FWD Sports Car?

[Horde_R35]

No arguments on the video i posted?? a Civic TypeR FD2 kicking an RX7, R34, and same lap times has all the others! I wounder why! Thats not a Sports car... It cant be...

 

[mafia_boy]

The RX7 is a purpose-built sports car. It's low, light and built to be driven at high speeds.

The Supra fails to meet requirement number 2. So, while I, and many others, consider it a sportscar, it's technically more of a Gran Turismo.

The quote from wiki puts it as a sports car/grand tourer. So it's a bit of both. The earlier models weren't really fat either....the A70 version is, and it was more than fat, it was obese! That's coming from a Toyota fan!! But the Mk1 (A46) was around the 1250kg mark which isn't too bad really. Not as light as the Celica, but it had a 6 cylinder instead of the 4 cylinder in the Celica, plus it was wider and longer. And compared to the RX7 of the time which was around the 1100kg mark, it's not too much more....whereas if you compared the FD and the A80 versions, there is nearly 300kg difference which definitely puts it in the grand tourer category.

 

[JCE]

In that case my Civic Si is a sports car too, as the Si was developed at the same time as the other versions. I couldn't say about any other generations of it though.

So does that mean the 6th generation Pontiac Grand Prix coupe is a sports car? The supercharged GTP model was released along with the normal models in 1997.

 

[Eric.]

FD2 has 225HP 👍!

EDIT: Now you can all comment on the cars he betten in Suzuka!

There's video of an FD2 besting an S2000 around a circuit, too. But performance isn't exactly what anyone is arguing here.

So does that mean the 6th generation Pontiac Grand Prix coupe is a sports car? The supercharged GTP model was released along with the normal models in 1997.

In what way is a Grand Prix GTP/GXP a performance car besides in a straight line? They weren't even offered with a manual transmission.

 

[JB-BMW1989]

*Cough*
1973 Nissan Skyline GT-R (You remember, the non-sedan one?) would like a word in your ear...

Please open your other eye OneEyedPimp20 and try to lose the attitude towards othe members as you make a constructive contribution. Thanks.​

Yeah, I will. I remember the coupe version of the Skyline GT-R. The Supra is a sports car, but it's more of a Gran Turismo like Niky said. The Skyline GT-R counts as both as well.

 

[niky]

The quote from wiki puts it as a sports car/grand tourer. So it's a bit of both. The earlier models weren't really fat either....the A70 version is, and it was more than fat, it was obese! That's coming from a Toyota fan!! But the Mk1 (A46) was around the 1250kg mark which isn't too bad really. Not as light as the Celica, but it had a 6 cylinder instead of the 4 cylinder in the Celica, plus it was wider and longer. And compared to the RX7 of the time which was around the 1100kg mark, it's not too much more....whereas if you compared the FD and the A80 versions, there is nearly 300kg difference which definitely puts it in the grand tourer category.

Yup. The original Supra was basically spawned off the Celica as the Celica Supra before the models were split. The Celica went on being a small sports car while the Supra grew in size to become more of a grand tourer...

Of course... I still think of the Supra as a sports car, designation or not...

 

[Keef]

Regarding sports cars being designed for fun, I'm not going to change my rules to suit that. Fun is even more subjective than this argument as a whole. I don't think sports cars are necessarily fun, as a matter of fact there are a few out there that are genuinely terrifying, or so I've heard. But in general, fun is a side effect of moving about swiftly.

Besides, following Famine would lead me into the dictionary definition of sports car, which doesn't say anything about drivetrain. And that just doesn't work.

The Supra fails to meet requirement number 2. So, while I, and many others, consider it a sportscar, it's technically more of a Gran Turismo.

I agree with you on the Grand Touring part, but not for the same reason. Some sports cars are heavy--the reason a Murcielago's outward visibility is poor is because you're peaking over the crest of its own crater. What gets me about the last generation Supra in particular is this:

Excuse the red circle, but it appears that a person may be able to fit in this back seat. And that means you could take friends on a grand tour, in your grand touring car. And since it's a Supra you could also lazily spool up 1000 horses and go fast, slowly.

No arguments on the video i posted?? a Civic TypeR FD2 kicking an RX7, R34, and same lap times has all the others! I wounder why! Thats not a Sports car... It cant be...

I already covered the base you're trying to cover, and that's why nobody payed any attention. Yes, front drivers beat rear drivers on occasion. What's your point? Lap times and horsepower have nothing to do with what a sports car actually is. It has everything to do with a fast car, but not a sports car.

 

[homeforsummer]

In my experience, cars with a bit of power also tend to be fun.

I didn't say that, but it almost sounded like you were all saying that only low powered cars are fun.

On the contrary. Lots of power can be great fun. Unfortunately, I've never actually driven anything with more than about 170bhp that hasn't been an SUV (most powerful "normal" car was a Mitsubishi FTO... a sports car ) but I still enjoyed the sensation of a massive torquey and powerful engine. And I'm damn sure I'd enjoy it even more in a normal car.

But, it's perfectly possible to enjoy cars with very little power at all. My Fiesta had half the power of my Mazda. It was still great fun, mostly because you could use all it's performance more of the time since it had so little to give in the first place.

Also, if power was all there was to fun, then go-karts wouldn't be any fun at all... as it is, go-karts are proof that the experience and sensation of driving is more relevant to fun than the actual speed you're going.

Incidentally, this is what's great about a good sports car, especially if it's open-topped - with all the wind, noise and being low to the ground, you feel like you're going quickly even if you're not.

What kind of transmission would you consider a "sports car" to have and why?

I'm personally a manual transmission guy, but again, I'd be prepared to say that it doesn't matter as long as you can still have fun. Perhaps a slushbox is a step too far, but DSGs and good tiptronic autos aren't out of the question.

One of these:

...has an automated manual transmission. Not even a particularly good one. But it's still a sports car.

The Fiat Barchetta is a real sports car, not the coupe.

I'd argue that the Fiat Coupe is as much a sports car as the Barchetta. What it loses from gaining a roof it makes up for in having 5-cylinder engines to choose from and still not being particularly practical. And still being very, very pretty.

Physics say that it won't behave like RWD car, so what you're describing is impossible to achieve.

A car doesn't have to behave like a RWD to be a sports car, otherwise it'd follow that a Lexus LS is inherently more sporty than a Lotus Elan S2.

Excuse the red circle, but it appears that a person may be able to fit in this back seat. And that means you could take friends on a grand tour, in your grand touring car. And since it's a Supra you could also lazily spool up 1000 horses and go fast, slowly.

If this logic follows, then there are plenty of 2+2s with pretty unusable rear seats that should then be considered sports cars. I'm not sure if you've ever sat in the back of a DC2 Integra Type R with the massive Recaro buckets taking up all the space, but it's not a pleasant experience. I'm 5'9" and my head was touching the rear screen and my knees wedged against the seat back...

I already covered the base you're trying to cover, and that's why nobody payed any attention. Yes, front drivers beat rear drivers on occasion. What's your point? Lap times and horsepower have nothing to do with what a sports car actually is. It has everything to do with a fast car, but not a sports car.

So speed doesn't matter, and I've established that all a FWD Miata would lack over a RWD one is the ability to go sideways, so your whole arguement seems to be based on the FWD layout being inherently a compromise compared to a rear-drive layout... and Niky already said that front-engined rear-drive cars are also a compromise of sorts... it's really narrowing down what can be a sports car and what can't. Especially as Niky's theory would take the Miata out of the equation, and we all know that that car is a sports car.

So is it about day to day compromise? Because in that case, something like the Elan is more compromised than a Porsche 911, because it'd be noisier, and leaks more, and has less luggage space... sounds like a sports car to me still. Oh what, it's FWD? Mustn't be then...

 

[Keef]

If this logic follows, then there are plenty of 2+2s with pretty unusable rear seats that should then be considered sports cars. I'm not sure if you've ever sat in the back of a DC2 Integra Type R with the massive Recaro buckets taking up all the space, but it's not a pleasant experience. I'm 5'9" and my head was touching the rear screen and my knees wedged against the seat back...

It's the hatch. My Civic had a huge rear seat. But no matter how uncomfortable an Integra's rear seat is it's already negated by the fact that it's front wheel dive.

Which brings me to the transmission point. An old Miata with an old automatic is...a sports car. Because it's a Miata, and it satisfies all the rules of being a sports car. The only difference between it and a manual Miata is that its owners sexuality is that much more questionable.

So speed doesn't matter, and I've established that all a FWD Miata would lack over a RWD one is the ability to go sideways, so your whole arguement seems to be based on the FWD layout being inherently a compromise compared to a rear-drive layout... and Niky already said that front-engined rear-drive cars are also a compromise of sorts... it's really narrowing down what can be a sports car and what can't. Especially as Niky's theory would take the Miata out of the equation, and we all know that that car is a sports car.

So is it about day to day compromise? Because in that case, something like the Elan is more compromised than a Porsche 911, because it'd be noisier, and leaks more, and has less luggage space... sounds like a sports car to me still. Oh what, it's FWD? Mustn't be then...

The Elan leaking and being noisy has nothing to do with compromise. It's simply a piece of crap, like the Del Sol I compared it to. Probably why I've never actually seen one.

Sports cars tend to compromise every day livability for performance, but that's not the rule. A 911 has supple leathery seats, for example. As sad as it makes me to say it, the new Miata has 4 cup holders. Like fun, compromise often comes with the territory, but what it boils down to is the rules I laid out earlier.

EDIT: Also consider the fact that there are some absolutely terrible sports cars out there. Ones that don't even perform well, even thought they were designed to. But that's okay, because they're still sports cars. Just bad ones.

 

[Famine]

Keef - if the rear screen is part of the roof, it's a coupe. If it's part of the boot/trunk, it's a hatchback. If it's both it's a hatchback coupe. A hatchback coupe is still a coupe, and that's the important part. Without concerns of drive-wheels, the ITR qualifies on shape and purpose alone.

Oddly, in Europe the DC2 is much more of a sportscar than elsewhere. We never got the "normal" versions of the Integra, just the Type-R coupe, whereas other regions got 5-doors and dull engines and all sorts of dross. I forgot to take that into account earlier.

Agree and disagree at the same time. Agree with the first sentence but the last one I disagree with. Power has very much to do with a sports car, but not in the way this lot is per claiming it to be. NOR does it matter what wheels of the car are driven with that power. MASSIVE BHP is not indicative of a sports car. Enough power for the car to move about laterally as well as vertically is the point. If the MX5 was powered by a 1.0L engine it wouldn't be as good to drive as it is and then it would be declassified as a sports car and it would just be a roadster--a slower one at that. The MX5 has just enough power to scoot it along on a circuit and around and in between the twisties on the backroads. That's rather the point of a sports car isn't it? Good performance at the art of driving around corners as well as in between them? The Dodge Challenger is not a sports car, it is a musclecar. A V6 Accord coupe is more of a sports car than the Challenger. The SVT Focus (ST170) is a sports car (albeit a hot hatch), while the S63 AMG Merc or a GT500 Mustang are not a sports car. Absolute power doesn't mean diddily when you want to drive around a series of twisty roads or racing circuits where grip isn't what it should be as you watch the SS Cobalt, Mazda MX5 or SVT Focus drive on by.

Yet the MX-5/Miata is the prime example of a sports car, and some variants won't do 0-60mph in less than 10s or break 110mph, packing just 80hp. That's kinda proof that sportscar and power/performance are not connected. Similar cars were already quoted by homeforsummer - MG Midgets, MGBs, Triumph Spitfires, Austin Healey Sprites - none of which even crested 60hp and would struggle to even reach 80mph.


The ST170 isn't a sportscar by the way. It's a hot hatch - a tarted-up version of a family runaround with more power and more ability. It may be faster and it may be better handling than the run-of-the-mill models, but it's still performance tacked on to a car not designed for that purpose. Similarly the Accord Coupe might be a sportscar - it at least has the right body shape - if it wasn't for the other Accords in the range.

It's the purpose that's the crux, and the body that houses the purpose as the kicker (because it removes any notion of practicality). If anyone can honestly tell me that you can't have a front-wheel drive car designed just for the purpose of being fun to drive, I'll point and laugh at them because I have one (and it's acheingly slower than our other front-wheel drive car, the Accord Type-R, which isn't a sportscar [though it is a sports saloon]).


Sportscars are purpose built to enjoy driving them - and "purpose built" means they cannot be "versions" of cars not built for that purpose. They must be convertible (any variant) or coupe (any variant) shape. Personally, I don't think any other consideration matters.

But ultimately I don't really think it's that important. I have a sportscar. Big whup. daan's FWD GT car isn't a sportscar, but will still show me only its ass and he'll enjoy driving it, without at any point thinking "Oh no, I don't have a sportscar. Woe is me.".

 

[homeforsummer]

The Elan leaking and being noisy has nothing to do with compromise. It's simply a piece of crap, like the Del Sol I compared it to. Probably why I've never actually seen one.

It's not a piece of crap though, that's the thing. It's generally regarded as one of the best handling FWDs ever, and handles significantly better than many RWDs too. It's also quick, and it's also an open top car. And it's light.

Also consider the fact that there are some absolutely terrible sports cars out there. Ones that don't even perform well, even thought they were designed to. But that's okay, because they're still sports cars. Just bad ones.

I agree, but the thing is, the Elan and a few of the other cars that have been mentioned are great sports cars. Some are better than a number of RWD models. If they're better in every single way than their rival sports cars, it just doesn't make any sense that they aren't sports cars simply because of the drivetrain.

Whichever way you try and spin it, the Elan is a sports car. Despite being FWD.

 

[niky]

You never see them because so few people bought them. So few people bought them because they were really expensive for what they were, and buyers were more biased against the drive layout than they would be today, what with the multiplicity of front-wheel drive hot hatches and compacts with 200-300 horsepower on tap.

And whether or not a car is a good sports car (and by all accounts, the Elan is... though lacking in some details) doesn't change the fact that it's a sports car.

Just because a Porsche Cayenne gets trounced by a Suzuki Samurai nee Jimny on an off-road course doesn't make the Cayenne not an SUV. And just because an M5 isn't as fast as, say, a Brabus rocket, doesn't make it not a sports sedan.

And just because an Escort RS2000 isn't all-wheel drive, that doesn't make it not a rally car.

So speed doesn't matter, and I've established that all a FWD Miata would lack over a RWD one is the ability to go stay sideways,

Built with the same weight balance and suspension tuning, a FWD Miata should be able to get sideways. But it won't be able to keep itself sideways.

I've never tried it, but I've often wondered how difficult it would be to maintain a powerslide in an 80 hp Miata...

 

[homeforsummer]

I've never tried it, but I've often wondered how difficult it would be to maintain a powerslide in an 80 hp Miata...

Depends on the surface... it's so easy to get mine sideways in the rain (or even vaguely damp roads) that I think even an 80bhp one (well, the least we got in the UK was 90bhp) should be able to maintain a nice drift if you found the right corner...

 

[JB-BMW1989]

@Jetboy.

This is a sports car with front wheel drive,

 

[Jetboy.]

By jove, he finally got it.

Agreed.

 

[Stotty]

Yet the MX-5/Miata is the prime example of a sports car, and some variants won't do 0-60mph in less than 10s or break 110mph, packing just 80hp. That's kinda proof that sportscar and power/performance are not connected. Similar cars were already quoted by homeforsummer - MG Midgets, MGBs, Triumph Spitfires, Austin Healey Sprites - none of which even crested 60hp and would struggle to even reach 80mph.


The ST170 isn't a sportscar by the way. It's a hot hatch - a tarted-up version of a family runaround with more power and more ability. It may be faster and it may be better handling than the run-of-the-mill models, but it's still performance tacked on to a car not designed for that purpose. Similarly the Accord Coupe might be a sportscar - it at least has the right body shape - if it wasn't for the other Accords in the range.

It's the purpose that's the crux, and the body that houses the purpose as the kicker (because it removes any notion of practicality). If anyone can honestly tell me that you can't have a front-wheel drive car designed just for the purpose of being fun to drive, I'll point and laugh at them because I have one (and it's acheingly slower than our other front-wheel drive car, the Accord Type-R, which isn't a sportscar [though it is a sports saloon]).


Sportscars are purpose built to enjoy driving them - and "purpose built" means they cannot be "versions" of cars not built for that purpose. They must be convertible (any variant) or coupe (any variant) shape. Personally, I don't think any other consideration matters.

SFT 👍

 

[Keef]

@Jetboy.

This is a sports car with front wheel drive,

It's front wheel drive, and it has back seats like a Cadillac.

Not a sports car.

 

[McLaren]

It's front wheel drive, and it has back seats like a Cadillac.

Not a sports car.

For the 3rd time, in your opinion.

 

[Joey D]

Isn't the opinion part implied?

 

[McLaren]

Isn't the opinion part implied?

Obviously not as 3 times, he's acted like it's some kind of fact.

 

[Joey D]

I think it's pretty obvious that Keef is stating that X car isn't a sports car based on his standards. Just reading his first post in this thread shows me that.

There is no set definition for any classification of cars so what one might call a sports car another might not. To me a Cooper S is very much a sports car, even more so with the JCW package but a lot of people would call them a sport compact. In the end whatever we state is going to be an opinion any ways.

 

[McLaren]

I think it's pretty obvious that Keef is stating that X car isn't a sports car based on his standards. Just reading his first post in this thread shows me that.

There is no set definition for any classification of cars so what one might call a sports car another might not. To me a Cooper S is very much a sports car, even more so with the JCW package but a lot of people would call them a sport compact. In the end whatever we state is going to be an opinion any ways.

Even though there technically is a definition of what a sports car is?

 

[Joey D]

There is no set definition of what a sports car is. It all depends on where you look, who you talk to, and what you think a sports car is. Just doing a basic search on Google yielded several different results. Like I said no car class has a set definition of what it is.

 

[Perfect Balance]

A car doesn't have to behave like a RWD to be a sports car, otherwise it'd follow that a Lexus LS is inherently more sporty than a Lotus Elan S2.

I never said it had to behave like a RWD to be a sports car. I was just making the point that lap times dictate a fast car, not a sports car, so lap times aren't a good indication of "sportiness". With that in mind, a FWD car will never "perform" (assuming performance refers to driving feel rather than lap times) like a RWD in the sense that it will never capture the same type of driving feel.

 

[Jetboy.]

Even though there technically is a definition of what a sports car is?

We've spent the better part of 200 posts arguing just what exactly a sports car is. The Merrian-Webster/Wikipedia/Definition.com definition is null and void at this point (In fact that was discussed somewhere in here..).



Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[Keef]

What we all need to do is ask a 70 year old man who still owns the Triumph Spitfire he bought new, and who's wife drives a Toyota Corolla, what he thinks a sports car is.

Whatever he says, that is the answer. Screw my opinion and your opinion; that man knows what a sports car is.

 

[JCE]

There is no set definition of what a sports car is. It all depends on where you look, who you talk to, and what you think a sports car is. Just doing a basic search on Google yielded several different results. Like I said no car class has a set definition of what it is.

And unfortunately that makes this whole topic rather pointless since everyone's opinion is pretty much difference.

i guess what if boils down to is if Person A loves to drive his or her car with enthusiasm.

 

[Eric.]

Wouldn't a definition be settled upon by a majority?

The vote shows very high favor that Yes, a FWD car can be a sports car. It seems that most of those people consider that a FWD car that has exceptional handling, and otherwise performs well, makes it a sports car. Its important that there be a total package. Like the Grand Prix that was mentioned, with the supercharger or the newest model with the 5.3L 305hp V8, yeah its fast. But my Civic, JCE's Focus, or nearly any other car that doesn't weigh 4000lbs will beat it in the corners. Being able to handle is a must. After that, having lots of power is just a perk. That's why we have cars in this thread ranging from sub 200hp cars like the Cooper S, Integra Type R, Civic Si's, all the way up to 260hp Cobalts and 300hp Focii.

This is like starting an argument that SUVs aren't trucks because trucks are designed to have a cargo area. But then if you argue that SUV's have the hatch area, suddenly every wagon, hatchback, and van are now classed as trucks. Unless you want to be more specific and say that trucks sacrifice passenger capacity for cargo capacity. But then what is a Dodge Ram Quad Cab? A...car? And some cars have some impressive cargo capacity with seats that fold down. Honda Fit, Dodge Magnum are advertised to death this way.

How about this - narrow the term "sports car" down to just one single phrase. And consider what the average person's response to this would be. I'm willing to bet that it's fast.

 

[JCE]

What's your definition of fast? Now that will turn into another much larger argument.

 

[Keef]

Yeah, "fast" really is a pretty terrible definition.

Opinions aside, I don't believe it can be boiled down to a single definition, besides Famine's suggestion of "designed for fun".