Maybe it depends on what your previous car was as to how you look at it, but, IMHO....

Crossfire = Sports Car

Miata = Not Sports Car (sorry Dad, LOL)

 

Opticon really got his knickers in a twist when I said that I have always considered a manual tranny to be cost saving measure rather than a feature. I meant it as more of a qualifying statement for my opinion that transmission choice should have no bearing on whether something is considered a sports car, but he apparently took it personally.

So disliking manual shifting apparently makes me "look dumb" to uber-car guy and his super human ability to roll his own sports car. That's fine by me and my AutoStick

 

Lol, I noticed that.

 

Look, I made a few good points about how the Crossfire does not stack up to it's competition in most of the aspects that make a good "sports car" (power, handling, positive driver inputs and feedback, etc), And you guys worked to convince yourself that those points aren't all that important anyway.

So that leaves your definition of a sports car something like: "A car that looks cool". THAT... makes you look dumb.

 

I think the car company that most strictly adheres to traditional definitions of car types is Ferrari.

Ferrari says a car occupies several categories:

1. GranTurismo (or a GT car)
Definition: Front Engine, V12 or above, high displacement, Rear Wheel Drive. Long hood, Short rear.
2. Sports Car
Definition: Anything that isn't a GranTurismo.

 

Now THAT is some gas on the fire, lol.

 

Just browsing through this thread and noticed this...

You built your own sports car?? Is it a custom car from scratch? Do you have any pics? That's pretty amazing, must be expensive as hell though. I could barely put together a model car let alone a car I would sit in.
I've owned a limited and a SRT now. My old GTI seemed as fast as the N/A. I would have to say though, the SRT must be a Sports Car(0-60, 4.7sec). I damn sure didn't build it, but I've washed it a bunch.

 

Opticon also invented the lightbulb, discovered fire and was the first person to walk on the moon.

 

Be nice, don't exaggerate. No one walked on the moon. That moon lander footage was shot in a London studio


roadster with a stick

 

Since I joined this most distinguished group, this has to be the third of fourth argument about the term "Sports Car."

Each starts out with an almost timid request by someone with a possibly serious question and it always turns into a phallic contest about why "mine is bigger than yours."

Fun to watch guys but a total waste of time. Glad I got to join it.

Thanks, Let's do it again sometime.

roadster with a stick

 

No. Photoman assumed that. I took a 195hp 0.85g skidpad 4 door grandma sedan to 400hp and over 1 lateral G through extensive powertrain and suspension modification (http://www.rideroom.com/ride.php?roo...id=30&view=gen).

With high ratio rack & pinion steering, cut eibachs, Koni full adjustable, polyurethane motor and suspension bushings, 4 wheel vented brakes with Stainless braided lines, a CABLE actuated Spec Stage 3+ clutch, T3/T4 50 trim turbo, and all the tuning done via wideband 02 with an adjustable fuel regulator and an AEM Truboost controller.... by me.

As far as it being "sporty"? Anybody who considers an SRT6 "fast" would **** themselves the first time it lit the tires @ 55mph and tried to torquesteer them through a highway median (no steering dampeners or recirculating ball to soften that one).

THAT is what I meant by "build your own". To actually research and have a hand in the performance bits on the car. And the total worth of the car + all the parts as it sat on the pavement was only about $12,000. Why did I sell it and buy a Crossfire? Because the Crossfire was a handsome daily driver with a lifetime powertrain warentee for $20,000. Cheap, comfy, reliable, handsome... none of which a sports car make.


EDIT: As far as my plans for a "custom sports car"... I'm currently working plans for a Triumph TR6 powered by an SRT4 2.4 Turbo, to a 6cyl dakota bellhousing, to an early model Toyota Supra Getrag trans, to the Ford 9" rear kit all the british roadster guys are using.

 

what would be ballpark weight on that Triumph? There is something to be said about having a hand in building your car up instead of just throwing cash and nothing else at it.

 

That's true.
But, all said, building a car that is faster, bigger, better and "slices tomatoes so thin one will last all winter", doesn't allow anyone the privilege of changing a definition.

If you strap a brick between two jet egines, it's called an F4 Phantom.

If you put 500HP in a four door sedan,add Indy suspension and a fancy paint job, it's still a sedan.

roadster with a stick
EDIT:
Opticon, you have my apologies. I didn't look at your link before. I am impressed by your project but you are aware, that is a "K" car.

 

Franc, nice to see that you did not mention that brightly colored substance that women put on the largest orifice on their face!, nor any farmyard animals

 

It was all I could do to hold back.

But, thanks for noticing

roadster with a stick

 

Would that Ford 9" rear kit, still be connected to a solid axle?

Remember, a "True" Sports Car has an IRS.

 

lmao, i am sorry but a 4 door fwd econobox with poor weight distribution will never be a great handling or good drag car. why pick a car that is crippled with fwd and poor weight distribution when you can pick a sports car that already has advantages and can be made faster and to handle better much cheaper? quite silly if you ask me.

hey, when you invented the wheel were your parents proud?

 

holy crap i have agreed with everything franc said in this thread!

 

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.[/quote]

A real sports car has two seats blah blah blah. But that is one definition of a sports car. If a car has superior acceleration, superior handling, superior braking; and has all of these features not because they are needed but has them just because they make the car fun to drive, well then that's a sports car to me. And I don't need a rag top or two seats to have fun in such a car, though a rag top and limited seating helps. Now if a car has these fun to drive features just because, and also happens to have a rear seat and four doors, well that's a sports sedan to me.

I'm thinking more that a definition of a sports car be based on what the car can do, and not on it's configuration. An alternate criteria is any car Consumer Reports does not "get".

Two wings and round engines. Would that be radial or rotary engines? Real airplanes also have a tailwheel.

 

I've had the same problem. Maybe that Hadron thing with the CERN experiment is messing up our realities.

Frankly, I'm fine with it.
Hope you are as well.

franc