Are sports cars and performance cars A dying Breed ?

[Celicaas]

With today,s new technology in cars like CVT Gearboxes , Hybrid engines , electric cars and the increase of eco-friendly cars and the decrease of manual gearbox equiped cars and Plus to that The decrease of real offroading 4x4 vehicles and Making Crossovers As a main vehicle category replacing 4x4,s is the car industry failing and especially sport oriented cars and Real 4x4s are like in twenty years are they going to be a thing of the past with the increase of Calls to save the economy and Green technology nowadays ?

 

[Slash]

I don't think they will ever be "gone" per say. I just think they will advance with the technology that comes out over time. We are already starting to see this.

 

[Celicaas]

Yes but the problem is everything is electronic nowadays which is not reliable or durable as being mechanical like for instance In BMW and Mercedes Electronic shifter (BMW DSG / Mercedes E Column shifter)

You dont get the feel of connection with the Car like old Sports cars used to

And i would like to add about talking on BMW
There using Electronic Dipstick it is a Bad idea you cant know how much Oil left to know when to change It is really not needed

 

[JMoney]

Of course not, there are still plenty of sports cars.

 

[ilikewaffles11]

I wouldn't really say sports cars are dying out. If anything I'd argue that people are becoming less interested in cars in general and it's become more difficult for people (mostly younger people) to afford a cool car.

I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forums who's dad owned some sort of muscle car when he was around the same age as I am. When he was 18 he went out and bought a brand new '86 Mustang GT Convertible. Nowadays, younger people can't afford to go out and buy a brand new car like that. Sure there's the FRS, STI, EVO, and some older stuff can be had for relatively cheap, but the insurance is also absurdly high. There's no way I'll be able to buy an FRS at 18 and afford to keep it insured unless I wanna live with my parents until I'm in my 20s.

Which brings me to this, the demand for sports cars probably isn't as high as it was years ago. So obviously if there's no a huge demand, companies aren't going to be able to produce them for financial reasons.

That's just my two cents anyway.

 

[McLaren]

And i would like to add about talking on BMW
There using Electronic Dipstick it is a Bad idea you cant know how much Oil left to know when to change It is really not needed

The whole point of an electronic dipstick is to tell you how much oil you have without actually having to check it yourself; it attempts to help people stop forgetting to check in the first place. Because of it on my last BMW, I actually received phone calls from service centers telling me that the car should be due for service soon based on what the car relayed.

The rest of your post is nonsense. The auto industry isn't failing because manuals are dying & eco-friendly technology is becoming more mainstream. What's dying is a market that full of people that can't afford what they demand from sports car manufacturers to begin with.


Also periods.

 

[GranTurismo916]

They don't look like they're dying to me.

 

[Northstar]

Short Answer: Nope.

Long Answer:

Most people these days aren't willing to spend money on a separate (new) weekend car even if they have the means to do so, it just doesn't make much sense to spend 60-70k on a car you only use a few days out of the year. This trend has shifted companies from making stand-alone sports models to higher performance versions of cars already in their line-up (M, SRT, SHO etc...) as it's much easier to get someone to pay some more on a car when they can drive the kids to school, then go on a joyride without the extra car payment.

As for purpose built sports cars, they will always be around, will always be evolving, and will always be called crap compared to older cars (which were also crap compared to even older cars)

 

[Celicaas]

@McLaren But it is electronic thus it gives you an approximate reading not what it is actually and what if it gone wrong or some electronic gizmo malfunction when years go by after a long time and it will Have a problem

 

[Tornado]

Yes but the problem is everything is electronic nowadays which is not reliable or durable as being mechanical like for instance In BMW and Mercedes Electronic shifter (BMW DSG / Mercedes E Column shifter)

Is an electrical system more fragile than what is essentially a stick? Yes.


Is it more fragile, than, say, the theoretical 1980s equivalent where a complex series of hydraulics would similarly measure oil level and return back a number to the CRT-based onboard computer system? Well, no. Electronic oil monitoring is about the only thing my car doesn't measure, and considering how oil-hungry it is I wish it did.

 

[McLaren]

@McLaren But it is electronic thus it gives you an approximate reading not what it is actually and what if it gone wrong or some electronic gizmo malfunction when years go by after a long time and it will Have a problem

It gives me an approximate reading on the amount of oil still available, not what oil is actually there? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know if this is even worth debating. It didn't work any different than the system in my 8 year old Acura that tells me what percentage my oil is at, nor did it fail at all in the few years I had it.

 

[mustang fanatic]

The whole point of an electronic dipstick is to tell you how much oil you have without actually having to check it yourself; it attempts to help people stop forgetting to check in the first place. Because of it on my last BMW, I actually received phone calls from service centers telling me that the car should be due for service soon based on what the car relayed.

The rest of your post is nonsense. The auto industry isn't failing because manuals are dying & eco-friendly technology is becoming more mainstream. What's dying is a market that full of people that can't afford what they demand from sports car manufacturers to begin with.


Also periods.

And people these days are too god damn lazy to do it themselves.

 

[Northstar]

@McLaren But it is electronic thus it gives you an approximate reading not what it is actually

Electronics can measure much more accurately than the human eye reading a stick with some lines on it.

and what if it gone wrong or some electronic gizmo malfunction when years go by after a long time and it will Have a problem

Is there a potential for failure? Yes (It's a fairly new technology, so there will be issues).
Does this strictly apply to electronic parts? No.

The nice thing with electronic sensors is that you can have backups in case something does happen, in this scenario if the oil level sensor failed you would have the oil pressure sensor there as backup. Of course if you got routine oil changes and didn't constantly drive aggressively the oil sensors failing shouldn't be a problem.

 

[McLaren]

And people these days are too god damn lazy to do it themselves.

Too bad that's not the manufacturers' fault & keeps the idiots from attempting to hold it against the manufacturer for when the car fails.

 

[Bopop4]

And people these days are too god damn lazy to do it themselves.

To change the filter on a Duramax you need to take the front wheel and under guard off.

I would sure like to know when it has to be changed rather than guessing.

 

[mustang fanatic]

To change the filter on a Duramax you need to take the front wheel and under guard off.

I would sure like to know when it has to be changed rather than guessing.

I'd rather not have to take the wheel and under guard off to change the filter...

Besides, my dad's truck required the cab to be lifted to work on the engine. Seriously?

 

[YSSMAN]

With today,s new technology in cars like CVT Gearboxes , Hybrid engines , electric cars and the increase of eco-friendly cars and the decrease of manual gearbox equiped cars

Well, I think the BMW i8 would have something to say about hybrid sports cars. The Nissan Juke would definitely have something to say about CVT transmissions and performance. The Tesla Model S would definitely have something to say with electric performance. Although the parts we use in our cars are changing, the end-product largely has not. We still have models that are faster, better-handling, and get better fuel economy than sports cars available even a decade ago, and then begin to threaten supercars from not much beyond that. The trickle-down of technology will benefit all of us, even if it does mean that some things that we love become more rare on mass-market vehicles. Its the way the world works.

and Plus to that The decrease of real offroading 4x4 vehicles and Making Crossovers As a main vehicle category replacing 4x4,s

Well, that largely depends on where you live on planet Earth. Crossovers have replaced minivans, which replaced station wagons. Wagons are facing a revival thanks to folks in their mid/late 20s and early 30s. Its a cycle we're going through, and admittedly, we aren't any worse-off. Clever tuning of traction and stability control systems in conjunction with engine and transmission management can do wonders for some of these vehicles that aren't equipped with Dana axles and massive mud tires. To be more frank, it is probably better than crossovers are getting lighter-duty all-wheel-drive systems. People rarely use them, and when they do, it is never at a level that taxes the powertrain. So, save on the mechanical cost, save on the fuel cost, while still having similar performance? Why not?

is the car industry failing and especially sport oriented cars and Real 4x4s are like in twenty years are they going to be a thing of the past with the increase of Calls to save the economy and Green technology nowadays ?

What exactly is it failing at? They were failing six years ago to the point that we almost lost two of the biggest automobile manufacturers in the world. They sacrificed brands, they cut jobs, re-aligned expectations, and they've largely exceeded my expectations in getting things back to the status quo. There will always be a market for dedicated sports cars, and there will always be a market for dedicated 4X4 vehicles, but those markets will flux with the economic and ecological realities that we face. For every Honda CR-Z and Chevrolet Trax, there will be a Porsche 911 and a Range Rover. Don't worry.

 

[Celicaas]

@YSSMAN Does the BMW I8 look sporty it isnt sold as such IMO, the Nissan juke with the CVT it's just a normal crossover plus the CVT Is for economy not Performance Because 1 Continues Reving which is actually not intend to be sporty , the tesla model s i get the idea about it but there is no feel it,s quiet but still it has a lot of torque

 

[Harry6784]

It's not that they're dying it's that now it's possible to make a practical performance car, something that would be considered an oxymoron 40 years ago.

1969 Chevy Camaro Z28, 302:
0-60: 7.4 seconds
Quarter Mile: 15.2 seconds

1970 Ford Mustang Boss 302:
0-60: 6.4
Quarter Mile: 14.7

2013 Honda Accord Coupe EX-L:
0-60: mph 5.5
Quarter Mile 13.9

2010 Acura TL SH-AWD:
0-60: 5.2
Quarter mile: 13.7

Cars that were considered fast back in the day will easily get their doors blown off at the track by a modern family car; albeit with less smoke, noise and 'murica'. Why have an impractical garage queen when you can have a car you can use every day and still be able to have fun and go fast.

 

[XS]

I think sports cars and performance cars are more prevalent now than in the past 30 or so years. Lets think about the cars that have made massive comebacks since the 1980s: hothatches, pure-bred muscle cars, performance sedans, two-seat sports cars and even SUVs and trucks. In fact I can't think of a single class of vehicle that you can't find a performance option for. I haven't done concrete research, but just as a car guy who's been immersed in the culture for nearly three decades, my observation is that there are more performance options now than in quite a long time. Every last major car maker (even Honda if they ever release the NSX), and even some underdogs (like Hyundai) offer serious performance cars. Furthermore, in the 1990s there were one or two car programs on TV for car junkies, now Top Gear is a fairly common household name and you'll be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't tuned into one of the dozens of car programs available now at least once or twice.
As long as I can remember automakers have built cars or invented systems which people have loudly exclaimed would mark the end of performance or sports cars, and such has never been the case. Everybody thought the gas crises of the '70s was going to kill the car as we know it, and sure there was a decade of mostly crap cars, but look at what you can buy for $35,000 now - a bevy of 400hp muscle cars. People thought the electric car was going to ruin car culture, but it was the electric car which mostly died out. In fact, car enthusiasts have spread their philosophy to cars which were never meant to be sporty - namely hybrids and SUVs.
I'm positive that eventually sports cars and performance cars will no longer exist as we know it. That day, however, just like in the past, is a lot farther off than most people think.

 

[Grayfox]

The nice thing with electronic sensors is that you can have backups in case something does happen, in this scenario if the oil level sensor failed you would have the oil pressure sensor there as backup. Of course if you got routine oil changes and didn't constantly drive aggressively the oil sensors failing shouldn't be a problem.

You do know when you see "low oil pressure" it is most likely too late as the oil is low enough.

My car has a normal dipstick but also has a sensor to show "low oil level"

If this light ever comes up on a car, kiss the engine good bye.

 

[McLaren]

@YSSMAN Does the BMW I8 look sporty it isnt sold as such IMO

BMW says otherwise against your opinion.
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/i/i8/2014/showroom/index.html

"The most progressive sports car".

the Nissan juke with the CVT it's just a normal crossover plus the CVT Is for economy not Performance Because 1 Continues Reving which is actually not intend to be sporty

Because the car itself isn't meant to be performance based. CVT transmissions can still deliver incredible performance such as in the GS450h, LS600hL, & Impreza WRX.

the tesla model s i get the idea about it but there is no feel it,s quiet but still it has a lot of torque

I've never seen anyone describe a Tesla Model S in the same words they like to describe a GT-R.

 

[Slash]

It's not that they're dying it's that now it's possible to make a practical performance car, something that would be considered an oxymoron 40 years ago.

1969 Chevy Camaro Z28, 302:
0-60: 7.4 seconds
Quarter Mile: 15.2 seconds

1970 Ford Mustang Boss 302:
0-60: 6.4
Quarter Mile: 14.7

2013 Honda Accord Coupe EX-L:
0-60: mph 5.5
Quarter Mile 13.9

2010 Acura TL SH-AWD:
0-60: 5.2
Quarter mile: 13.7

Cars that were considered fast back in the day will easily get their doors blown off at the track by a modern family car; albeit with less smoke, noise and 'murica'. Why have an impractical garage queen when you can have a car you can use every day and still be able to have fun and go fast.

To be fair you didn't really use examples of the fastest options of the old cars but the crappier small block cars which werent all that fast to begin with. A stock 396 Camaro or 429 Mustang would be right there with that Acura if not at 5 flat if it hooks up. And its much easier to knock a second or better off that with those olds ones with better and wider rubber (remember they were tested on 205 size polyglass piles of garbage, 235-255 radials alone are worth a LOT), larger plug gap and advanced spark timing. Thats not really getting into it either. Try that with those new cars an you'll have a mess.

That's not to say tech hasn't come a long way though, because it has. And no matter how you look at it, 7 seconds and less to 60 you damn sure know you're accelerating. However, the perception of speed greatly changes with the vehicle. An old muscle car feels like its going much faster than it is, and they are incredibly more exciting for various reasons. I say anyone who has the chance to experience one to do it.


I wouldn't get into the practicality thing though. A lot of those old muscle cars were family sedans with high torque V8s stuffed in them. There's no arguing that.

To change the filter on a Duramax you need to take the front wheel and under guard off.

I would sure like to know when it has to be changed rather than guessing.

I can reach down and pull mine out. No removing anything, its right in plain sight. I love old cars for the sheer simplicity.

Oh, and its not hard to write down your miles and note when it needs to be changed again. Surely you can't be that lazy?

 

[McLaren]

To be fair you didn't really use examples of the fastest options of the old cars but the crappier small block cars which werent all that fast to begin with. A stock 396 Camaro or 429 Mustang would be right there with that Acura if not at 5 flat if it hooks up. And its much easier to knock a second or better off that with those olds ones with better and wider rubber (remember they were tested on 205 size polyglass piles of garbage, 235-255 radials alone are worth a LOT), larger plug gap and advanced spark timing. Thats not really getting into it either. Try that with those new cars an you'll have a mess.

That's not to say tech hasn't come a long way though, because it has. And no matter how you look at it, 7 seconds and less to 60 you damn sure know you're accelerating. However, the perception of speed greatly changes with the vehicle. An old muscle car feels like its going much faster than it is, and they are incredibly more exciting for various reasons. I say anyone who has the chance to experience one to do it.

Nope, can't play that card unless you want to start tinkering with new cars too; simple ECU re-maps can unlock a lot of power the manufacturers restrict buyers from getting so the car runs better.

Whether or not doing this allows the car to run as fast as new sedan doesn't change anything either. A practical family V6 these days can out run an old muscle car. Hell, I believe @daan once showed a Camry now-a-days can sprint to 60 faster than a Miura.

 

[Slash]

The point is it's easier to rotate a dizzy cap by hand in a matter of seconds for however much horsepower/torque than it is to go out and buy a programmer for absurd amounts of cash and then fiddle around with it for an hour or so just to see a small gain.

I'm not saying a lot of them can't be outrun in stock form; I'd be lying if I claimed they could. Tech has come a long way; however its much simpler to coax horsepower out of an old pig engine than say a newer one, simply because newer ones are in a higher state of tune due to the ECU and modern EFI systems etc. This is especially true when it comes to smog-era vehicles; simply tinkering around with it and removing unneeded equipment will nearly double your horsepower. I bet if you took all that away and slapped a carburetor on a new 6 cylinder it would hardly have any better horsepower than one out of the 80s, at least when it comes to American cars. Hot Rod proved this when they built a carbureted Coyote 5.0. They dropped the ECU and injection, built a high end intake and slapped a 750 Holley DP on it and lost power over stock(at least initially before they opened it up). With new ones even after a remap you have to buy parts one after another just to start to make noticeable gains which are incredibly more expensive than say an older engine part would be. Its ultimately cheaper to make an old car fast than it is to buy a fast car new, at least from a certain standpoint. This is exactly why everyone loves Fox body's. You throw $3,500 at a Fox after purchase and you'll blow the doors off any modern N/A 5.0 and most new cars on the road for fraction of what it would have costed you to go out and buy even a V6 Mustang, any Accord, Camry or whatever modern "average" car you want to throw at it.

 

[Crispy]

Anybody who thinks the sports car is a dying breed is just plain silly.

Right now you can go out an purchase a 700 HP car for $70,000. Your average Corvette can go toe to toe with Porsche's. The recent pressure for environmentally friendly cars has pushed automakers to make lighter, stronger, more punchy cars. You can have a 4 cylinder with 300+ HP now. Hell 40k will buy you a car that would make 70's F1 teams jealous of the power. You have hybrid cars with nearly 1000 HP and torque that feels like a Boeing 747.

And this is just the first year it has taken shape. You can buy a super powerful sports car, and not be ashamed by the fuel economy. You can unleash a fury of hell and 900bhp while still making Captain Planet blush. I forsee the trend of sports cars increasing. As self driving cars become the norm, the only cars that won't be self driving will be enthusiast geared. After all why would an automaker build a Camry when Honda sells an Accord that can drive itself for a grand more? The only non-self driving cars will be sporty, because enthusiasts will be the only market.

Look at sports cars of old. Triumphs, Jags, MG's, Alfa's. These cars are wallet nightmares. You can barely keep them running. I can buy a Miata that has a similar power to weight, much better suspension, better creature comforts, and will outlast those cars with the same ease of maintenance, just less. I can buy a new Mustang, have more fun driving it, put out laps that make German sports cars rear their head, run rings around any classic on the strip and track, and have a warranty.

The sports car isn't dead. I think it is just getting started.

 

[McLaren]

The point is it's easier to rotate a dizzy cap by hand in a matter of seconds for however much horsepower/torque than it is to go out and buy a programmer for absurd amounts of cash and then fiddle around with it for an hour or so just to see a small gain.

I'm not saying a lot of them can't be outrun in stock form; I'd be lying if I claimed they could. Tech has come a long way; however its much simpler to coax horsepower out of an old pig engine than say a newer one, simply because newer ones are in a higher state of tune due to the ECU and modern EFI systems etc. This is especially true when it comes to smog-era vehicles; simply tinkering around with it and removing unneeded equipment will nearly double your horsepower. I bet if you took all that away and slapped a carburetor on a new 6 cylinder it would hardly have any better horsepower than one out of the 80s, at least when it comes to American cars. Hot Rod proved this when they built a carbureted Coyote 5.0. They dropped the ECU and injection, built a high end intake and slapped a 750 Holley DP on it and lost power over stock(at least initially before they opened it up). With new ones even after a remap you have to buy parts one after another just to start to make noticeable gains which are incredibly more expensive than say an older engine part would be. Its ultimately cheaper to make an old car fast than it is to buy a fast car new, at least from a certain standpoint. This is exactly why everyone loves Fox body's. You throw $3,500 at a Fox after purchase and you'll blow the doors off any modern N/A 5.0 and most new cars on the road for fraction of what it would have costed you to go out and buy even a V6 Mustang, any Accord, Camry or whatever modern "average" car you want to throw at it.

You're missing the point. None of this matters. If you want to start tinkering with making old cars faster to make up acceleration differences, then you need to factor in new cars just as well; some respond very well to minor tweaks.

Cost or how easy it is making excuses. Either we compare OEM cars' 0-60s or none at all.

 

[Celicaas]

I thought That the I8 was the I3


I have seen the I8 Before but i didnt know it was called


So kudos for you @McLaren

 

[niky]

@McLaren But it is electronic thus it gives you an approximate reading not what it is actually and what if it gone wrong or some electronic gizmo malfunction when years go by after a long time and it will Have a problem

A dipstick gives you an approximate reading with no sense of scale, and the reading will vary based on whether the engine is running or off, which is why manuals recommend the engine be off... and will change based on how long the engine has been off.

The electronic dipstick works while the engine is on, and is only inferior in that it takes longer to get a reading.

Is an electrical system more fragile than what is essentially a stick? Yes.

I actually broke the top off of my dipstick. And I know people who've lost them.

The point is it's easier to rotate a dizzy cap by hand in a matter of seconds for however much horsepower/torque than it is to go out and buy a programmer for absurd amounts of cash and then fiddle around with it for an hour or so just to see a small gain.

You can rotate a distributor cap, then deal with the knock and have to use premium gasoline or dial back the timing and not make as much power as you could.

You can retune a motor with a programmer, specifying different fueling strategies and timing advance at every single rpm/load/throttle point, allowing you to get better than stock fuel economy and humongous gains in midrange torque and drivability. On high-performance engines where you don't get big gains, you don't get big gains because the motor is already well-optimized out the door. In other words, it's not handicapped from the factory by poor manifold/carburetor/engine design.

You throw $3,500 at a Fox after purchase and you'll blow the doors off any modern N/A 5.0 and most new cars on the road for fraction of what it would have costed you to go out and buy even a V6 Mustang, any Accord, Camry or whatever modern "average" car you want to throw at it.

Comparing used to new is never an apples to apples comparison. Of course you can buy a thirty year old car and modifications for less than a brand new car...

A fairer comparison would be comparing brand new to brand new. The price of a brand new Fox Body (inflation adjusted) with absolutely nothing on it is around $24k+++... whereas the outgoing 3.7 liter V6 Mustang, which is over a second faster to 60 mph, costs around $22.5k with power windows an AC.

So, a brand new Fox with $3.5k of mods would be faster than a brand new 2014 Mustang with $5.5k of supercharger?

I don't think so.

-

I don't think car performance and driving enjoyment are dying out. If you don't particularly care for the brands and models that carry the torch for driving fun... sure... it's easy to think that, but we've got some brilliant cars out there... the Fiesta... and Fiesta ST... the MINI (however garish it looks, it's still great)... the BRZ/86... the MX-5... the pony cars and the Genesis Coupe...

And with turbochargers all the rage nowadays, more power (more reliable power) is just a cheap reflash away.

 

[Cano]

To be fair you didn't really use examples of the fastest options of the old cars but the crappier small block cars which werent all that fast to begin with. A stock 396 Camaro or 429 Mustang would be right there with that Acura if not at 5 flat if it hooks up. And its much easier to knock a second or better off that with those olds ones with better and wider rubber (remember they were tested on 205 size polyglass piles of garbage, 235-255 radials alone are worth a LOT), larger plug gap and advanced spark timing. Thats not really getting into it either. Try that with those new cars an you'll have a mess.

Dude duuuuuuuuude don't start with that crap in yet another thread. Yesssss we know you love muscle cars. Yes we all know, believe me, how easy it is to get power out of a V8. Yes we know you can buy el-cheapo 80s Mustangs and make them run well with 5k. The point here is no one asked and no one cares for it in this thread. You don't need to defend muscle cars each time one is brought out as an example of how slow they were. Specially with the played-out card that "they can be made to go fast".