That has got to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read in my life lmao. A sports car is what you get when you don't have enough skill to build your own? LMFAO! So you are going to tell me you build your own parts and completely fabricate a sports car from the ground up? Your little 4 door is in no way a sports car. I suppose you THINK your 4 door grandpa sedan is a sports car lmao. Give me a break. The only one that is looking dumb is you with your silly little post.

The crossfire and especially the srt6 qualifies more as sports car than your little 4 door will any day.

A sports car such as a vette, etc is built from the ground up to perform, it is balanced, powerful and has superior brakes, tires, etc. You can use your mentality and build a clumsy unreliable 4 door but it will NEVER be a sports car no matter what you do to it lmao.

 

well, it will look good in our rearview mirror I suppose....as we throw her into a hairpin at 90, then power out...saying...goodbye...

 

Quote
"One of the primary aspects of a sports car is a powerful engine. The base and limited models do not qualify for that at all. At over 3000 pounds 215 horsepower does not a sports car make. "

Based on horsepower alone, going back a few years a 1954 Corvette had about 150hp, was it a Sports Car?

 

I don't think HP has anything to do with whether it is a sports car or not...if it handles good throwing her around curves, has plenty of power to pull you back in your seat and give you a thrill, then it must be a sports car or my old girlfriend....

 

that is one of my favorite corvettes, just beautiful.

 

And it had a "POWERGLIDE"!!

Don't forget the "other" American Sports car from the early 50's.

http://www.amxfiles.com/amc/healey.html

 

ON CABLE THE BBC SHOW TOP GEAR COMPARED THREE "SPORT CARS" THE AUDI TT THE 350Z AND THE GUESS WHAT THE CHRYSLER CROSSFIRE.THEY CUT ON EACH CAR AS TO GOOD AND BAD,BUT WERE IMPRESSED WITH THE STYLING AND MODEST PRICE OF THE CROSSFIRE"SPORTS CAR".CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL IT IS STILL A HEAD TURNER AND A BEAUTIFUL THING TO OWN

 

No I'm not pissed but I have this question.

0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds = sports car
0 to 60 in 6.7 seconds = GT

Is the difference really that fine a line?

what is a Miata/ a Honda S2000?
what about a 1957 Ford T-Bird, FI model?

If a sports car is what one just sort of makes up to agree with what they are driving, then I guess the term "Sports car" is meaningless.

roadster with a stick
roadster with a stick

 

I was all set to add my definition of a sports car but after reading all the posts I'm not so sure anymore. I was going to define a sports car as having superior handling and superior acceleration performance. So I was thinking that the NA Crossfire is not a "real" sports car because it only meets one criteria while the SRT-6 is one because it meets both. But after cars such as the Miata and MG were mentioned I'm beginning to think that outright acceleration is not so important. Certainly acceleration needs to be better than a furniture van but the overall driving experience is what's beginning to look important to me. I've deliberately not nominated HP as a criteria because a low weight/low HP combination (think Lotus here) provides the same thrills as the SRT-6. Rather than HP lets use power to weight ratio, and a sports car should have a ratio above more mundane vehicles.

One reason the NA Crossfire is controversial sports car wise is that the competition has greater HP. Twenty years ago 215 HP would have been considered outstanding. Today it's middling. Yet this does not distract from the car's handling and other factors that make it fun to drive. Perhaps it's time we start defining high HP cars as performance cars instead of sports cars. Or we could go the opposite way and call HP challenged cars such as the Miata and NA Crossfire sporty cars.

I don't buy into the two seat criteria for a sports car. I think this came about because the only fun cars to drive 50 - 60 years ago were only two seaters. If BMW were building sports sedans back then with the caliber of ones today we'd probably be defining sports cars as having rear seats and four doors. After all, they are called sports sedans for a reason.

 

[.

I don't buy into the two seat criteria for a sports car. I think this came about because the only fun cars to drive 50 - 60 years ago were only two seaters. If BMW were building sports sedans back then with the caliber of ones today we'd probably be defining sports cars as having rear seats and four doors. After all, they are called sports sedans for a reason.[/quote]


You had me untill you went there Brent. Blasphemey!

Truth is that the term needs to apply to vintage cars as well. Given some of the above, that would be impossible.

There is an old saying amoung airplane guys, "Real Airplanes have two wings and round engines." Some of those old kites were very underpowered but the experience of flying them was very real.

I would say sports cars have a similar mantra, "real sports cars have two seats, a rag top, and manual transmisions."

Having driven an SRT autostick, I'll cut you all some slack on the manual tranny.


roadster with a stick.

 

I thought about posting a rebuttal, but it just didn't seem nice to throw gas on a fire. I'll just agree to disagree. I still love you guys though. (Except for FP! ) jk.

 

hey, c'mon... at least give them the benefit of the doubt... I'm sure it was probably at least as late as this one... maybe later!

 

I vote this as the all time worst topic on this forum right behind is it a girly car. it is what you want it to be and thats why you bought it. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

 

you are exactly right.

 

I'll second your vote! Like I said all this defensiveness & silliness over a definition. Who gives a ****.

I think I'm going to remove my subscription to this thread.

Well maybe tomorrow or next week.

 

But Daaaaaaad, we weren't done fighting yet! You always ruin it, being all grown up and everything.

 

Then I suggest you read the one that prompted it.

Nope. I'm going to tell you I've put more knowledge and elbow grease into my last car than any Crossfire owner on this forum, short of the handful of track masochists. And the funniest part is, the most knowledgeable crossfire owners on this forum are very familiar with this cars glaring failures.

You suppose wrong. My "little 4 door" is just what I used to bring pretentious ****** like you back to reality. And my $12k garage project has put more impressive cars than the Krautzler Crotchfire to shame.

^ That reads like you're having tea and crimpets with a stick up your ***.

Who started this "4 door sports car" crap anyway? Oh yeah... "YOU SUPPOSE I THINK" ... lulz.

And that's EXACTLY why the Crossfire isn't one.

 

lmao, looks like I hit a nerve with the arrogant one. What the crap are crimpets? Maybe you meant crumpets lmao.

Regardless, yeah I am sure you are right. You are the greatest master mechanic in the world! I am sure after you did all your research to find out the backgrounds of every single member on this forum and then logged every car every member on this forum has owned/built you were able to enter all the data into an excel spreadsheet and calculate your incredible skills against everyone elses and determine you have more lmao. Very impressive!

I have watched all your race videos and build threads on national tv, I am really impressed!

Funny stuff.

 

Seems that there is divided opinion here though. From a European perspective, it’s a sports car. Not a “super car” into which the Bugatti Veyrons, Ferraris and Bentleys fall, but clearly a sports car. If a Mazda MX5 can be classed as such, the a Crossfire certainly can.

However, is the USA there are also muscle cars, which are clearly in a separate class. Is a Crossfire a muscle car? I doubt it. Is it a sports car? Certainly. Is it a short sprint car, or a longer distance sports car (as I mentioned earlier)? I think so.

 

lolwut.gif