I know that definition is open to some interpretation (some say must be a 2-seater, some say must be a convertible, some say must be a Miata) but a recent article on the redesigned Mustang GT stated that it still wasn't a sports car. Perhaps they meant that it was a great "GT" or grand touring car. I think of the Mustang as a sports car, what about you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
Jan. 20, 2009 12:22 p.m. pinchvalve UltraDork
-
Jan. 20, 2009 12:25 p.m. Salanis UltraDork
A Mustang on a track or at an auto-x is a sportscar. A Mustang that just cruises around trying to look cool is just another car.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 12:26 p.m. Bobzilla Reader
So, does that make my 4dr Elantra a sportscar? It's spent 2 years on track.
I would say YES it is, albeit an overweight and oversized one.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 12:43 p.m. P71 HalfDork
It's a Pony Car. Half way between a Sports Car and a Muscle Car.
Sports Car = small, lightweight, nimble, emphasis on pure handling (Miata, RX-7, small British Roadsters)
Pony Car = small-to-midsize, V8 power (usually a small one), with a focus on balance between power and handling (Mustang GT, Trans Am WS6, AAR Cuda, AMX)
Muscle Car = mid-to-fullsize, huge V8, focus on outright speed (Challenger SRT8, Hemi Roadrunner, Hemi Charger)
GT = Sports car with a big engine (Corvette, Aston, etc)
-
Jan. 20, 2009 12:48 p.m. alfadriver Reader
P71 wrote:
It's a Pony Car.
And as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter beyond that.
So it can handle well, nice. So it can drag race well, nice.
In terms of it being a "Miata" type car, lest we forget that in roughly ONE month if Mustang sales, it outsells the Miata's entire YEAR.
All that really matters is that it sells +100k/year, consistently. Add up the "sports cars" (Miata, Solstace, Sky, Vette, and all other two seat racers) and I'd bet it doesn't add up to the Mustang.
So a Mustang is a Mustang. It is it's own segment.
Oh, and since you hate domestics, why do you care????
Eric
-
Jan. 20, 2009 12:50 p.m. Osterizer HalfDork
Got a back seat?
Not a sportscar!
Hiyo splitting hairs!
-
Jan. 20, 2009 1:47 p.m. dculberson New Reader
I like Mustangs but don't think they're sports cars. And putting one on a track doesn't make it a sports car. But defining just what a sports car is becomes difficult if you try to get more specific than P71's definition. I think his definition just about covers it though.
People will disagree, but a sports car needs to be lighter, less practical, and more focused on handling versus speed.
The quintessential "sports car" to me is a TR3 or an MGB or ... etc.
An Elantra on a track is awesome, but it's also still not a sports car. It's a sedan, on a track. Call it a race car if you'd like, though! 'cause it is that! (assuming you were racing on the track and not just meandering.)
-
Jan. 20, 2009 1:50 p.m. skruffy Dork
When equipped with an automatic, v6, and convertible top? No. Assuming you could buy a base GT/5 speed from a dealer (I've looked, you can't around here) that's about as close as you can get.
I absolutely hate local dealers for adding all the crappy chrome interior bits, some sort of fancy stereo that I'll throw away for my own setup, color changing gauges (ooohhh), and all sorts of other crap onto them.
Edit: The ford explorer has independent rear suspension, the mustang does not. WTF?
-
Jan. 20, 2009 1:53 p.m. David S. Wallens Editorial Director
Osterizer wrote:
Got a back seat?
Not a sportscar!
Hiyo splitting hairs!
What about the Porsche 911? Sports car or not?
-
Jan. 20, 2009 1:56 p.m. Snowdoggie Reader
Osterizer wrote:
Got a back seat?
Not a sportscar!
Hiyo splitting hairs!
So taking the back seat out would make it a sportscar?
In that case, pull the back seat out and put in a roll bar. It's not like anybody could actually sit back there.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 2:06 p.m. benzbaron New Reader
I got a chance to drive a little civic del sol this past weekend and that is a sports car. Down on the power but up on suspension and handling. I didn't realize how much weight adds into the equation until I drove that flyweight. I thought my old mercedes handled good but the only way I could keep up with a little flyweight is on the straights b/c I have more power.
If you have to re-engineer the rear suspension on the mustang(multi-link kits) to make them handle well something is amiss. Some guy in Dago I knew had a hot rod stanger and he said it took a $2000 suspension to make it handle, though it was blown so power was way up.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 2:23 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork
David S. Wallens wrote:
Osterizer wrote:
Got a back seat?
Not a sportscar!
Hiyo splitting hairs!
What about the Porsche 911? Sports car or not?
Sports Coupe
-
Jan. 20, 2009 2:43 p.m. P71 HalfDork
Mustang's have solid rear axles because some 65%+ of the buyers drag race them according to Ford's internal study. Must be working too as you can't argue with the Mustang's stellar sales (despite how bad of a car it may be or look).
-
Jan. 20, 2009 2:51 p.m. Grtechguy SuperDork
P71 wrote:
Mustang's have solid rear axles because some 65%+ of the buyers drag race them according to Ford's internal study. Must be working too as you can't argue with the Mustang's stellar sales (despite how bad of a car it may be or look).
which is kinda funny... the Mustang Cobra's are IRS
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:00 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork
Marketing decisions.
The Mustang doesn't have IRS because the "enthusiasts" wouldn't want to see it go away from its roots and it would raise the price. The Cobra IRS didn't really work too well since it used the same mountings as the leaf springs, so many racers switched to a solid axle for both road racing and drag racing.
there have been designs for an IRS retrofit solution for the Mustang since its inception, so far as I know the Cobra was the only one that actually tried it, too bad it didn't work as well as one had hoped.
The Explorer has IRS because it moves it upscale to compete with the Germans, the Asians, etc both in price and improves the ride. Whether or not it makes it a better off-road vehicle is another discussion.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:00 p.m. Strizzo Dork
Grtechguy wrote:
P71 wrote:
Mustang's have solid rear axles because some 65%+ of the buyers drag race them according to Ford's internal study. Must be working too as you can't argue with the Mustang's stellar sales (despite how bad of a car it may be or look).
which is kinda funny... the Mustang Cobra's are IRS
were they're now solid axles again, after owners were breaking diffs, halfshafts and some even swapped solid axles back in
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:02 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork
benzbaron wrote:
I got a chance to drive a little civic del sol this past weekend and that is a sports car. Down on the power but up on suspension and handling. I didn't realize how much weight adds into the equation until I drove that flyweight. I thought my old mercedes handled good but the only way I could keep up with a little flyweight is on the straights b/c I have more power.
Oddly, the Del Sol is considered overweight for a Honda of the period, especially when compared to the CRX and Civic. Still they were nice cars with better styling than the Capri convertible.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:02 p.m. Strizzo Dork
fiat22turbo wrote:
Marketing decisions.
The Mustang doesn't have IRS because the "enthusiasts" wouldn't want to see it go away from its roots and it would raise the price. The Cobra IRS didn't really work too well since it used the same mountings as the leaf springs, so many racers switched to a solid axle for both road racing and drag racing.
there have been designs for an IRS retrofit solution for the Mustang since its inception, so far as I know the Cobra was the only one that actually tried it, too bad it didn't work as well as one had hoped.
The Explorer has IRS because it moves it upscale to compete with the Germans, the Asians, etc both in price and improves the ride. Whether or not it makes it a better off-road vehicle is another discussion.
the explorer and expedition do pretty well off road with their independent suspensions, the suburbans and tahoes that we've used do OK as well but don't ride as nice (obviously)
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:06 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork
Good to know, I don't know how they work off-road so I didn't want to try and comment either way. Even though I share a Highlander with the girlfriend, I really don't like SUV's.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:22 p.m. P71 HalfDork
In reply to Grtechguy:
Not anymore. The 03/04 Cobra is exactly why Mustang's stayed all SRA. Take a gander under the GT500...
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:24 p.m. P71 HalfDork
In reply to fiat22turbo:
Leaf springs? Not since 1978! The fox chassis uses a 4-link style setup with coils. The Cobra IRS can be made to handle quite well (Cobra R), it just doesn't handle the power.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:31 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork
The Mustangs seem to work quite well with the live axle, in road racing and on the street.
Many excellent sports cars have had live axles over the years and still use them successfully in road racing (which is a sports car's natural habitat, right?)
I wish people would just get over it.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:32 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork
Okay, I stand corrected. Calm down Mike, I don't pay that much attention to Mustangs and I confused the drawings I'd seen of the 65 Mustang's IRS retrofit with the newer stuff.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:38 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork
Chris, it is one thing to race a car with a live axle because it is cheap and it works or because that is what the rules dictate, because it is historically accurate.
It is another deal to buy a brand new "sports car" that has a live axle and all of its compromises.
Really the question is whether or not it is a sports car, I say with the rear seat and comfort options that it is more a GT car or a Sports Coupe than a Sports Car, which is more pure in its purpose.
-
Jan. 20, 2009 3:39 p.m. P71 HalfDork
No need to calm down, I never got excited. I hate Mustangs, but I knew they weren't leaf springs. Everybody knows the only car made with a leaf spring is the Corvette!
