All four wheels of the car should have a purpose, because making the two on the front literally do all the work is not practical in a long, high speed race. Stuff like that means an Integra Type R will never be a sports car, no matter how well it performs. It's a gussied up economy car, and it's front wheel drive.
The rear tires on a hot hatch or sport compact
do have a function. They steer the car.
The best front-wheel drive cars are good because the rear suspension geometry actually does a lot of the steering work... Ford's Control Blade multi-link comes to mind... through passive bushing deflection and geometry changes under lateral load. Tricks that you wouldn't try to the same degree on most rear-drive cars.
An ITR isn't a gussied up economy car. It's a purpose built sports coupe. Full double wishbones, rack-and-pinion instead of the dreck on the regular Civic, a rorty engine and an LSD. That last part alone makes it better than 90% of the rear drivers on the road, which do nothing when you boot the throttle in a corner except squeal piggishly and understeer.
It's not performance that matters, it's principle.
Front-drivers don't violate any principles that make a sports car.
Seriously... front-drivers used to win at Indy...
Yes. And don't you dare laugh. It meets every definition of a sports car.
Yes, yes it does.
Sport compact is another classification for a car just like "sports car" and "sports sedan". Go look it up. A sports car is not an opinion it's an actual classification and sport compact is not a sub-level. I don't even know where you got that idea from. That's like saying a pick up truck is a sub level of a semi truck. There are things needed for a car to truly be a sports car.
I suggest
you look it up.
There is no
legal definition of a sports car, according to US law. A car is either a subcompact, a compact, a midsizer or etcetera.
All other classifications are an artefact of what manufacturers agree upon, or not. BMW can call the X5 an SAV while Ford calls the Explorer an SUT, but to the government, they're all the same banana. They're both trucks. Insurance groups might set aside a classification for sports cars, but generally they'll include anything that can kill you quicker than usual in that class simply so they can charge you more.
How about a Bentley Continental GT (mentioned previously) and an Aveo? They're both subcompact cars, according to the EPA. It's just that one has less passenger space than the other (hint, it's not the Aveo).
Again:
From Merriam Webster, free of any liberal/conservative editing efforts by the general net-populace:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sports car
Main Entry: sports car
Function: noun
Date: 1928 (and free, apparently, of all this new age rewriting of car classes)
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving
According to Merriam Webster... a Bentley Continental GT is not a Sportscar... neither is a Dodge Viper. While a Viper is low, in no way can something that's nearly six feet wide be considered "small"
But then, that's relative. A Dodge Viper is relatively big compared to classic sports cars... but guess what? It's longer and wider than many modern cars, too. And it's heavier than some midsize sedans, to boot. So does it meet the "small" part of the definition? No. Does it meet the lightweight part of other definitions? No. Does it meet the classic definition of a sportscar? Not completely. Do I consider it a sports car? Why yes, yes I do.
-
And Sports Compact? It's a definition
invented by enthusiasts... to describe small, inexpensive and affordable vehicles with better performance than is common. The strict definition of "Sports Compact", as a high-performance version of an economy car only includes the likes of the Civic Type R, the Dodge Neon SRT4, the Cobalt SS and the Ford Focus RS... though you'd be hard-pressed to call the new-generation RS
affordable to the common young enthusiast.
The truth is... the Sport Compact scene (poorly named) encompasses cars that range from the Mazda Miata and Lotus Elise (which are two of a very small number of cars that actually
fit the classic definition of the sportscar) to the likes of the Toyota Supra and the Nissan GT-R... neither of which is "affordable" (unless you're buying an old beater) or even remotely compact.
-
In the end, the terms "sports car" and "sport compact" are consensus terms. There's no law governing what is and what is not. You're free to draw the classifications wherever you want, but, as other people have pointed out...
you're not drawing the line in the same place for every vehicle.
Me? I don't actually care how you classify them. It's impossible for everyone to agree on these things. I just wish you'd give logical reasons for why you classify them the way you do.
Here's a definition for you, if it is made to go fast or be fun to drive in a sporting manner it is a sports car.
👍! At least here in PT! 281HP / 850kg
!
