FWD Sports Car?
- Thread starter TVC
- 482 comments
- 44,044 views
- 23,800
- Philippines
Famine was pointing out your definition of "sports car":
The word "sports" would suggest something that is used in competition, so any car could be considered a sports car, once it is used for a competition
Excluded this:
Since, according to you, if it's not used in competition, it's not a sports car. The irony of this post apparently escaped you, since Famine was pointing out that these:
are used in competition. Even though they aren't sportscars.
An Atom is a sportscar. Not a performance car.
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Performance cars are based on their performance. Since the Atom's performance includes a very low (comparative) top speed, it cannot be classed as a performance car.
However, it is a sports car, despite not being used for motorsports by your criterion, since it's a small, 2-seater, DHC-type car designed purely for fun.
Then do not do so.
Which is a point many have made. Except your definition means anything used in racing is a sports car and anything else, no matter how similar in design and packaging, is not. Your classification includes the 2CV, the Ford Fiesta, the original Mini and the Rover 25 as sports cars, yet excludes things like the Ariel Atom, Suzuki Cappuccino, the Triumph TR3 and the MG TF, all of which are sports cars.
The S1 Elan and Triumph TR3 are pretty much identical roadcars in terms of concept - small, low-powered, 2 seat DHCs. If one is a sportscar, the other should be too. But your "race cars only" definition excludes the TR3 and includes the Elan.
- 9,089
- Scotland
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I said almost and probably. Besides this video does not prove much, as I have passed bmw m3, subaru sti among other fast cars on a track day, in a fairly standard AE86 corolla 1.6. If there were good drivers in those cars, I would not have been able to pass them.
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
It seems that, more and more, when I read this thread, I want to follow Toronado's lead.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
By naming yourself after an Oldsmobile?
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
No...he's left.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
- 2,833
- Colorado
- GTP_Cyborg
"Sport" and "performance" are one and the same, my friend. Acceleration and top speed figures don't differentiate between the two. Sure, there's performance in power, but there's also performance in handling. If you ask me, "sport/performance" defines any car that was designed to do much more than just the daily grind. Why stiffen the suspension in a Clio RS or stick a limited slip differential in a Prelude Si? What could your mom possibly get out of those features, let alone a boost in power over the base models, on her drive to work or the store?
- 23,800
- Philippines
LSD: for driving in the rain (that's my excuse for the wife...).
Stiffer suspension: A base Mazda3 or Honda Civic has a stiffer suspension than a Corolla, (stiffer, actually, than some sportscars), but they're not performance cars, or sold as such.
More power: Honda Accord V6: near-300 hp, not conceivably a performance car in any way. Too wallowy. Too soft.
Most cars beyond the basic Yaris are built to do something more than just commute. That's what sells cars... added value.
-
A 1989 MX-5 has less acceleration than most compacts with the same engine size, less grip and the brakes of a milk truck. A comparable hot hatch could run rings around it on most tracks. It's still a sports car.
My four-door family sedan (unmodified) would be able to lap a Daihatsu Copen within just one or two laps around any race track short of an autocross with gates two inches wider than my wing mirrors. (even then, it'll be close) But technically, my sedan is not a sports car. A Copen is.
A sports car, going by strict textbook definitions, is a one or two seat car that's low, light and built to drive at high speeds. An even stricter definition is 2-seat, 2-door. An even stricter one is it must be open-topped.
Famine is pointing out that eight6er's personal definition of "sportscar" excludes cars which are sportscars by the classic definition.
And "performance car" connotates "high performance"... it's an even weirder term that has no agreed upon definition other than a car labelled a "performance" car has to meet some undefined set of criteria for it to be considered "performance."
What are those criteria? What percentage faster, grippier, brakier or powerfull-...er over an ordinary car does a car have to be to be considered a "performance car"? Your definition that it has to do much more than just commute captures the flavor of it, but Famine was debating eight6er's use of the term.
It's one of those terms coined by people to label cars they don't think of as sports-cars... much like "sport compact" or "sport coupe"... whoop-de-doo... a sports-coupe meets 99% of the requirements to be called a sports car... and some sports-coupes are sports compacts.
Last edited:
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No they aren't. Otherwise they'd be the same word.
Oh but they do. You can have a performance car that isn't a sports car - take the Rolls Royce Phantom. It's a barge, not a sportscar - but check out the performance figures.
That's why every car manufacturer and magazine ever puts handling statistics under the "Performance" banner then?
Not a lot since she'd be entirely at home in the ashtray. What could she possibly get out of a Ford Explorer or Mazda Miata on her drive to work or the store (and what does a Clio RS have to do with a discussion about sports and performance cars)?
A performance car is one which has performance figures - low 0-60, low 0-100, low quarter mile, low 100-0, low 60-0 and high top speed. A sportscar is one which is designed, from the ground up, to be fun and in a DHC/FHC body, regardless of performance. The MX-5/Miata is the definitive blueprint of a sportscar and yet has next to no performance.
- 2,833
- Colorado
- GTP_Cyborg
Every car has "performance figures." Whether those figures are good or bad is relative. It's pretty much standard issue for any real expensive car these days to hit near or above 200mph, it's a status symbol for the excessively rich; amongst their peers Phantoms, Continental GTs, etc are nothing special. How is a Renault Sport Clio not relative to an argument on sports cars? It was built specifically as a more fun option to the base Clios. You've never seen car magazines post slalom and G figures in reviews? Read more... and watch more TV. I cant count how many car commercials I've seen showing off how their car is so great when the roads get a bit curvy.
And I don't know where you're reading into, but except for the guys that can't get over the girly image of the MX-5, all I read is how good they handle. Which is probably why they're so popular among the weekend racers. I've seen countless Miatas around town tricked out for the track, with roll bars and the like.
And I don't know where you're reading into, but except for the guys that can't get over the girly image of the MX-5, all I read is how good they handle. Which is probably why they're so popular among the weekend racers. I've seen countless Miatas around town tricked out for the track, with roll bars and the like.
Last edited:
Eric.
Premium
- 8,515
- GTP_Eric
- Ebiggs
I'm curious why Famine is dropping out handling from being a performance figure, specifically with this line?
Edit: And the definitions posted describe a sportscar as one built to be driven at high speed. A 1989 1.6L Miata can't get to high speed, so it can't be a sportscar, right?
Famine
Edit: And the definitions posted describe a sportscar as one built to be driven at high speed. A 1989 1.6L Miata can't get to high speed, so it can't be a sportscar, right?
- 23,800
- Philippines
Tricked out for the track because they're so soft unless they're tricked out.
His only point is: A Miata has terrible performance.
You're talking to a guy who owns/drives both an MX-5 and an MX-3. He ought to know what he's talking about.
I'm not quite so hardcore. I can't live without the extra seats and doors. But I've driven Miatas. Hard. And while I love them to death, my daily driver accelerates faster than a Miata... grips harder than a Miata... has twice the braking power... and three times the chassis rigidity. In a slalom, the dinky little roadster might eke out an advantage over me, but on any track longer than a parking lot, my four-door economobile will outlap it.
I've just finished a road test of the latest Miata. And while it accelerates faster than my car from a dead stop (thanks to being lighter), all the other items are still true.
Even worse, my 170 horsepower car can hit 140 mph. A 170 horsepower Miata can barely crack 120.
As compared to a more modern car, say: a Civic Si or a mid-sized V6 family car, the MX-5 has terrible performance.
A Miata is not a performance car. But it is a sports car. And this is coming from someone who'd give his left foot to own one.
Drop it mate! Your right, but they wont get it
!
Get what? We both hold that the Miata is a sports car. Calling it a performance car would require it to have performance significantly better than most cars on the road. And sadly, Mitsubishi Evolution, it is not.
It'll still hit over 100 mph. Back in the day, that was pretty fast...
...in fact, that was the top speed of many of the classic sportscars.
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Sarcasm, Eric. Handling figures are never posted under the banner of "performance" in any magazine I've ever read..
Then again, since handling can't be quantified - only grip can - there's probably a reason for this.
Yes, and that's what makes a car a "performance car" or not. Just like every car has practicality figures and whether they are good or bad is relative, making them a "practical car" or not.
Low performance figures = not a performance car.
If money upsets you, let's go cheaper. Holden Monaro/Vauxhall VXR8 - 425hp, 0-60mph in 5 seconds dead, 176mph top speed. Subaru Impreza STi - 305hp, 0-60mph in 4.4 seconds, 155mph limited top speed.
Both are performance cars. Neither are sportscars.
It's not a sportscar. It's a hot hatch.
No, it was modified to have more power, better acceleration and better handling than the base Clios. It shares significant mechanical components and suspension geometry with the base Clio, which was made specifically to be an economical, easy to drive car primarily in the city and suburbs.
The Clio RS - and all other hot hatches - is not specifically built for fun. It's an upgrade package.
Yes, under "Handling" (which is a misnomer, since they're measuring grip only). Not under "Performance".
Never seen a car commercial where they've made a point of saying "0.92g on a 60ft constant radius circle!".
Guess you haven't noticed I've owned two MX-5s then?
Once more. The MX-5 is the modern blueprint of the sportscar - a small, small-engined, low-powered, DHC made specifically for no other purpose than fun. It isn't a performance car, as it has woeful-to-average performance figures (excluding the NCs, about which I know nothing, 90 to 135hp, 8.0 to 10.5s to 60mph, 110 to 125mph top speed) - and doesn't really generate very impressive grip or braking numbers either.
horde - You can invent whatever numbers you like - a million mph and 0-60mph in a picosecond - but a Honda Civic will never be a sportscar. Performance car, yes; Sportscar, no.
Then again, since handling can't be quantified - only grip can - there's probably a reason for this.
Yes, and that's what makes a car a "performance car" or not. Just like every car has practicality figures and whether they are good or bad is relative, making them a "practical car" or not.
Low performance figures = not a performance car.
If money upsets you, let's go cheaper. Holden Monaro/Vauxhall VXR8 - 425hp, 0-60mph in 5 seconds dead, 176mph top speed. Subaru Impreza STi - 305hp, 0-60mph in 4.4 seconds, 155mph limited top speed.
Both are performance cars. Neither are sportscars.
It's not a sportscar. It's a hot hatch.
No, it was modified to have more power, better acceleration and better handling than the base Clios. It shares significant mechanical components and suspension geometry with the base Clio, which was made specifically to be an economical, easy to drive car primarily in the city and suburbs.
The Clio RS - and all other hot hatches - is not specifically built for fun. It's an upgrade package.
Yes, under "Handling" (which is a misnomer, since they're measuring grip only). Not under "Performance".
Never seen a car commercial where they've made a point of saying "0.92g on a 60ft constant radius circle!".
Guess you haven't noticed I've owned two MX-5s then?
Once more. The MX-5 is the modern blueprint of the sportscar - a small, small-engined, low-powered, DHC made specifically for no other purpose than fun. It isn't a performance car, as it has woeful-to-average performance figures (excluding the NCs, about which I know nothing, 90 to 135hp, 8.0 to 10.5s to 60mph, 110 to 125mph top speed) - and doesn't really generate very impressive grip or braking numbers either.
horde - You can invent whatever numbers you like - a million mph and 0-60mph in a picosecond - but a Honda Civic will never be a sportscar. Performance car, yes; Sportscar, no.
Last edited:
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Who says it can't handle?
Remember, I've owned two - an NA and an NB - and am in the market for a third (NB or NB.5).
Since we're fond of quantifying these things, the best lateral grip figure a standard Mk2 MX-5 has ever been tested at is 0.88g. My similarly-not-a-performance-car MX-3 returns 0.89g. Which handles better? Well, it's personal preference, but I doubt anyone would claim the MX-3 is a better handling vehicle.
As for braking, if a Mk1 MX-5 and a Lexus LS400 are travelling at 75mph and both stamp on the stop pedal, the Lexus will stop 4 feet sooner.
So, the Mk1 MX-5 has mediocre performance statistics, even if you decide to include "handling" (which isn't quantifiable, but grip, which is usually mistaken for handling, is). It's still a sportscar, but not a performance car.
Edit: And with hfs we now have MX-5 owners telling you that they're so-so at braking and let go quite easily - along with having middling performance figures. Makes me wonder when people are going to take us at our word that MX-5s are not performance cars.
Last edited:
- 5,481
- Seattle, WA
- RykonZero
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Grip. Not handling. Nobody is disputing that they don't handle well. A standard NA, on original tyres, doesn't have a lot of grip. It lets go pretty easily. And the brakes are nothing special either. The sole reason mine stops faster than my old Fiesta is because the tyres are about two inches wider.
Of course, that can all be changed, and a vast majority of Miatas both grip and stop brilliantly as they've been upgraded.
- 23,800
- Philippines
And once you've got more grip, you need more chassis stiffening, better springs, better shocks...
I haven't driven an NA yet (stock or modified) that actually braked very well (compared to more modern cars)... though the modified brakes I've seen are still stock diameter.
An NC has 1,000,000 times more performance credentials than an NA Miata, but again... its performance numbers are pathetic.
The 120 mph top speed is lower than modern compact cars with the same engine displacement (some with up to 30 horses less), acceleration is good but not great... whatever the American rags tell you, an NC Miata is incredibly difficult to pedal to 62 mph faster than 7 and a half seconds... maybe with a tail-wind... and lateral grip is not an astoundingly high number (around 0.9 g).
That said, there are few cars as joyous to drive as the Miata... as easy to push to... and sometimes over... the limit... and which are so benign when over the limit a monkey could countersteer it...
The only thing wrong with it is that it's not front-wheel drive...
I haven't driven an NA yet (stock or modified) that actually braked very well (compared to more modern cars)... though the modified brakes I've seen are still stock diameter.
An NC has 1,000,000 times more performance credentials than an NA Miata, but again... its performance numbers are pathetic.
The 120 mph top speed is lower than modern compact cars with the same engine displacement (some with up to 30 horses less), acceleration is good but not great... whatever the American rags tell you, an NC Miata is incredibly difficult to pedal to 62 mph faster than 7 and a half seconds... maybe with a tail-wind... and lateral grip is not an astoundingly high number (around 0.9 g).
That said, there are few cars as joyous to drive as the Miata... as easy to push to... and sometimes over... the limit... and which are so benign when over the limit a monkey could countersteer it...
The only thing wrong with it is that it's not front-wheel drive...
Last edited:
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
To be fair, it's not that either.
"Grip" is something objective. You can measure it empirically - chuck a car round a constant radius 60/100ft circle, or throw it down a slalom as fast as you can - and you can compare grip values.
"Handling" is something subjective. You can't measure it empirically and, really, it's pretty tough to compare handling ability, car-to-car.
The two are often used interchangeably, but they shouldn't be. As I said, by the numbers my MX-3 V6 is better than an MX-5 - by pretty much any performance or dynamic measurement you can come up with. But who on the face of the planet thinks an MX-3 is a better handling car than an MX-5? Certainly not me, and I have owned two of each...
The difference is what happens when the grip goes away. The MX-5 loses it first at 0.88g and goes slightly sideways. No problem - power on, dab of oppo, 50:50 weight distribution, lovely. The MX-3 might hold on a little longer to 0.89g but then it washes out wide - you have 63:37 weight distribution heading for the crash barriers with nothing you can do but back off or wind off some lock. As they say, oversteer is scary for the passenger, understeer is scary for the driver.
Now that's a little unfair on the MX-3, because the rear suspension is a bit clever and designed to eliminate understeer, but also to change directions quite rapidly itself (a kind of passive rear-wheel steer by dynamic camber changing), so a constant radius circle doesn't really show off what it's good at but, ultimately, it's not as good a handler as the MX-5 is. But if someone else thinks that it is - or better - they aren't wrong. I know I prefer the MX-3 down "Fenland" roads, because the extra overall weight and front axle line weight means it irons out the bumps and it's almost as quick in the bends.
I think the only people who'd think otherwise are those who say FWD can never be fun. And they don't drive enough of them.
Last edited:
- 8,480
- P_Balance
Similar threads
