What Makes a Supercar a Supercar?

Jedi2016 · Feb 21, 2005

I think this is largely a matter of opinion, but I've seen people get into rather severe arguments about it.

For me, the qualifications are pretty simple:

1) It should look like a cross between a car and a space ship.
2) It should have performance to match it's looks. 0-60 in less than 4 seconds, top speed 200mph+
3) It should cost more than Texas.

To that end, my view of "supercar" is pretty limited. Cars like the Ferrari Enzo, Lamborghini Murcielago, Pagani Zonda, Jaguar XJ220, McLaren F1, McMerc SLR, Porsche Carrera GT.

What that list does NOT include are cars like the Honda/Acura NSX, Chevrolet Corvette, etc. These, in my eyes, are sports cars. Perhaps very high-end sports cars (Z06, Type-R, etc), but still just sports cars. In some cases, they even fit category #2 above (performance), but they're still lacking categories #1 and #3 (looks and cost). Just because you have a sports car that can keep up with some of the (slower) supercars, doesn't make that car a supercar.

Some cars blur the line more than others.. the Ford GT, for example. It fits categories #2 and #3 (performance and cost) rather well, but it doesn't really look like a supercar. Probably since it's based almost entirely on a design that's almost forty years old. This is probably the only example I can think of off the top of my head that could go either way.

The name alone doesn't do it, either. "Ferrari", for example... Contrary to popular belief, Ferrari makes mostly sports cars (550, 612, etc), with the occasional supercar (Enzo). So having a car that can keep up with any old Ferrari may not mean a whole lot.

So am I alone in being so picky about what makes a supercar a supercar? Or is it the general consensus that any fast car should be called a supercar, regardless of whether it looks like one?

sUn · Feb 21, 2005

The Horsepower figure.

G.T · Feb 21, 2005

sUn
The Horsepower figure.

Yep. That's what I think.

xcsti · Feb 21, 2005

I see the ferrari f40 as the first modern supercar. I think that horsepower is not the only factor. My categories are rarity, impractability, look, cost, power, top speed and handleing. F40's arent abundant, have incredibly bare interiors (read: not practicle), cost a large sum, have a decent amount of power, look great, went 199mph, handle great ect ect. Not sure about the ford gt, it fits all categories except cost, but compared to other undoubtable supercars it seems weak.

Sage · Feb 21, 2005

Usually I consider it a car's "halo car" for example, I consider the NSX a supercar, because it's by far Honda's most expensive sports car, made to be a representation of the company more than an actual daily driver car. That theory falls apart with the Corvette though (I don't consider it a supercar, nor do most other people), so rarity is also a factor I consider the Dodge Viper a supercar, even though it's not much more expensive than the Corvette, because Vipers are extremely rare, while I see 'Vettes almost every day.

If a car maker only makes hyper-expensive, hyper-fast, very rare cars, then they can bypass my "one halo car" rule (e.g.: Ferrari, Lamborghini, Pagani). However, with a company like Porsche, it makes at least one semi-affordable car, so it can only have one supercar (i.e., the Carrera GT Carreras are so not supercars).

mr_pushrod · Feb 21, 2005

For me it's a car that is designed to be one of the fastest, most recognisable things on the road and to hell with the cost. Exclusivity helps as does technology, although the latter isn't vital. Speed in a straight line is vital although handling again isn't massively important, just because an Impreza or Evo could eat a Murcielago or Carrera GT alive down a twisting country road doesn't make them less super. Japanese tech-fests or American muscle machines can be made to go fast, but most will never be supercars as they are just far too ordinary.

Dave A · Feb 21, 2005

My definition of a true supercar is stricter than most.

1 It should be built with performance in mind, no or limited luxuries.
2 It should offer performance relative to the fastest cars for whatever point in time the "supercar" is built.
3 It should be special, the much coveted X factor. It needs to be expensive, exclusive, turn heads and sound great.

iceburns288 · Feb 21, 2005

I think practicality is optional... the car being practical doesn't simply eliminate it from the 'club'. I think, however, that the common person is the one that identifies a supercar. If a regular person can see it and know how special the car is then it's a supercar.

McLaren'sAngel · Feb 22, 2005

Hiya!

Meow! (='.'=)

The way I classify a car as a Supercar is usually by its look, performance and cost. It go to have about over 500HP and be able to go over 200 MPH. Its look have to be soooOoo beautiful that whenever that car come into someone's view, they would immediately start at it and think: "WORTH A 6 DIGIT PRICE!" Its cost is obvious a 6 digit price to me! :embarrassed:

Overall, the car have to have a super performance, super look and a super price tag to go along with it to call it a "Supercar".

McLaren · Feb 22, 2005

Lamborghini, though, over these years lately have changed. They have become more of a company making exotic cars instead of supercars.
But some still need to learn that exotic and supercars are NOT the same.

However, during the early 90's, the Diablo VT was considered a big supercar.

Jmac279 · Feb 22, 2005

I consider any car which was designed solely with performance in mind a Supercar ...

This means putting your company's best efforts towards building the fastest, most competitive car it can possibly produce even to a point where it jeopardizes the company ...

I consider the Porsche 959 to be the first TRUE supercar ...

Super Jamie · Feb 22, 2005

if it's on supercars.net? :sly:

i've heard the nsx is considered the "cheapest supercar". they're pretty crap in my opinion, a stock wrx is quicker and potentially handles better

LoudMusic · Feb 22, 2005

"Super Car" is a sliding scale. As technology gets better so should the peak of cars. In 20 years what will 200mph be? "ooohhh, isn't that special ..." The super cars will be doing 250 or faster.

Super Cars should be outrageously expensive.
They should be very rare.
They should perform in the top 0.05% of production vehicles.
People should look at them and be speechless.
They should incorporate some technology that is not yet available in "average" cars.
The exterior design should stand out in a crowd much the way Michael Jordan stands out in China.

10 years after they roll off the assembly line they should be valued higher than 10 years previous and still be in the top 1% of production vehicles in performance.

You can't set fixed numbers on things like this. It all has to be a sliding scale.

a6m5 · Feb 22, 2005

Outrageous price tag, out of this world styling(for an car), racecar-like performance and is made by an Ferrari!

Just joking.

Performance of Ferrari Testarossas are almost laughable from today's standard, but I still consider it an supercar, so I think you can make an exception or two in judging supercars.

Ford GT is an supercar IMO, Corvette is not. Vipers and NSXs are probably not, but if someone considered them an supercar, I wouldn't argue.

hellnback · Feb 22, 2005

All relative points in the posts above, I would also like to add that a 'supercar' is relative to what other cars are doing at the time of it's 'being'.

In other words, it should just be that one step further than the pack...

Much the way the Ferrari F40 & Porsche 959 were...
The Lamborghini Muira & Ferrari 512BB was...

I agree alot with LoudMusic, peoples 'perceptions' and 'expectations' of Supercar performance will continue to get greater... remember when the Jaguar E-Type & Mercedes 300SL were released, only 150mph but in their day this was considered 'stratospheric'...

Quick_Nick · Feb 22, 2005

Are modified cars supercars?

Jugend · Feb 22, 2005

Quick_Nick
Are modified cars supercars?

Modified how? Of course they can be, the Koenig Testarossa should definately be worthy to be called a supercar.

Layla's Keeper · Feb 22, 2005

The line between exotics and supercars has blurred recently because formerly supercar performance is now in the hands of exotic cars.

I recall when the F40 did 201mph out of the box. The world was astonished. This was the absolute pinnacle of performance. Ferrari had gone fast before. 174mph with the 365GTB/4 Daytona and 188mph with the 288GTO were both at one time records for production cars. But 200mph. That was sublime.

Then a Lamborghini Diablo went 202. And then the Jaguar XJ220 did 217!

All of a sudden, "supercar" was pretty easy to mark. A top speed in excess of 200mph and otherworldly styling.

Problem is, that was 1987 when the F40 established the double century as the supercar benchmark. Now we have a sub-$100,000 production Corvette that'll pull 200mph with the AC blowing and the CD player blasting.

So, it's no longer just raw speed, but was it ever?

I don't think so.

I think, quite honestly, pure supercars are built when the engineers and artists get to throw away the rules. The designers take all the dreams they've had, all of their influences and inspiration, and flow it into a shape the engineers tune to aerodynamic function's perfection. The engines are flights of whimsy. Nothing is too ludicrous. One turbo? Why not two? Why not four? We built an 8 cylinder last time, lets build this one with 12!

There's exuberance, joy, passion, and fantasy in a pure supercar. Their creators abandon everything except their dreams in pursuit of the ultimate expression of the automobile.

When I see the F40, I see Enzo Ferrari standing with his wry smirk, daring me to try and tame this very embodiment of Cavaillano Rampante. Enzo always said that those men who found Ferraris difficult to drive did not deserve to drive Ferraris, and felt that a driver should feel a sense of accomplishment when he masters the rampant stallion. That spirit, that audacity, is in the F40.

And, when you look at the different manufacturers that have dared to enter the stratosphere of supercars, you see similar lofty ideals, and you see them in the cars. You see Prof. Ferdinand Porsche eyeing the 959 and saying "Competition improves the breed." You see the tense aggression of a fighting bull in the Diablo. Heck, you can even see Pagani's love for his sexy fashionable wife in the Zonda's curves.

That's where you find true supercars.

Goomba · Feb 22, 2005

Super Jamie
if it's on supercars.net?
i've heard the nsx is considered the "cheapest supercar". they're pretty crap in my opinion, a stock wrx is quicker and potentially handles better

Not by a long shot.

NSXs typically run much quicker than a 14.3 second quarter mile.

http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?id1=74&id2=0
http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm

Good thing you said "potentially", because WRXs handle like crap from the factory. Don't get me wrong, my Hyundai Accent couldn't of even touched the handling of my WRX, but it would take a decent sum of money to get it handle as good as a NSX.

Although, I would much rather take a brand new $25k WRX over a brand new $90k NSX.

Quick_Nick · Feb 22, 2005

GTJugend
Modified how? Of course they can be, the Koenig Testarossa should definately be worthy to be called a supercar.

Well, I'm mostly referring to the 1988 Chevrolet Callaway Corvette Sledgehammer with its 254.76 mph top speed.

TheCracker · Feb 22, 2005

A Super Car should be both rare and mostly uncompromising. Corvette's, 911 GT3's, merc SL55's etc are fast and worthy cars - but they are built in relatively large numbers and are compromised by design to be civilised as everyday cars. You could argue also that a 360 Challange Stradale is a supercar where as a regular 360 Modena (or F430) isn't - same with a 911 GT3 RS and a 911 GT3. Many cars these days have supercar or near-supercar performance, but really a supercar shouldn't be a car that you could drive everyday with ease - it should be a car that you have to mentally prepare yourself to drive. IMO

LoudMusic · Feb 22, 2005

Quick_Nick
Well, I'm mostly referring to the 1988 Chevrolet Callaway Corvette Sledgehammer with its 254.76 mph top speed.

Yes, but if you turn the wheel does it keep going straight ... ? (:

xcsti · Feb 22, 2005

Jmac279
I consider the Porsche 959 to be the first TRUE supercar ...

I avoided using the word true because super is a relative term, so I can't judge cars of the 20's and 30's (and before, and after) because I don't have any personal experince or knowledge of other cars of the time to compare them to. Modern seems to cover what I meant and what you seem to mean well enough.

Edit: Now that I think about it, the cars relation to the average car of the time seems to be the easiest way to classify it. Say you were to require it be 100% faster than the average 1000% more expensive with 50% passenger space and 10% cargo area. A standard could be set up and all cars could be measure. Of course determining what the average of each category is would be more involved and this system would completely ignore passion and look.

Jedi2016 · Feb 22, 2005

Reminds me of a bit I saw on Top Gear not too long ago. James was arguing that the Mercedes 300SL was the world's first supercar. He made a pretty good argument, too. The looks, of course.. the design was way ahead of it's time in 1954. Gullwing doors. Outrageous price tag, and it could do 150mph, which made it the fastest production car in the world by a fairly big margin. Sure, it may not be much now in terms of performance compared to modern supercars, but this thing was made in 1954, for crying out loud.

Holdenhsvgtsr · Feb 22, 2005

McLaren'sAngel
It go to have about over 500HP and be able to go over 200 MPH. they would immediately start at it and think: "WORTH A 6 DIGIT PRICE!" Its cost is obvious a 6 digit price to me! Overall, the car have to have a super performance, super look and a super price tag to go along with it to call it a "Supercar".

so all AMG mercs then

Double_R · Feb 22, 2005

Holdenhsvgtsr
so all AMG mercs then

Yeeeeeeeee AMGsssssssssssssssss.

Super Jamie · Feb 22, 2005

hey wow that quarter mile comparison site is really useful, thanks for the link

Cano · Feb 23, 2005

Jedi2016
Reminds me of a bit I saw on Top Gear not too long ago. James was arguing that the Mercedes 300SL was the world's first supercar. He made a pretty good argument, too. The looks, of course.. the design was way ahead of it's time in 1954. Gullwing doors. Outrageous price tag, and it could do 150mph, which made it the fastest production car in the world by a fairly big margin. Sure, it may not be much now in terms of performance compared to modern supercars, but this thing was made in 1954, for crying out loud.

then I'd say that the worlds first supercar was either the Duesenberg J model, wich had a staight-8 engine with a supercharger that made 300 hp and ran 120 in 1934-37 (a speacially built one hit 155 in Bonneville, driven by Abbot Jenkins). the look was INCREDIBLE for those years, and it was produced in VERY limited numbers, and even with the option of handling your chassis over to your favorite coachbuilder to have it dressed in the body you liked the most. either that one or the 1934 Delage D120 Coupe, perhaps the most beautiful car ever made, it could also hit 120 mph and the production figures for the Coupe are low as hell. both of them worth millions now. you gaze at them and think they are a sculpture. those are truly the first supercars of the world.

inferno · Feb 23, 2005

1) It's gotta have that wide, low slung shape, we've all grown to know means "this thing is fast" The styling dosent matter so much, but it has to have a good aerodynamic body.
2) It has to meet some HP goal based on the current scheme of the market. ten years ago 450 hp was the number to beat, abd today the weakest supercars have 500 hp. so for today, I'd say it has to have at least 500 hp.

So here, a few examples.

These are cars I consider to be among a higher group of pinacle cars above even supercars:
Ferari Enzo, Porsche Carrera GT, Mercedes SLR maclaren, and all those misclelanious 700 hp and up, one off's

now the super cars:
Ford GT, dodge viper, corvette Z06, saleen S7, lamborghini Murcialago and Galardo, Ferrari 575M Maranello, and the a of yet unreleased, but confirmed 500 hp 911 turbo, (please note, that list does not include a skyline. sorry guys, not hardly)

Their are many cars that have that low slung shape, that didnt have the power to back it up. the NSX for one, and the old Z06 corvett as well. here are a few cars that have the umph, but dont qualify as supercars because of their body style. either sedans or sedan based coupes just dont cut it. in my opinion these cars fall under the category of muscle cars:
Bently continental GT, Mercedes E55, BMW M5 (the new one), maybach, and so on.

What Makes a Supercar a Supercar?

Jedi2016

sUn

G.T

xcsti

Sage

mr_pushrod

Dave A

TreVoR fan for life

iceburns288

McLaren'sAngel

McLaren

Jmac279

Super Jamie

LoudMusic

a6m5

#ChopOn

hellnback

Quick_Nick

Jugend

Layla's Keeper

Goomba

Quick_Nick

TheCracker

Nothing to see here...

LoudMusic

xcsti

Jedi2016

Holdenhsvgtsr

Double_R

Super Jamie

Cano

inferno

Similar threads

Latest Posts