, Carerra or turbo> Oh, look, the flares are SLIGHTLY larger... And the avearge person can't tell the difference between a 928 and a 968. or between a 944 and a 911 slopenose.
When I see a Porsche 911 on the street I can't tell you if it's 10 year old 911, 20 year old 911, or a new 911. Next to each other I could, but not when they are alone on the street.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 01, 2007, 12:58:39 PM
And I can tell the difference between Astons at a glance. it's all in your level of interest. In the '70s or '80s, was it a 912, SC, Carerra or turbo> Oh, look, the flares are SLIGHTLY larger... And the avearge person can't tell the difference between a 928 and a 968. or between a 944 and a 911 slopenose.
As for the rest of that rant, I've said it before, it's a design language, and companies in every type of market pay good money to come up with one that works, from the look of Braun appliances, to Cuisinarts, to Apple products. They are supposed to look like they came from the same place, to instantly identify them with the brand's heritage/image/etc.
I like the fact that Astons look like Astons, in different sizes and configurations, as they are all attractive, and NONE of them are all that common. Not like there are hundreds of thousands of them running around...
There's design language and there's looking absolutely the same. But, to each his own.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg466936#msg466936 date=1180727629
There's design language and there's looking absolutely the same.? But, to each his own.
(http://www.thecollection.com/images/models/astonmartin/AMV8Vantage.jpg)
V8 Vantage
(http://cyberportfolio.st-joseph.qc.ca/public/berant/archives/aston-martin-db9-f.jpg)
DB9
(http://www.macrossrpg.com/~cm/Aston%20Martin%20Vanquish.jpg)
Vanquish
I see a design language, but that's it. They don't look absolutely the same at all.
Maybe I just don't like them.
They look about as much alike as a Cayman and a 911.
(http://www.autobytel.com/images/2006/Porsche/Cayman/500/2006_Porsche_Cayman_exfrdrvr34.jpg)
(http://www.exoticcars.ws/cars/porsche-911-turbo.jpg)
Oops. Maybe the Porsches look more alike then the Astons. :ohyeah:
And this seriously just looks like a jacked-up 996 Carrera
(http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/naias_2006/0602_naias_029+2006_porsche_cayenne_turbo_s+front_side_view.jpg)
(http://www.heritageclassics.com/porsche/02sil996c4s/A.jpg)
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 02:03:19 PM
Maybe I just don't like them.
That's considerably different than saying they look exactly the same. they don't look exactly the same any more than Christian looks like Claudia.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on June 01, 2007, 02:07:32 PM
And this seriously just looks like a jacked-up 996 Carrera
(http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/naias_2006/0602_naias_029+2006_porsche_cayenne_turbo_s+front_side_view.jpg)
(http://www.heritageclassics.com/porsche/02sil996c4s/A.jpg)
That's more design language.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 01, 2007, 02:08:40 PM
That's considerably different than saying they look exactly the same. they don't look exactly the same any more than Christian looks like Claudia.
Okay. I still think they look more similar than the Porsche lineup.
I love the Astons but I think they look a little too similar.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 31, 2007, 01:55:37 AM
How is the Z06 anymore "everyday" than a 911TT, other than price?
The fact that it's cheap makes it OK for me to daily driver it without feeling guilty compared to the other ones.
Quote from: Raghavan on June 01, 2007, 04:46:22 PM
The fact that it's cheap makes it OK for me to daily driver it without feeling guilty compared to the other ones.
75 thousand ain't cheap, sweetheart.
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 05:42:24 PM
75 thousand ain't cheap, sweetheart.
For you it is.
I agree with Raza, in all his self-righteousness.... other than size, all the Astons look pretty much the same to me
Quote from: Raza on June 01, 2007, 05:42:24 PM
75 thousand ain't cheap, sweetheart.
Z06's cost $65k, and that's about half the cost of the Aston and way less than half of the 911.
Quote from: Raghavan on June 01, 2007, 07:37:11 PM
Z06's cost $65k, and that's about half the cost of the Aston and way less than half of the 911.
A 2LZ Z06 is $73,485. The 1LZ is $70. That's before dealer markups. 70K ain't cheap. 73K ain't cheap. Even 65's not cheap.
A lot cheaper than the cars tested.
I said it was relatively cheaper. If i didn't, that's what i meant.
Quote from: Raghavan on June 02, 2007, 02:36:48 PM
A lot cheaper than the cars tested.
I said it was relatively cheaper. If i didn't, that's what i meant.
Aren't you too cheap to spend more than $50 on a pair of shoes?
Quote from: Lebowski on June 02, 2007, 04:27:42 PM
Aren't you too cheap to spend more than $50 on a pair of shoes?
It's the cheapest supercar you can buy.
And yes, i won't buy shoes more than $40.
Quote from: Raghavan on June 02, 2007, 05:28:25 PM
It's the cheapest supercar you can buy.
And yes, i won't buy shoes more than $40.
I wouldn't call a Z06 a supercar either. Sure it's a fantastic car but it's still a chevy. Like others have said before you need the pedigree for me to truly call a supercar, a supercar.
Quote from: Minpin on June 02, 2007, 09:58:47 PM
I wouldn't call a Z06 a supercar either. Sure it's a fantastic car but it's still a chevy. Like others have said before you need the pedigree for me to truly call a supercar, a supercar.
That doesn't mean shit when the Z06 can blow nearly all of the "pedigreed" supercars away in any category you can think of. :lol:
Quote from: NACar on June 02, 2007, 10:11:19 PM
That doesn't mean shit when the Z06 can blow nearly all of the "pedigreed" supercars away in any category you can think of. :lol:
I would think so. It's hard to explain but I'm fairly confident you get what i'm trying to say. Sure it might be a little bit faster but it is still a chevy. They are a dime a dozen, all over the place. But if it's a ferrari that does just a little bit worse in performance but it has the rarity and mystique about it so that when one drives by you say "DAAMN a Ferrari!".
All this is for nil though as we can never really say what is and isn't by definitive answer, a supercar.
From wiki.
A supercar is a term used for a sports car, typically an exotic or rare one, whose performance is highly superior to its contemporaries. The proper application of this term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. The use of the term is dependent on the era; a vehicle that is considered to be a supercar at one time may not retain its superiority in the future. The automotive press frequently calls new exotic cars "supercars".
I'd say the Z06 falls under the "super car" category in terms of it's performance and it's own pedigree, but I wouldn't call it an "exotic car", because it's American. ;)
Quote from: Minpin on June 02, 2007, 09:58:47 PM
I wouldn't call a Z06 a supercar either. Sure it's a fantastic car but it's still a chevy. Like others have said before you need the pedigree for me to truly call a supercar, a supercar.
Who cares if the car doesn't have the pedigree for
you to call it a supercar. It's a supercar, and you're wrong. :devil:
Quote from: NACar on June 02, 2007, 10:43:29 PM
I'd say the Z06 falls under the "super car" category in terms of it's performance and it's own pedigree, but I wouldn't call it an "exotic car", because it's American. ;)
An S7 isn't exotic?
Quote from: Raghavan on June 02, 2007, 10:52:27 PM
Who cares if the car doesn't have the pedigree for you to call it a supercar. It's a supercar, and you're wrong. :devil:
I care, and so do a lot of other people. Anyone can make a car that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds. People make 9 second drag mustangs etc. all the time. Does their sheer speed make them a supercar? NO. They need to be in that upper class of superiority and to be in that class it requires a pedigree. You're wrong. :devil:
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 01, 2007, 01:51:09 PM
When I see a Porsche 911 on the street I can't tell you if it's 10 year old 911, 20 year old 911, or a new 911.? Next to each other I could, but not when they are alone on the street.
:confused:
Quote from: Raza on May 30, 2007, 10:31:05 AM
Oh wow.
Totally forgot about the Lamborghinis. And everything else.
Brain wasn't working yesterday. I apologize.
I was thinking of the 205 T16.
Wow, I was really out of it.
Stop smoking so much
Quote from: Minpin on June 02, 2007, 11:30:02 PM
I care, and so do a lot of other people. Anyone can make a car that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds. People make 9 second drag mustangs etc. all the time. Does their sheer speed make them a supercar? NO. They need to be in that upper class of superiority and to be in that class it requires a pedigree. You're wrong.? :devil:
But the Z06 does have "pedigree". It's not a one trick pony either, it's good at everything. Are you trying to say that it can't be a supercar just because it's affordable or reliable or has a lower-priced counterpart that can be seen in great numbers on the roads? Not good reasons.
I dare you test-drive a Z06 and
not call it a super car! :devil:
i think the general public/media seems to classify supercars according to price
Quote from: M_power on June 03, 2007, 12:24:43 AM
i think the general public/media seems to classify supercars according to price
the general public/media aren't car enthusiats
Quote from: NACar on June 03, 2007, 12:26:31 AM
the general public/media aren't car enthusiats
i know that
Quote from: Minpin on June 02, 2007, 11:30:02 PM
I care, and so do a lot of other people. Anyone can make a car that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds. People make 9 second drag mustangs etc. all the time. Does their sheer speed make them a supercar? NO. They need to be in that upper class of superiority and to be in that class it requires a pedigree. You're wrong. :devil:
But can anyone make a supercar that handles well, stops well, and goes insanely fast for under $70k? I didn't think so.
The Z06 is a damn fast car but I don't think it's a supercar.
Quote from: Minpin on June 02, 2007, 10:18:05 PM
I would think so. It's hard to explain but I'm fairly confident you get what i'm trying to say. Sure it might be a little bit faster but it is still a chevy. They are a dime a dozen, all over the place. But if it's a ferrari that does just a little bit worse in performance but it has the rarity and mystique about it so that when one drives by you say "DAAMN a Ferrari!".
All this is for nil though as we can never really say what is and isn't by definitive answer, a supercar.
From wiki.
A supercar is a term used for a sports car, typically an exotic or rare one, whose performance is highly superior to its contemporaries. The proper application of this term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. The use of the term is dependent on the era; a vehicle that is considered to be a supercar at one time may not retain its superiority in the future. The automotive press frequently calls new exotic cars "supercars".
The vast majority of supercars are not sports cars.
Quote from: Raza on June 03, 2007, 12:06:42 PM
The vast majority of supercars are not sports cars.
Using the tradititional definition, sure. But, given that "sports car" has come to mean more than just a body classification, I think we can let that one slide....
so raza's the whore who keeps bringing up the classic definitions issue
I, too, am part of this school of traditional definitions.
Quote from: omicron on June 04, 2007, 02:46:50 AM
I, too, am part of this school of traditional definitions.
And ChrisV (and Shaman, for those who remember...). And Chris is meaner than I am.
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2007, 09:03:29 AM
And ChrisV (and Shaman, for those who remember...). And Chris is meaner than I am.
And, he owns a sports car! That lovely Fiat of his.
Quote from: omicron on June 05, 2007, 09:04:19 AM
And, he owns a sports car! That lovely Fiat of his.
Yes, he does. It is lovely.
I do too, you know...
but yours is not italian. :lol:
Nor is it lovely. And no one ever called a Fiat driver a 'cockster'...
Quote from: Raza on June 03, 2007, 12:06:42 PM
The vast majority of supercars are not sports cars.
True, they are GTs.
:lol:
Quote from: heelntoe on June 05, 2007, 12:55:44 PM
but yours is not italian. :lol:
Well, the Brits invented the sports car anyway.
Quote from: 93JC on June 05, 2007, 01:38:23 PM
Nor is it lovely. And no one ever called a Fiat driver a 'cockster'...
That's just because it doesn't rhyme with "Spider".
:lol:
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2007, 02:48:18 PM
Well, the Brits invented the sports car anyway.
still doens't make yours italian :lol:
So WTF is a supercar? Does it have to be Italian? Can't we just call them Italian cars? The Z06 is apparantly too big of a bargain... what about the pricier Ford GT? That seems pretty super to me, but OMG it's a got an American name on it, that must mean it's not super. No, wait, that just means it's not exotic, which has nothing to do with being super. Wasn't Superman American? Well, technically, he's from Krypton, which makes him Exotic... but he grew up in an American farm, I'd say? that makes him American... but if he is American, he's not Super, so should we call him GTman or Sportsman...?
:banghead:
Well what you were looking at a supercar from an italian's POV? if it has to be 'exotic', that means a Ford GT and Z06 would be supercars :lol:
I will freely give the title of Supercar to any car which reaches a certain performance level, regardless of it's age, race, aspiration or sexual orientation, because that's the American way. Screw all you guys and your Supercar Affirmative Action. :evildude:
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 02:53:13 PM
So WTF is a supercar? Does it have to be Italian? Can't we just call them Italian cars? The Z06 is apparantly too big of a bargain... what about the pricier Ford GT? That seems pretty super to me, but OMG it's a got an American name on it, that must mean it's not super. No, wait, that just means it's not exotic, which has nothing to do with being super. Wasn't Superman American? Well, technically, he's from Krypton, which makes him Exotic... but he grew up in an American farm, I'd say that makes him American... but if he is American, he's not Super, so should we call him GTman or Sportsman...?
:banghead:
d00d, you're overthinking it. The Ford GT is a supercar.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg470483#msg470483 date=1181077178
d00d, you're overthinking it.? The Ford GT is a supercar.?
Because it's produced in low numbers and is very expensive? The Z06's performance is at the same level, so why is it not super?
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 03:00:46 PM
Because it's produced in low numbers and is very expensive?
Exactly.
Quote from: 850CSi on June 05, 2007, 03:58:47 PM
Exactly.
That only makes it exotic in my mind. The 911TT is not exactly a limited numbers car....
Quote from: LonghornTX on June 05, 2007, 04:09:49 PM
That only makes it exotic in my mind. The 911TT is not exactly a limited numbers car....
And, as I said before, I don't consider the 911 Turbo to be a supercar.
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2007, 04:12:45 PM
And, as I said before, I don't consider the 911 Turbo to be a supercar.
"Supercar" is a term denoting performance, and nothing more IMO. The only thing that make, pedigree, production numbers, or price deals with is how "exotic" a car is.
Thus, the C6 Z06 is a supercar, but not an exotic :ohyeah:. The 911TT is most definately a supercar, IMO.
Quote from: LonghornTX on June 05, 2007, 04:23:59 PM
"Supercar" is a term denoting performance, and nothing more IMO. The only thing that make, pedigree, production numbers, or price deals with is how "exotic" a car is.
Thus, the C6 Z06 is a supercar, but not an exotic :ohyeah:. The 911TT is most definately a supercar, IMO.
I'm not on your boat, unfortunately.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg470643#msg470643 date=1181084851
I'm not on your boat, unfortunately.?
Well then smarty panties, exactly who's boat are you on?
This is all I know about your boat:
-The Ford GT is a supercar
-The Z06, 911TT are not supercars
-Sportscars have zip-up side windows
Given that, it appears the only thing differentiating the Ford GT from the other two is:
-The Ford GT is very expensive
-The Ford GT is build in very low quantities
-The Ford GT does not have a lower-performance version available for a lower price
-The Ford GT is a supercar
I don't get it. There is no logic here. What's a Viper to you?
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 06:07:11 PM
Well then smarty panties, exactly who's boat are you on?
This is all I know about your boat:
-The Ford GT is a supercar
-The Z06, 911TT are not supercars
-Sportscars have zip-up side windows
Given that, it appears the only thing differentiating the Ford GT from the other two is:
-The Ford GT is very expensive
-The Ford GT is build in very low quantities
-The Ford GT does not have a lower-performance version available for a lower price
-The Ford GT is a supercar
I don't get it. There is no logic here. What's a Viper to you?
Sports car/GT.
I have no steadfast rule for what a supercar is. Unlike the definition for a sports car, supercar is very flexible. "Supercar" is something intangible.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9381.msg470814#msg470814 date=1181088649
Sports car/GT.?
I have no steadfast rule for what a supercar is.? Unlike the definition for a sports car, supercar is very flexible.? "Supercar" is something intangible.
A Z06 is pretty intangible to me, I don't have $70k, and I highly doubt I can walk into a dealership around here and find one, let alone test drive one...? :lol:
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 06:07:11 PM
Well then smarty panties, exactly who's boat are you on?
-Sportscars have zip-up side windows
Sports cars are open cars, but not all convertibles are sports cars. ROADSTERS have zip up side windows, if they have them at all. Roadsters do not have roll up side windows. Some sports cars are roadsters, some are cabriolets. Not all roadsters are sports cars. (like say, the '32 Ford roadster is not a sports car, wheras the Stutz Bearcat is.) My Fiat is a sports car, but it is not a roadster. The Porsche 356 Speedster is both a sports car
and a roadster, as is the first generation Viper RT/10.
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 06:13:41 PM
A Z06 is pretty intangible to me, I don't have $70k, and I highly doubt I can walk into a dealership around here and find one, let alone test drive one... :lol:
By that definition, any car you can't afford is an intangible. Can you afford a new Mustang? How about a new Accord? Does that make those supercars or exotics? If you agree that it's a matter of degree, then you're on the right track.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 05, 2007, 09:14:38 PM
Sports cars are open cars, but not all convertibles are sports cars. ROADSTERS have zip up side windows, if they have them at all. Roadsters do not have roll up side windows. Some sports cars are roadsters, some are cabriolets. Not all roadsters are sports cars. (like say, the '32 Ford roadster is not a sports car, wheras the Stutz Bearcat is.) My Fiat is a sports car, but it is not a roadster. The Porsche 356 Speedster is both a sports car and a roadster, as is the first generation Viper RT/10.
The line is so blurry nowadays I don't give a shit what anyone calls them.
I agree with the classical definitions but I never use them in conversation. For example, I'd never call my car a GT or correct someone for calling a 911 a sports car.
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 02:59:26 PM
I will freely give the title of Supercar to any car which reaches a certain performance level, regardless of it's age, race, aspiration or sexual orientation, because that's the American way. Screw all you guys and your Supercar Affirmative Action.? :evildude:
NACar:? Easy there, NADude!? At the turn of the millenium--effective at midnight on the morning of 1/1/2000--the definition of
supercar was nailed down by general consensus by one of those European car mags, and it is simply a vehicle that is (a) able to
sustain over 200 MPH on the tires the vehicle comes equipped with from the manufacturer,
and (b) able to turn the standing start quarter-mile in under 12.0 seconds on the tires the vehicle comes equipped with from the manufacturer.? Consequently, no switching to slicks for the acceleration half of the definition is acceptable.
?
Some people confuse the words "super car" with the single word "supercar" defined above.? A "super car" may be the fastest vehicle you can afford; or alternately, any vehicle that you've gotten laid in, whether yours, hers, or theirs...
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 06, 2007, 10:21:10 AM
The line is so blurry nowadays I don't give a shit what anyone calls them.
The line hasn't gotten blurry at all. The cars in the categories have simply gotten better.
Quote from: Nethead on June 06, 2007, 12:01:58 PM
NACar:? Easy there, NADude!? At the turn of the millenium--effective at midnight on the morning of 1/1/2000--the definition of supercar was nailed down by general consensus by one of those European car mags, and it is simply a vehicle that is (a) able to sustain over 200 MPH on the tires the vehicle comes equipped with from the manufacturer, and (b) able to turn the standing start quarter-mile in under 12.0 seconds on the tires the vehicle comes equipped with from the manufacturer.? Consequentlyly, no switching to slicks for the acceleration half of the definition is acceptable.
?
Some people confuse the words "super car" with the single word "supercar" defined above.? A "super car" may be the fastest vehicle you can afford; or alternately, any vehicle that you've gotten laid in, whether yours, hers, or theirs...
1. I don't live in Europe.
2. I don't care about any strict set of guidelines just to call something a supercar. I'd be more willing to side with Raza here, and say that the definition of a supercar is "intangible". Some cars are super because they just are.
3. Calling a Z06 a non-supercar just because it tops out at 198mph, while calling a Ford GT a supercar becaues it can top 205 is stupid. Just like it's stupid to call a Z06 a supercar because it does the 1/4 in 12.0, but Ford GT a non-supercar beause it can only manage a paltry 12.2.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 05, 2007, 09:14:38 PM
Sports cars are open cars, but not all convertibles are sports cars. ROADSTERS have zip up side windows, if they have them at all. Roadsters do not have roll up side windows. Some sports cars are roadsters, some are cabriolets. Not all roadsters are sports cars. (like say, the '32 Ford roadster is not a sports car, wheras the Stutz Bearcat is.) My Fiat is a sports car, but it is not a roadster. The Porsche 356 Speedster is both a sports car and a roadster, as is the first generation Viper RT/10.
By that definition, any car you can't afford is an intangible. Can you afford a new Mustang? How about a new Accord? Does that make those supercars or exotics? If you agree that it's a matter of degree, then you're on the right track.
Are you serious? I was joking about the zip-up windows and the intangibleness. But seriously, I don't give a damn about anybody's tight ass "classical" definitions. To define an entire car by whether or not it has roll-up side windows is almost as stupid as defining a supercar by it's factory tire's speed rating.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: NACar on June 06, 2007, 04:05:34 PM
Are you serious? I was joking about the zip-up windows and the intangibleness. But seriously, I don't give a damn about anybody's tight ass "classical" definitions. To define an entire car by whether or not it has roll-up side windows is almost as stupid as defining a supercar by it's factory tire's speed rating.
:rolleyes:
I am serious. Defining a body style by roll up windows is the same as defining a body style like your fucking station wagon. Or defining a fucking pickup truck by it's fucking bed. You're the one who's being fucking stupid.
:banghead:
Quote from: ChrisV on June 07, 2007, 12:02:03 PM
I am serious. Defining a body style by roll up windows is the same as defining a body style like your fucking station wagon. Or defining a fucking pickup truck by it's fucking bed. You're the one who's being fucking stupid.
:banghead:
Now, now, Chris. Stay calm.
I don't understand why people wish to throw out this definition, but are fine with a four door car with a separate trunk being a sedan, and a two door car with a separate trunk being a sedan. But call a two door, two seater a GT and they get all upset. It's silly to be so offended by simple definitions.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 07, 2007, 12:02:03 PM
I am serious. Defining a body style by roll up windows is the same as defining a body style like your fucking station wagon. Or defining a fucking pickup truck by it's fucking bed. You're the one who's being fucking stupid.
:banghead:
How is a mechanism that raises and lowers windows comparable in importance to "body style" to an 8 foot box behind the passenger compartment?
Quote from: ChrisV on June 07, 2007, 12:02:03 PM
I am serious. Defining a body style by roll up windows is the same as defining a body style like your fucking station wagon. Or defining a fucking pickup truck by it's fucking bed. You're the one who's being fucking stupid.
:banghead:
So you want to use the classic definition? Fine.
THIS IS AN ROADSTER:
(http://www.laurelacres.com/images/daredevil02.jpg)
Try shoving that you your pompous traditionalist ass.
Someone needs to tell Mazda to stop calling the MX-5 a Roadster then. :frown:
Popular mechanics did a test with the R8 and 911 Turbo that also included the Z06 and Viper. Viper was fastest, R8 was second, Z06 was third. Porsche was last. :cry:
Quote from: Raza on May 29, 2007, 03:13:51 PM
The R8 is only the second car that I've ever heard of that has a mid engine, AWD layout.
Gallardo? Murcielago? Veyron 16.4? Which two of those haven't you heard of?
Quote from: NACar on June 05, 2007, 06:13:41 PM
A Z06 is pretty intangible to me, I don't have $70k, and I highly doubt I can walk into a dealership around here and find one, let alone test drive one... :lol:
Try it. Wear decent clothes and borrow a car from a friend who has a nicer car than a Suzuki Esteem for you to drive to the dealer. You'd be amazed what you can get away with just by pretending to have money.
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 08, 2007, 01:42:31 PM
Gallardo? Murcielago? Veyron 16.4? Which two of those haven't you heard of?
We went over this already.
My brain wasn't working that day.
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 08, 2007, 01:47:08 PM
Try it. Wear decent clothes and borrow a car from a friend who has a nicer car than a Suzuki Esteem for you to drive to the dealer. You'd be amazed what you can get away with just by pretending to have money.
What a tactful and eloquent post. Especially from a man with a camera-shy car.
Quote from: Onslaught on June 07, 2007, 09:46:24 PM
Someone needs to tell Mazda to stop calling the MX-5 a Roadster then. :frown:
They have. But the car is from Japan, where Engrish is the rule of the day, and they mangle English words and meanings all the time. So, we let them slide on it from a cultural differences standpoint.
Quote from: mazda6er on June 08, 2007, 03:19:41 PM
What a tactful and eloquent post. Especially from a man with a camera-shy car.
Zing!
Quote from: mazda6er on June 08, 2007, 03:19:41 PM
What a tactful and eloquent post. Especially from a man with a camera-shy car.
Well, Sander just got shut down in a hurry.
Quote from: mazda6er on June 08, 2007, 03:19:41 PM
What a tactful and eloquent post. Especially from a man with a camera-shy car.
PWNED. Although I wouldn't rag on Sandy. He's too nice.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on June 11, 2007, 09:55:07 AM
PWNED. Although I wouldn't rag on Sandy. He's too nice.
The definition of irony?
Quote from: NACar on June 06, 2007, 04:05:34 PM
1. I don't live in Europe.
2. I don't care about any strict set of guidelines just to call something a supercar. I'd be more willing to side with Raza here, and say that the definition of a supercar is "intangible". Some cars are super because they just are.
3. Calling a Z06 a non-supercar just because it tops out at 198mph, while calling a Ford GT a supercar becaues it can top 205 is stupid. Just like it's stupid to call a Z06 a supercar because it does the 1/4 in 12.0, but Ford GT a non-supercar beause it can only manage a paltry 12.2.
NACar:? Most tests I've read of Ford GTs by those who know how to drag show quarter-mile times in the mid-to-high 11s--I think it was Popular Mechanics who got around 11.7 out of a Ford GT in a roughly 12-car comparo a few years back, which is the lowest I can recall from pure stock on OEM rubber.? Drag radials, a pulley swap, and a reflash drop 'em down into the tens, but that ain't what we're talkin' 'bout here.? The 11.7 was thrashin' the car hard, but dragracing done well IS about thrashin' the car hard.? Like it is with all really powerful vehicles, launch is of the utmost importance--especially on OEMs.? If I find that PM article, I'll post some of it and give the issue date so you can read it in its entirety.
:lol:
:huh:
NACar: NADude, it was the May, 2004 issue of Popular Mechanics, and here is the Ford GT & Saleen S7 page, sans the pictures that wouldn't cut/paste with this browser. Go to popularmechanics.com and do a Search on "Saleen S7" as I did and you can read the entire article (or get the May, '04 hardcopy at the library):
PM's 'Acceleration Nation 2': 12-Second Cars
Now, street cars that run 12-second quarter-miles.
Photos by Vinnie Donizetti
Published in the May 2004 issue.
2nd Place: Time for full disclosure: Ford was unable to deliver a GT to Pomona in time for the test. So we went to Ford's Arizona Proving Ground near Kingman and tested one there. Since Pomona has the advantage in terms of traction, temperature and elevation, we'd guess the times would have been quicker had the car been with us on the day of our group test. That said, short of the rare Saleen S7, the $145,000 Ford GT is the quickest production car to be had in any new-car dealership on planet Earth. In fact, if you look at the 0-to-60 times, you'll note the GT is quicker than the S7. Some of that can be attributed to Ford's decision to make 60 mph attainable in First gear. The rest can be attributed to the supercharged 5.4-liter V8 that pounds out 500 hp and 500 ft.-lb. of torque. Get the tire speed up a bit at launch and after a few feet, the GT's massive rear rubber hooks up and hurls you down the track. The thrust is Delta IV brain-blurring and Terminator-relentless. Each gear change is greeted with bottomless buckets of torque. It's awesome. The Ford GT is the absolute cheapest way to get quite deeply into the newly created and extremely exclusive 11-second street-legal, production-car club.
Test Summary: Ford GT
Base price: $139,995, Price as tested: $145,000 (Est.), Engine: 5.4-liter/330.0 cu.-in. DOHC 32v supercharged V8, HP: 500 @ 6000 rpm, Torque: 500 ft.-lb. @ 4500 rpm, HP/liter ratio: 92.6, Trans: 6M
Powertrain: midengine/rear drive, Axle ratio/type: 3.36:1/limited-slip, Curb weight: 3350 lb. Weight/HP ratio: 6.7, Tires: Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar, f: 235/45ZR18, r: 315/40ZR19
Acceleration: 0-30 mph: 2.01 sec., 0-60 mph: 3.43 sec., 1/4-mile: 11.69 sec. @ 122.74 mph
First Place: Saleen S7 Competition
If you have the dollars--and we mean $447,048 of them--then you can dominate anything else on the road. Anything. The Saleen S7 is essentially a race car legalized for the street. It looks like it just won the 24 Hours of Le Mans, it sounds like a Nextel Cup Car and it accelerates like nothing else bound by gravity. Behind you sits a 7.0-liter V8 packing 550 hp and 560 ft.-lb. of torque that is based on Ford's NASCAR V8. Unlike a Cup Car, the engine in the S7 is mated to a 6-speed transaxle. And though the S7 is long and wide, it's lighter than a Honda Civic. It's also lighter than any other car in this test by roughly 400 pounds, thanks to its space-frame chassis and carbon-fiber body. But getting the most from this raw machine requires some mighty skilled hands and feet. The cockpit is tight and so is the pedal placement. The clutch is heavy and grabby. Place a foot wrong and your run is ruined. But get it all right and the S7 is brutally fast. In fact, it's undeniably the quickest car built in the U.S. of A. And it may well be the quickest car in the world. The Saleen S7 is our winner.
Test Summary: Saleen S7 Competition
Base price: $395,000, Price as tested: $447,048, Engine: 7.0-liter/427.2 cu.-in. OHV 16v supercharged V8
HP: 550 @ 5900 rpm, Torque: 560 ft.-lb. @ 4000 rpm, HP/liter ratio: 78.6, Trans: 6M
Powertrain: midengine/rear drive, Axle ratio/type: 3.22:1/limited-slip, Curb weight: 2750 lb. Weight/HP ratio: 5.0, Tires: Pirelli P Zero Rosso, f: 275/30ZR19 r: 345/25ZR20
Acceleration: 0-30 mph: 1.87 sec., 0-60 mph: 3.74 sec., 1/4-mile: 11.51 sec. @ 127.38 mph
Quote from: mazda6er on June 08, 2007, 03:19:41 PM
What a tactful and eloquent post. Especially from a man with a camera-shy car.
:mrcool:
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2007, 02:53:35 PM
There, fixed. How are these everyday supercars? I was thinking this would be Corvette, GT500, Boxster, Exige S, etc. Those are everyday supercars.
I totally agree with Hemi.
if i had the money for an R8, I'd rather simply buy a Cayman for the day to day stuff, and a Elise for the track day stuff. You get the best of both worlds, because we all know that if we had a R8 we'd treat that thing like it's our first born child :tounge:.