Got it, Mustang coupe is a GT, Mustang convertible V6 automatic is a sports car.
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
Feb. 10, 2010 9:00 a.m. John Brown MegaDork
-
Feb. 10, 2010 9:13 a.m. Raze Reader
oldsaw wrote:
Raze wrote:
This thread is funny, like chewing glass, you know it's going to hurt, until you stop...
It's like the Constitution; the original works perfectly.
Quit trying to change bedrock into sandstone.
Mmmmmm sandstone, tastes like sand...
-
Feb. 10, 2010 10:18 a.m. Chris_V SuperDork
John Brown wrote:
Got it, Mustang coupe is a GT, Mustang convertible V6 automatic is a sports car.
Nope. It's not a 2 seater, as it has a back seat. So even though it's a convertible, it's a 2+2 which makes it a GT as well.
-
Feb. 10, 2010 11:17 a.m. John Brown MegaDork
The Audi TT convertible is a sports car and the coupe should be called a TTGT.
The Suzuki X90 is a sports car and the Audi R8 is a GT.
Got it.
-
Feb. 10, 2010 2:01 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork
John Brown wrote:
The Audi TT convertible is a sports car and the coupe should be called a TTGT.
The Suzuki X90 is a sports car and the Audi R8 is a GT.
Got it.
The R8 is defintiely a GT, like most supercars/exotics. The X90 is not anything, really. maybe cute dune buggy, but that's about it. Does it have handling and nimbleness as it's major performance feature and reason for existing?
What's next? You want to start calling pickup trucks sports cars or GTs?
Simply put, sports cars have been around since the days of the Stutz Bearcat, and got defined with that category of car, like the MG TC.
Oh, and BTW, both of THOSE cars are roadsters, unlike the Miata, which is a convertible (and NOT a roadster, as it has roll-up side windows).
-
Feb. 10, 2010 2:16 p.m. Raze Reader
Chris_V wrote:
What's next? You want to start calling pickup trucks sports cars or GTs?
Hey now, my pickup truck has SPORT written on the bed, ergo it must be a sports car!
Oh, and I know it's a sportscar cause it has 3 seats, only other sportscar that has 3 seats is a McLaren F1...
-
Feb. 10, 2010 2:30 p.m. John Brown MegaDork
So my convertible Courier was a sports car but when it had the roof it was a GT. Got it.
-
Feb. 10, 2010 3:15 p.m. DirtyBird222 Dork
answer me this....
Why is a GT Premium with a simple Roush blower that barely gives it more power than an LS2 powered vehicle, with stock suspension classified in SMST2? Yet a GT500 is allowed to run in a stock/prepared class with it's better suspension and more HP?
-
Feb. 10, 2010 3:19 p.m. Raze Reader
DirtyBird222 wrote:
answer me this....
Why is a GT Premium with a simple Roush blower that barely gives it more power than an LS2 powered vehicle, with stock suspension classified in SMST2? Yet a GT500 is allowed to run in a stock/prepared class with it's better suspension and more HP?
Cause of the snake man, it gives it like OMG 5,000 HPs
-
Feb. 10, 2010 3:21 p.m. Raze Reader
John Brown wrote:
So my convertible Courier was a sports car but when it had the roof it was a GT. Got it.
No no no no no no no, you got it all wrong man, see it was a sports car without the roof, then it became a sports coupe with the roof, then it became a GT cause it's a sports car with power, forget about the roof, duh...
-
Feb. 10, 2010 3:22 p.m. Raze Reader
Trolling along in my canoe...
-
Feb. 10, 2010 5:37 p.m. M030 Reader
This:
joepaluch wrote:
> Nimble handling. This requres reasonably light weight (for the era), moderate size and good responsiveness.
> Room for 2 and sometimes room for 2 smaller people. If 4 fit "comfortably" the car is too big. If the rear seat are good for kids, small people or some you don't like move on. If the car is designed with intent of carrying alot of stuff (be it people or cargo) no. If a car's design allowes carring large odd shaped objects fine, but these are a buy product of making use of the space allowed by a given shape.
> Resonable power/weight.. Again it must be put in context of the era, but a car needs to have enough juice to not be a total slug. The key here is the contex of is era. You can't compare a 1959 Porsche 356's 0-60 time with a car from today.
> Design attempts to balance power and handling in a fun to drive package with noticable compromises for driver comfort and utility.
GT cars are similar, but tend to be tuned more torward giving up some responsiveness to allow comfortable high speed driving. GT cars will also trade weight for extra luxury features. GT's often have token back seats or back seat suitable for short durations. Luggage space is required in a GT car. The car's intent is to pack enough for a couple to spend a few days in new destination driven to by the GT car. They will arrive fresh and comfortable after a rapid drive.
Sport Sedan. - 4 dr 4 place car with room for 4 people that can also provide relativly sharp handling given the size needed to carry 4.
Muscle car - Car with a big motor that gives up small size, light weight and preciise handling in effort to allow for big powerfull motors. Driver comfort is not essential, but acceleration is. Top speed is not as critical nor is sustained high speed.
So the mustang (and camaro) really are designed to be inbetween Sport car and Muscle car. The first were "sporty" basic cars, but they saw they could fill gap that was somewhere between sports car and muscle car. A car that could in serve a few roles. It could be considered a sports car when optioned and or modded in a certain way. It could also be pure muscle car. Or it could still be basic sport transport.
Now no VW Rabbit/Golf/GTI nor Mini is a sports car . The car's shape and rear seat room do not allow for that (both shapes optimized with given size limitations to carry 4). Even so they may be raced with great sucess.
I think Joe summed it up best.
-
March 3, 2010 12:26 p.m. wherethefmi Dork
I think ford get's it now I think it's actually going to be closer to 300 than what's stated here.
and the new 5.0!!! I think I just got excited about a mustang for the first time ever!
-
March 4, 2010 11:48 a.m. rogerbvonceg New Reader
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.
I'm late to this party so forgive me if I'm repeating.
As I understand it, the original idea for the "new" Mustang was to use the same platform as the Lincoln LS, which is all independent, and really a quite capable handling platform. Hitting the desired price point with this platform was proving difficult, and there was really a last minute decision to switch when somebody figured out they could design the new Mustang around a completely new platform and still bring it to market in the mid-20's. Live-axle rear was part of this platform to save money (not to hew to tradition), but they did it as well as anyone could. IIRC, it's about the lightest live-axle out there.
Also, don't get hung up on the names of parts. Plenty of legendary handlers out there with live axle rears.
-
March 4, 2010 2:02 p.m. mr2peak New Reader
In reply to rogerbvonceg:
Lotus 7 comes to mind
-
March 4, 2010 2:31 p.m. alfadriver Dork
rogerbvonceg wrote:
Also, don't get hung up on the names of parts. Plenty of legendary handlers out there with live axle rears.
See that cool looking Gold car just up and to the left of this sentance? Live axle.
May recall that it, and previous versions of said car, were quite successful race cars, too....
-
March 4, 2010 2:59 p.m. ReverendDexter Dork
It's not the live axle that got Mustangs such a reputation as horrible handling cars, it was suspension around that live axle used from '79-'04. Ever seen the fox-chassis 4-link? I mean, really looked at it, and seen where it works and where it fails?
-
March 4, 2010 3:14 p.m. mtn UltraDork
alfadriver wrote:
rogerbvonceg wrote:
Also, don't get hung up on the names of parts. Plenty of legendary handlers out there with live axle rears.
See that cool looking Gold car just up and to the left of this sentance? Live axle.
May recall that it, and previous versions of said car, were quite successful race cars, too....
Looks more bronze to me.
-
March 4, 2010 4:41 p.m. GlennS Dork
Sports cars are like pron, i know em when i see em.
-
March 4, 2010 5:02 p.m. Apexcarver UltraDork
ReverendDexter wrote:
It's not the live axle that got Mustangs such a reputation as horrible handling cars, it was suspension around that live axle used from '79-'04. Ever seen the fox-chassis 4-link? I mean, really looked at it, and seen where it works and where it fails?
High rear roll center and a lack of lateral location are its primary sins.
That said, stiffen the car up from stock and it can still be a hoot and a half, which is the real essence of a sports car when you get right down to it.
sports car, not sports car
Its fun to drive either way, everyone is getting hung up on a very subjective label that infers there is a hard line of is or isnt when everything is blended.
If you really wanted to get down to it I dont know if you could really call any new car a sports car. They have all gotten too big and porky. Ignore the label and have fun anyway!
-
March 4, 2010 6:14 p.m. 96DXCivic HalfDork
One person's definition of sports car is different then another person's. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. As far as the whole live axle thing, on a smooth track there is no reason a live axle can't handle. I personally wouldn't buy a new Mustang expect maybe one of the Shelby Mustang Prudhomme Edition Super Snake. 750hp is yummy.
-
March 5, 2010 4:31 p.m. confuZion3 SuperDork
It's named after a fighter plane. It's a sports car. It participates in Sports events (pick almost any form of auto racing). It's gotta be a sports car. OK, so it's a big sports car with extra seats, but that just lets you take a few extra people along for the ride.
The McLaren F1 had three seats. This is more than 2. Does this mean it isn't a sports car?
-
March 6, 2010 7:43 a.m. TJ Dork
GlennS wrote:
Sports cars are like pron, i know em when i see em.
I too know prawns when I see them.
-
March 6, 2010 10:29 a.m. kb58 Reader
I had a 1990 Mustang GT. Assuming the term "sports car" means something that handles, I'd have to answer the question, "No."
Its manners on the skidpad proved it, tons and tons of understeer. The only way to invoke oversteer was tossing it sideways and flooring it, which promptly caused a spin. It wasn't possible to create or hold a neutral or slight oversteer situation.
My 1996 Camaro Z28 was exactly the opposite, very easy to pitch the car and hold it in any situation... then again it was the most unreliable car I've ever owned, but I digress.
Maybe the newer Mustangs are better, or not.
-
March 6, 2010 4:02 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork
kb58 wrote: Maybe the newer Mustangs are better, or not.
Yeah, they've made absolutely zero advances in car making since the '90 GT came out, and the brand new Mustang is on the exact same chassis as your '90 GT (er, '78 Fairmont).
Or not.
