FWD Sports Car?

[Jonn 79]

Hmm i was worried i may have had a weak argument for discussion but i still feel like many of us here are only assessing the "sports car"ness of each car mentioned here based only on a few criteria rather than all reasonable criterion.

With regards to the Integra being a volume driver i meant within the realm of Honda marketing. Econo-box coupe for cheap "looks like a sports car" with a sporty feel that we can make lots of for cheap, cheap, but shouldn't be as cool or as fast as our sports car segment Prelude (how wrong they were).

Porsche on the other hand would have this to say "Here is a 911 Carrera with all the bells and whistles minus body kit, power and some other cool stuff we put into the more premium racy versions, but hey at least you might be able to afford this level of performance."

When i said LEV i never specified that there would be a limited run production, sorry for not being clear. I do understand how the economy functions and the virtues of exclusivity but that doesn't change the fact that the services provided by factory tuning with AMG, Honda (Type R), and M division only take existing base models and tuning them. Sure an e46 3 series may share nothing with its M3 counter by the time it leaves the floor but the basics of the chassis and shape remain.

To answer whether a 911 is less of a sports car because there exists a GT3 version - no it doesn't. Despite the fact that a 911 Carrera is built for volume and easier accessibility, it is still a sports car.

I find it hard to believe that a teg with a b18b non vtec base model with hubs can be considered a sports car through the concept of guilty by association with a Type R.

What are suitable measurements for sports car if there are any, because evidently there happen to be more than meets the eye?

Price?
Power?
Handling?
Drivetrain?
LEV?
No. of seats?
Boot space?
Practicality?
Style?
Brand?

 

[Keef]

Niky, I still have to argue that old Integras still aren't sports cars. Your argument that it's a different car is right, even though us Honda guys are kinda stubborn when it comes to that kind of stuff. But an ITR is still a hotted up Integra.

Steelies, and a non-VTEC 1.8 liter. It's an LS, the base model. If that is a sports car then you must say this is a sports car:

And you've already argued that a base model Civic isn't a sports car. They're different, but they're the same thing to me, and they both have sedan variants that share the same basic chassis as the other trims (and the whole lot of them, again), and base models which are not designed for high performance. A 350Z is clearly designed for high performance, even as literal Base trim, and its platform mate the G sedan is also designed for anything but economy.

A G is not a Sentra, now that is a sound argument.

As for the Integra vs. 911 discussion, a 911 is not designed to be stylish on a budget and easy on fuel. It's designed to go fast. It's a sports car per my rules, because only small rodents can fit in the rear seats. An Integra is not a sports car, per your rules, because its base models are not designed to go fast. That is also one of my rules, that a car must be designed for performance.

EDIT: Not that it matters, but DC2 is the chassis code for a 1995-1998, 2000, and 2001 ITR. It's understood to refer to the generation as a whole, but it actually only refers to the Type R trim itself. Honda people usually refer to an entire generation as the code of its highest performance model.

 

[TorqueHappenS08]

SRT-4 = one of the best damn front wheel drive sports car i have ever driven and now have the pleasure of owning.

Period.

Especially in 04 when they added the Mopar track tuned suspension and Limited slip differential. Shed some weight then bumped power up to 234 from 215, I seriously love dodge for that, Then their is the legendary 1990s Dodge neon RT
That car was the definition of american Front wheel drive sports cars, it also had the highest BHP rating in its class, It was light, had a powerful strong motor, and a great transmission. It was known for it's acceleration and Handling. That's why it was a monster when it came to SCCA events and touring car series. Also the high reving 2.4l Mitsu engine would peak safely up to 8.000RPM, that's VTEC territory.

Now the the ACR Dodge SRT4 is the Track based version, it was made in 03-04. it was basically a stripped out version that also used Stiffer Moper race tuned suspension and 1.5 way limited slip differential system.

 

[niky]

It is only a 2 door sedan if it has the same interior volume as the 4 door sedan upon which it is based. So in the case of the current 3-series, the 2 door is indeed a Coupe in the classical sense, since there is less leg and head room in the Coupe, especially in the rear.

The only generation 3-series 2 door that may be called a "2 door sedan" is (possibly) the E30. But I don't have the numbers handy at the moment.

The argument, as I recall, was due to the shape of the roofline and the fact that it was based on the sedan... which is ridiculous, as I agree, the M3 is a coupe.

The ITR is to the Integra as the GT3 is to the 911. The only reason I wouldn't consider it a sports car is because it has back seats and some semblance of cargo capacity.

Again, something which the 911 also has (rear seats... vestigial though they are. I once saw an old gentleman with his wife and three kids driving around in their 911... ).

And the Boxster has two trunks! How utterly utilitarian!

-

Note on exclusivity: They only made around 2000+ copies of my car during its total production run. Bespoke engine (tuned version of the 2.0 offered on the Australian market, not offered for sale in the markets where my car was made), bespoke suspension, different steering rack, body-kit, wheels (a one-off run by the wheel manufacturer), interior. And of these 2000+ cars, only 500 or less were manual. (Nearest we can figure is only 250 of these were sold in our country... and the manual transmission version was only sold in two countries...) My car, is thus, more exclusive than most Porsches.

Its US counterpart was limited to a 2500 unit run. The car that replaced it there, the Mazdaspeed Protege, which had a turbo-unit and LSD not offered anywhere else in Mazda's product line-up, was also limited to a 2000-5000 unit run.

Not that I wouldn't mind trading it in for a 911. Or even just a Cayman. I'll give you a fair price on the trade-in. Direct swap, no cash.

Hmm i was worried i may have had a weak argument for discussion but i still feel like many of us here are only assessing the "sports car"ness of each car mentioned here based only on a few criteria rather than all reasonable criterion.

With regards to the Integra being a volume driver i meant within the realm of Honda marketing. Econo-box coupe for cheap "looks like a sports car" with a sporty feel that we can make lots of for cheap, cheap, but shouldn't be as cool or as fast as our sports car segment Prelude (how wrong they were).

Porsche on the other hand would have this to say "Here is a 911 Carrera with all the bells and whistles minus body kit, power and some other cool stuff we put into the more premium racy versions, but hey at least you might be able to afford this level of performance."

When i said LEV i never specified that there would be a limited run production, sorry for not being clear. I do understand how the economy functions and the virtues of exclusivity but that doesn't change the fact that the services provided by factory tuning with AMG, Honda (Type R), and M division only take existing base models and tuning them. Sure an e46 3 series may share nothing with its M3 counter by the time it leaves the floor but the basics of the chassis and shape remain.

An M3 is built on a different line, with different parts. The engineering base is the same, but it's not a "tarted up 3 series". An ITR is built as an ITR. It's not built as a base Integra and then retrofitted with performance bits. There's a difference there.

To answer whether a 911 is less of a sports car because there exists a GT3 version - no it doesn't. Despite the fact that a 911 Carrera is built for volume and easier accessibility, it is still a sports car.

A 911 Turbo Cabrio is built to handle well for its weight, but there's no getting around the fact that it's nearly 4000 pounds. According to the classic definition of a sportscar, it must be lightweight. Of course, such definition is arguable, since the notion of lightweight changes year-on-year, as cars get bigger.

It's still a near-4000 pound porker.

I find it hard to believe that a teg with a b18b non vtec base model with hubs can be considered a sports car through the concept of guilty by association with a Type R.

What are suitable measurements for sports car if there are any, because evidently there happen to be more than meets the eye?

Price? No
Power? No
Handling? Yes
Drivetrain? No
LEV? No
No. of seats? No (definition: one-or-two seater or two plus two)
Boot space? No (not mentioned. But if the boot is big enough to make the car not light, maybe.
Practicality? No
Style? No... Body style, yes.
Brand?No

This is all according to the classic definition: Low, small, lightweight, often open-topped, seats one or two or two-plus-two (definitions don't agree on this... but the exclusive version of the definition, one-or-two, excludes the 911... because you can actually seat two-plus-two in a 911, though not comfortably), built to be driven quickly.

Does not mention that it was built to accelerate quickly or even break the speed of sound. It's just built to be driven quickly, which means it has the handling and brakes to cope with high speed driving.

Does not mention drivetrain.

Does not mention brand or exclusivity.

Does not mention number of golf bags.

Does not mention number of doors... though people usually agree the appropriate number is two, because four doors makes it a sports sedan.

The last part, built to be driven quickly, is a sticking point... because it suggests the original purpose of the car has to be performance.

It does not specify what raw materials you build the car with. You can use an engine, a gearbox and a transmission from an economy car and still have a sports car (Lotus Super Seven)... so why not a floorpan? Why not a body? If it is built on the production line with the high-po engine, brakes and suspension already in it... then it's built to be driven fast.

And you've already argued that a base model Civic isn't a sports car. They're different, but they're the same thing to me, and they both have sedan variants that share the same basic chassis as the other trims (and the whole lot of them, again), and base models which are not designed for high performance. A 350Z is clearly designed for high performance, even as literal Base trim, and its platform mate the G sedan is also designed for anything but economy.

Would make a better argument if the G-series sedan didn't come with small displacement VQs elsewhere in the world... with AWD to boot.

 

[Eric.]

So now the G35 Sedan is a sports car because the Z and the G Coupe are sports cars? We're breaking all kinds of rules here. I won't even claim the sedan to be a sports car...Sport sedan, sure. More luxury than sport for the most part.

 

[niky]

So now the G35 Sedan is a sports car because the Z and the G Coupe are sports cars? We're breaking all kinds of rules here. I won't even claim the sedan to be a sports car...Sport sedan, sure. More luxury than sport for the most part.

No.

People were complaining the Integra is not a sports car because the Civic is not a sports car.

Which is rubbish.

It would be the same as saying that the 350Z or G35 Coupe are not sports cars because the G35 is a sedan.

Or the same as saying the Hyundai Genesis Coupe is not a sports car because it's a Coupe version of the Genesis Sedan (though it has even less in common with the Sedan than a 350Z does with a G35).

I'm pointing out that the fact that these cars share parts of their floorpans with other models does not automatically make them whatever that other car is.

Being based on the same floor pan as a Civic doesn't make the Integra Type R an economy sedan... and it doesn't make the CR-V one, either (as it's also based on the Civic floor pan).

Contrawise... because a G35 sedan has the same floorpan as a G35 coupe, doesn't make it a sports car... sports sedan maybe, but not a sports car.

 

[Boffin]

Here's a thought.

Why do we need a definative line on what a sportscar is and what isn't?

 

[Famine]

Got that covered.

Not that I'm wholly sure why it matters though.

But ultimately I don't really think it's that important.

 

[Jonn 79]

Just some clarity.

The CR-V was based on a Civic floor pan that was a puffed up estate version from 1980 in the US.

DC2 as a designation started with the introduction of the B18B and B18C1 engine Integra. DC1 was used for Integras using a B16A. DB8 was used for both GSR and Type R versions of the Integra 4 door.

I feel without considering other factors that i mentioned in a previous post, you can not clearly identify what the term sports car really means.

Road and Track has been quoted as calling an Acura Integra GSR, Mitsubishi Eclipse GST and a Mercury Cougar as all sport coupes. Never was those cars were mentioned as sports cars. It would be erroneous to assume that they were and are sports car by virtue of the sentence built to go fast.

I agree with most when they say sports couple, sports sedan, as in this day in age with so much variety of styles, it would only be proper to have detail designations for any car.

 

[Famine]

Road and Track has been quoted as calling an Acura Integra GSR, Mitsubishi Eclipse GST and a Mercury Cougar as all sport coupes. Never was those cars were mentioned as sports cars. It would be erroneous to assume that they were and are sports car by virtue of the sentence built to go fast.

And many of the people in this thread have already said that speed and power are irrelevant to the designation "sportscar".

 

[McLaren]

Just some clarity.

The CR-V was based on a Civic floor pan that was a puffed up estate version from 1980 in the US.

DC2 as a designation started with the introduction of the B18B and B18C1 engine Integra. DC1 was used for Integras using a B16A. DB8 was used for both GSR and Type R versions of the Integra 4 door.

I feel without considering other factors that i mentioned in a previous post, you can not clearly identify what the term sports car really means.

Road and Track has been quoted as calling an Acura Integra GSR, Mitsubishi Eclipse GST and a Mercury Cougar as all sport coupes. Never was those cars were mentioned as sports cars. It would be erroneous to assume that they were and are sports car by virtue of the sentence built to go fast.

I agree with most when they say sports couple, sports sedan, as in this day in age with so much variety of styles, it would only be proper to have detail designations for any car.

They are, generally, the same thing....

A 911 is a sports car that is also technically a sports coupe.

 

[homeforsummer]

Niky, I still have to argue that old Integras still aren't sports cars. Your argument that it's a different car is right, even though us Honda guys are kinda stubborn when it comes to that kind of stuff. But an ITR is still a hotted up Integra.

Steelies, and a non-VTEC 1.8 liter. It's an LS, the base model. If that is a sports car then you must say this is a sports car:

And you've already argued that a base model Civic isn't a sports car. They're different, but they're the same thing to me, and they both have sedan variants that share the same basic chassis as the other trims (and the whole lot of them, again), and base models which are not designed for high performance. A 350Z is clearly designed for high performance, even as literal Base trim, and its platform mate the G sedan is also designed for anything but economy.

I reckon the DC2 Integra and EK9 Civic R open a whole new can of worms, actually.

I wouldn't call them sports cars, despite Niky's persuasive arguements. I'd actually go for the "road legal race car" tag. They're certainly very different from the regular models in the range - extra chassis welding, less sound insulation, thinner glass, hand-built VTEC engine, completely different suspension tuning etc - though they're both clearly based off economy cars, their specifications certainly don't read as such. The tuning doesn't make them sports cars, in the same way that stripping out an S65 AMG and taking it on the track doesn't make it a sports car, but it does make them happily track-ready.

Essentially, I'd put the Integra/Civic R models into the "road legal track day car" bracket. One you can also put the Megane R26R into, and I wouldn't call that a sports car either.

Incidentally, none of which is really relevant to whether sports cars can be FWD. To which I still say they can, because the Lotus Elan/M100 is definitely a sports car.

 

[niky]

They are, generally, the same thing....

A 911 is a sports car that is also technically a sports coupe.

Y'know, to clearly differentiate it from an open-topped Boxster, which is a sports car.

You take to calling things "sports coupes" because they're not roadster bodies... and the classic definition of sports car is based off of old British roadsters.

It's all shades of gray, to me. I still call an overweight 911 Turbo a "sports car"... I still call an all-wheel drive Murcielago a "sports car"... but if people get nitpicky and try to single out low-performance sports cars as somehow not fitting the definition of sports cars, I do feel it proper to remind them what the definition is based off of...

What some here consider "True Sports Cars" today are only expensive and exclusive because the market for "sports cars" is small. (Although the Miata is an exception)

They have strayed beyond the classic formula by offering more seats, more luxuries (which equals more weight, which is against the sports car credo) and more size (relative to common cars on the road... and if you're wider and longer than a Civic, you're bigger than most common cars), which is again, against the sports car credo.

But we accept such compromises as part and parcel of the prevailing market. Thus even though they stray from the definition, they're still "sports cars." Because, at the very least, they meet the important part of the definition... the one that isn't bound to the musty old types who putter around in MGBs and Healeys that go from 0-100 km/h slower than it takes for them to catch on fire in traffic... the part of the definition that states that these cars are built to be driven fast.

(And yes, there are musty old types who frown at the use of the word sports car in reference to many of these newfangled overweight thingamajiggies people call performance cars...)

An ITR definitely isn't built to be driven slow. It doesn't even have that useful surge of torque a bigger-engined sports car can use to surf through traffic.

-

RE: race-cars for the streets... funnily enough... some definitions claim (as I think Famine mentioned) that a sports-car is a car built to go racing...

-

It's intriguing how much rebuilding and re-engineering is required to create the "sports versions" of some of these economy cars. For some, like the older versions of the rally-going Mitsubishi Evolution series, the only parts that are directly swappable with the regular road-cars are the interiors. The old Evolution doesn't share engines with the regular Lancer range (even the turbocharged "sports" Lancer used an entirely different engine from the Evolution), doesn't share steering racks, has a completely different suspension, different wheels, different brakes, different wheel-hubs (you can't swap wheels between the Evo and the Lancer without swapping brakes, too), different body panels, a chassis that's been seam-welded at the factory... even a different floor-pan (most Lancers don't have an attachment point for the rear differential).

Of course... the Evo is the wrong shape to be a "sports car" in the classic sense... but I personally think it's a four-door supercar.

It's certainly not an economy car... not with the amount of gas it drinks...

 

[Famine]

You take to calling things "sports coupes" because they're not roadster bodies... and the classic definition of sports car is based off of old British roadsters.

If you want to get even more classic, the definition of a roadster - and in fact any convertible - is "drophead coupe". I don't see any real need to distinguish between DHC and "fixed head coupe" when it comes to "sportscars", especially as some classic sportscars - XK120 - came in both styles...

Of course the definition of DHC means 2 doors exclusively - and I would argue for the inclusion of any coupe, even hatchback coupes, under that umbrella.

 

[///M-Spec]

The argument, as I recall, was due to the shape of the roofline and the fact that it was based on the sedan... which is ridiculous, as I agree, the M3 is a coupe.

An argument based on the roofline is very silly. They would have a better case going with rear interior volume. I read somewhere that the US SAE defines a car with less than 33 cu. ft. of rear passenger volume as a coupe.

There is an SCCA production racing class called "American Sedan", which is based on the old Trans-Am series from the 70s. The class is dominated by Mustangs and Camaros, which apparently qualify as sedans as far as the SCCA is concerned.

Again, something which the 911 also has (rear seats... vestigial though they are. I once saw an old gentleman with his wife and three kids driving around in their 911... ).

Very tiny seats. For that reason alone, I don't consider the 911 a pure sports car either. Earlier in the thread, I stated that I considered it a "on the fence" between sports car and Gran Turismo.



As far as I'm concerned, the definition of a sports car is all about intent, clarity of purpose and execution.

A sports car must put performance above all other considerations and allow minimal compromise for considerations contradictory to its goals. The less compromise, the more pure. Having a passenger is a compromise, since space and therefore size and weight must be added to accommodate those goals.

A 911 has rear seats to make it more practical. So do M3s and RX-8s. But the fact that a 911 has much smaller rear seats means it is less compromised. A GT3 has none at all, which makes it more pure. But it is still compromised by the fact that there is empty space in the body where the seats used to be. In that regard, a GT3 will never be as pure a sports car as the Cayman, which was never conceived to carry more than 2 people and a weekend's worth of luggage. The fact that a Cayman S is easily the match of a Carrera S at a track shows very clearly what the 911 is giving up to keep it's classic configuration.

I would put the RX-8 between "sports coupe" (G37, 335i) and "four door coupe" (Passat CC, Merc CLS). You could make an argument that it is a GT, but I would say that it isn't powerful or luxurious enough to be considered one.


..and no; splitting hairs this thin isn't important at all. But strangely interesting nonetheless.


M

 

[niky]

Interior space is another difficult argument... seeing as how you could increase/decrease it simply by adding/subtracting the spare tire!

Yesss... splitting hairs... isn't that what the internet was built for?

-

Funny... when i hear the word drophead coupe, I always think about:

 

[Keef]

It would be the same as saying that the 350Z or G35 Coupe are not sports cars because the G35 is a sedan.

Not the same. Base model Integras are not designed for performance. A base model G35, or G37 now, is. It's specifically marketed as a sports sedan. It's not a sports car, but it is designed for performance.

What sort of small-displacement VQ are you talking about, and where is this lesser model sold? The AWD version was also designed and is marketed with sporty intent. When's the last time you saw a commercial of the G35 trundling through the underbrush chasing down a Subaru Outback?

I'm pointing out that the fact that these cars share parts of their floorpans with other models does not automatically make them whatever that other car is. Being based on the same floor pan as a Civic doesn't make the Integra Type R an economy sedan...

I see your point, and I'm arguing with it because one of my ideals is that a car must be designed for performance in order to be a sports car. An Integra LS is not a track-day special, and that is a non-argument. A Miata may be slower and get good fuel mileage, but it was designed for performance, be it tactile or measurable. The fact that an Integra Type R is simply a hotted-up economy car means it cannot be a sports car.

Contrawise... because a G35 sedan has the same floorpan as a G35 coupe, doesn't make it a sports car... sports sedan maybe, but not a sports car.

Agreed on the G35 sedan, then. Note the fact that you refer to it as a sports sedan, meaning you agree with me that it was designed to perform, while taking the boss and colleagues out to lunch.

I'm going to take it as far as calling the G35 coupe not a sports car, because I can sit behind myself in one.

It even has fold-out cupholders for the rear seaters.

I'll repeat my personal rules:

1. Not front wheel drive.
2. Two doors.
3. Two usable seats.
4. Designed for performance.

I'm pretty sure that covers pretty much everything possible, except for a Radical or something equally ludicrous which cannot be driven on the street practically. If I missed something I'll come up with an excuse for it.

 

[niky]

Not the same. Base model Integras are not designed for performance. A base model G35, or G37 now, is. It's specifically marketed as a sports sedan. It's not a sports car, but it is designed for performance.

What sort of small-displacement VQ are you talking about, and where is this lesser model sold? The AWD version was also designed and is marketed with sporty intent. When's the last time you saw a commercial of the G35 trundling through the underbrush chasing down a Subaru Outback?

Skyline 2.5. Elsewhere in the world.

Like Famine says... if the UK doesn't get the base model Integra, but gets the Integra Type R... then... for all intents and purposes... the Integra Type R is a bespoke model in their market.

I see your point, and I'm arguing with it because one of my ideals is that a car must be designed for performance in order to be a sports car. An Integra LS is not a track-day special, and that is a non-argument. A Miata may be slower and get good fuel mileage, but it was designed for performance, be it tactile or measurable. The fact that an Integra Type R is simply a hotted-up economy car means it cannot be a sports car.

Agreed on the G35 sedan, then. Note the fact that you refer to it as a sports sedan, meaning you agree with me that it was designed to perform, while taking the boss and colleagues out to lunch.

The 3.5 and 3.7 liter variants are sports sedans. The lower-engined variants are not. Smaller wheels, lesser suspension, etcetera. They're not branded Infinitis, but at this point, it's like arguing about the difference between an Acura NSX and a Honda NSX.

I'm going to take it as far as calling the G35 coupe not a sports car, because I can sit behind myself in one.

Based on the strict definition, yes, this is acceptable.

It even has fold-out cupholders for the rear seaters.

I'll repeat my personal rules:

1. Not front wheel drive.
2. Two doors.
3. Two usable seats.
4. Designed for performance.

I'm pretty sure that covers pretty much everything possible, except for a Radical or something equally ludicrous which cannot be driven on the street practically. If I missed something I'll come up with an excuse for it.

on the last line.

 

[Keef]

The 3.5 and 3.7 liter variants are sports sedans. The lower-engined variants are not. Smaller wheels, lesser suspension, etcetera. .

Perfectly acceptable and understandable. I don't remember who started the lame-base-model argument (was that me?), but my rules do explain how a 350Z is a sports car, a G35 sedan is not, and an ITR is not. The sedan, no matter its engine or base model or whatever, is a sedan. The ITR, no matter if it's an exclusive model in certain markets, is front wheel drive. The 350Z conforms to the rules perfectly, and therefore is a proper sports car.

 

[niky]

Perfectly acceptable and understandable. I don't remember who started the lame-base-model argument (was that me?), but my rules do explain how a 350Z is a sports car, a G35 sedan is not, and an ITR is not. The sedan, no matter its engine or base model or whatever, is a sedan. The ITR, no matter if it's an exclusive model in certain markets, is front wheel drive. The 350Z conforms to the rules perfectly, and therefore is a proper sports car.

Perfectly acceptable to me, also, as long as you define them as your personal rules, despite the fact that I disagree with you on the basis of your definitions, as long as your rules and arguments are internally self-consistent.

Simply, the term is so nebulous that it can't help being a personal opinion thing rather than a cut-and-dried definition. In the end, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll repeat my personal rules:

1. Not front wheel drive.
2. Two doors.
3. Two usable seats.
4. Designed for performance.

Why the first one though? It completely excludes some of the cars mentioned, like the Elan, that are very obviously purpose-designed sports cars with no other reason for existance than driving pleasure?

It just seems really strange to discount something from being a sports car simply because of the drivetrain, especially seeing as I know you're not one of those oafs who think that all cars should be RWD and have V8 engines. I know your Civic wasn't up there with something like a Miata for tactility, but it was still a bloody good FWD - and if something like the Lotus has that tactility, then it must be a sports car.

 

[Horde_R35]

Voters: 111. You have already voted on this poll

Yes 90 81.08%
No 21 18.92%

Cant help myself

 

[McLaren]

Why the first one though? It completely excludes some of the cars mentioned, like the Elan, that are very obviously purpose-designed sports cars with no other reason for existance than driving pleasure?

It just seems really strange to discount something from being a sports car simply because of the drivetrain, especially seeing as I know you're not one of those oafs who think that all cars should be RWD and have V8 engines. I know your Civic wasn't up there with something like a Miata for tactility, but it was still a bloody good FWD - and if something like the Lotus has that tactility, then it must be a sports car.

Because Keef seems to be close to having the same mindset as drifters, that FWD cars can't be anything better than a RWD car, except at being an economy car.

 

[Keef]

Because Keef seems to be close to having the same mindset as drifters, that FWD cars can't be anything better than a RWD car, except at being an economy car.

Being a sports car doesn't have anything to do with being "better", as has been said by many other people who disagree on most things besides that point. Why does a sports have necessarily need to be better than other types of cars? Why can't it simply be a principle that a sports car is a sports car even if it's awful, like a Fiero? Your Si is better than many real sports cars, without being one. That's not good enough for you? It seems like you're almost insecure that your car, his car, my old car, aren't sports cars.

 

[McLaren]

Being a sports car doesn't have anything to do with being "better", as has been said by many other people who disagree on most things besides that point. Why does a sports have necessarily need to be better than other types of cars? Why can't it simply be a principle that a sports car is a sports car even if it's awful, like a Fiero? Your Si is better than many real sports cars, without being one. That's not good enough for you? It seems like you're almost insecure that your car, his car, my old car, aren't sports cars.

Where did I say anything about sports cars? Nowhere.

You proposed the idea that a FWD car can not be a sports car. Fine, I respect that. But then, you posted that a BMW 5 Series is more of a sports car than Civic Si solely on the fact that Si is FWD.

That to me screams that you're somebody who believes a FWD car can not be anything but economical, which is the same ignorant thought as drifters.

 

[homeforsummer]

Not to mention confusing, as I didn't see Keef as being someone who's naturally against FWD cars.

Though to paraphrase...

Why can't it simply be a principle that a sports car is a sports car even if it's FWD, like an Elan?

 

[speed junkie]

I think its hard for alot of people stray from the "feeling," or maybe better said, association with the phrase "sports car." It should be no different than saying an Impreza is a sedan. It is just two words chosen to classify a type of car. It has been a long time since the term "sports car" actually separated that specific car from the rest in terms of the performance aspect that sports cars should all have. But now a days there are obviously other cars that can perform better than sports cars, not being sports cars themselves. Now, when I say theyre not sports cars I dont mean that theyre not fast, performance oriented, or fun to drive, it only means that it is not to be labeled with the phrase "sports car" just as a Toyota Chaser is not to be labeled "hatch back." It is just a lable for a style of car which, when it was created, was more performance-"exclusive" than sports cars are today since there werent alot of performance cars back then. The cars happened to be open top, fr, and 2 seaters. Keefs description. If they happened to all be ff then I would be arguing today that a true sports car is to be ff regardless of any performance disadvantage.

 

[TVC]

Where did I say anything about sports cars? Nowhere.

You proposed the idea that a FWD car can not be a sports car. Fine, I respect that. But then, you posted that a BMW 5 Series is more of a sports car than Civic Si solely on the fact that Si is FWD.

That to me screams that you're somebody who believes a FWD car can not be anything but economical, which is the same ignorant thought as drifters.

I know no one is really talking about this but I don't really think the Si is a sports car at all. It's an economy car.

 

[McLaren]

I know no one is really talking about this but I don't really think the Si is a sports car at all. It's an economy car.

I never claimed it was, either. But, it is more than a base 5 series.

 

[TVC]

I never claimed it was, either. But, it is more than a base 5 series.

Yeah I agree with that.