thats odd, because I can think of a few sportscars that do come with cupholders.
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
Feb. 6, 2010 8:25 a.m. maroon92 UberDork
-
Feb. 6, 2010 8:30 a.m. 924guy Dork
minimac wrote:
Real sportscars don't come with cupholders.
yeah, but you gotta add the darn things , its too hard to shift with a cup of coffee between your thighs... i dont think Porsche put any cup holders in until the 80's or even later...
-
Feb. 6, 2010 9:41 a.m. TJ Dork
fiat22turbo wrote:
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.
I thought the Explorer has IRS because the old design flipped over and killed people when the tires blew out? Although Ford was very careful to blame the Explorer problems on the tires and not the design of the suspension it is more than a bit telling that the suspension was re-designed soon after that fiasco.
I chuckle everytime I am behind an Explorer and can see the revised rear suspension.
Eric - For the record I do own a Ford product.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 9:42 a.m. TJ Dork
My vote on the Mustang is not a sports car.....not even close. Of course that's my opinion and the term means different things to different people. As big as the new mustangs are I have a hard time calling them pony cars other than the fact that there is a horse on them.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 10:01 a.m. alfadriver Dork
Holy thread ressurection!
For you live axle folk, do you think an Alfa Romeo Spider is a sports car?
Like the Mustang, they had live axles. Handled pretty well. GTV's and GTA's won their share of races in their day.
TJ- no idea about the rear suspenion re-design for the Explorer. But I suspect that the timing was a co-incidence. you note that they happened pretty close to each other in time, but knowing how long it really takes to change chassis in this manner- I don't think one lead to the other.
Again, it's a pony car- part way between a sporty car, a GT, and a muscle car. Noting that it's sales generally is the sum of most traditional sports cars, I'd still contend that 1) it is its own segment, and 2) it doesn't matter.
E-
-
Feb. 6, 2010 10:07 a.m. aeronca65t HalfDork
I'd say the original "Mustang 1" concept car was a sports car (see below).
The production models, in my opinion, are not.
Too many seats
Just like my Miata is a great car but it isn't a "GT" or "pony car".
Still, the Mustang is a great car and one of the cheapest, most efficient ways to "go fast".
-
Feb. 6, 2010 10:58 a.m. wearymicrobe Reader
fiat22turbo wrote:
The 911 is not a Sports Car, it is a Sports Coupe. So is the Mustang.
Bahh humbug. The 996/997 911's are Grand Tourers. 993 and back Sports Cars. Own one for a few weeks you will agree. Discounting the GT2/3 versions.
The Mustang is a Pony Car, it invented the term.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 11:20 a.m. JoeyM Reader
Based on the American Iron race series, I'd say yes, mustangs are sports cars. Regardless of your opinion on the current one, though, the 2014 mustang with the independent rear suspension will be.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 12:08 p.m. MadScientistMatt Dork
alfadriver wrote:
Holy thread ressurection!
Jackman222 just paddled a canoe into the thread. The canoe guys never check thread dates.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 1:15 p.m. DirtyBird222 Dork
I'm so confused by this thread. What the hell is Independent rear suspension? Every car I've ever owned from Firebird to Fit to Mustang has had this solid axle in the back?
[/sarcasm]
You can say it's not a sports car but A) It looks cooler than your Miata B) It will get you more attention than your Miata (well the good attention, like from attractive girls, not high school boys making fun of you) C) It hauls ass D) The S197 chassis handles pretty damn well 5) See SCCA Trans-American racing series history.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 1:17 p.m. poopshovel UltraDork
I'm not sure which makes me feel dumber: Reading the last 2 1/2 pages of kindergarten-esque drivel, or realizing that it's some berkeleying dead thread resurrected by a spammer. Ugh.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 2:56 p.m. mad_machine PowerDork
there are worse threads to dig back up
-
Feb. 6, 2010 5:39 p.m. Moparman Reader
Give the people what they want. If they are happy with the performance / value result of a solid axle Mustang, then so be it. I happen to love the Mustang. It is a four wheel Harley. It is a blast from the past with a dash if modernity. I would much rather have one than a BMW 3-series (any series) or an M3 (any series even though the are wonderful automobiles). Bang for the buck is like power to weight. It is about relative value, not absolute numbers.
I am for the most powerful engine in the lightest vehicle for the least money. Also, fastback bodies rules, boxes are for losers. ;)
-
Feb. 6, 2010 6:09 p.m. P71 SuperDork
I dunno, i thought my definition way back on page 1 was pretty damn good.
-
Feb. 6, 2010 6:14 p.m. iceracer HalfDork
My GF calls my ZX2SR a sports car, so I haz one.
-
Feb. 7, 2010 9:21 a.m. mad_machine PowerDork
I do agree that on a smooth or even semi-smooth surface.. the solid axle is not a hardship. If the road gets bumpy in the curves.. that is a different matter.
They are also a heavy suspension, with all the weight being being unsprung. So it takes a LOT of shock and spring to keep them planted.
Having said that, I am ALL for simplicity.. and you do not get much more simple than that
-
Feb. 7, 2010 9:54 a.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
Q: Is the Mustang a Sports Car?
A: Is Bowling a Sport?
-
Feb. 7, 2010 12:50 p.m. oldeskewltoy New Reader
Hmmmmm, is a Mustang a "sports car"
What is a "sports car". Now I'm not entirely sure... but from minimal research the 1st "sports car" was a MG TC.
So lets examine what it is about an MG TC that gave it that name.... In an era of LARGE 4 door sedans..... a small, economical, 2 doors, 2 seats, under powered, handling "good" (as compared to the lumbering sedans of the day). The drive end was rwd...
So trying to quantify it... a Mustang is NOT a sports car.... it has too many seats.... and too much power.
Personally... I think the current definition is closer to nimbleness - the ability to change direction with ease and confidence
-
Feb. 7, 2010 1:18 p.m. thatsnowinnebago Dork
minimac wrote:
Real sportscars don't come with cupholders.
Yay, my truck is a sportscar then!
-
Feb. 7, 2010 2:06 p.m. Moparman Reader
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
Q: Is the Mustang a Sports Car?
A: Is Bowling a Sport?
Is golf a sport? Maybe, but I think of it as a skill event. Anyone who can display the physical skill of a pro golfer while wearing clothing last seen in Greenwich Village used clothing stores is truly talented.
Is autocrossing racing? Technically, no? It is a driver skill event.
-
Feb. 7, 2010 2:23 p.m. mr2peak New Reader
True sports cars are mid-engined
-
Feb. 7, 2010 3:22 p.m. DirtyBird222 Dork
mr2peak wrote:
True sports cars are Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive.
Fixed
-
Feb. 7, 2010 3:58 p.m. Toyman01 Dork
If my memory serves me correctly, the FB RX-7 was available with a rear seat in Japan, but not in the USA. Does that mean that the Japanese version isn't a sports car but the US version is. No cup holders either. Since I added one to mine is it no longer a sports car.
I remember reading something that said a Honda Odyssey out runs and out handles a 60s era 911 and a Jag. So which one is the sports car. I would have to say that whether or not a car is a "sports car" is determined by the person driving it. Mustangs seem pretty sporty to me, but then I've never driven one.
-
Feb. 7, 2010 4:13 p.m. White_and_Nerdy Reader
ReverendDexter wrote:
My definition of a GT car is a vehicle that is designed for eating up long stretches of road quickly and comfortably. It has enough handling that you won't get slowed down in the twisty bits, enough power to maintain illegal speeds and pass anyone in your way, and be comfortable enough to be in long enough to burn the whole tank of gas in one sitting. It's the car you want to take when you have to make that 10 hour drive over the mountains and through the woods, even if you end up having to take the SUV that fits the kids and dogs.
Hey, then my Saturn SW2 is a GT car! It meets all of these qualifications, except it CAN take the kids and dogs too!!!
Oh, wait, it doesn't have any cupholders - I guess it's really a sports car, then.
-
Feb. 7, 2010 4:24 p.m. ReverendDexter Dork
I think that asking car guys to define "sports car" is the wrong approach. How many of us even use the term "sports car" when talking to other car guys?
I think we could come to something resembling consensus if the question was the "purest sports car", or "ultimate sports car" (answer: Lotus 7), but to define where the line is between what is and isn't? Will never happen. It's too subjective.
