Interesting that you mention moving into a dorm. I moved back and forth to college using a Miata 
If the CRX is too practical to be a sports car, why does the hatchback Z get the nod?
Interesting that you mention moving into a dorm. I moved back and forth to college using a Miata
If the CRX is too practical to be a sports car, why does the hatchback Z get the nod?
Well, I can speak from experience: 350Zs are completely useless. They don't really have room for anything in the back.
Keith Tanner wrote: ....If the CRX is too practical to be a sports car, why does the hatchback Z get the nod?
Well, duh; 'cause he owns one. Sports car, sporty car etc.... All the same To me; what do I know I pronounce it Porsch....
Keith Tanner wrote: Interesting that you mention moving into a dorm. I moved back and forth to college using a Miata
I used a TR4. 
I had to put my golf clubs in the passenger seat and leave the top down. Didn't even have a heater, never even came with a heater. It was an option that the original owner decided wasn't needed. Kids today have it too easy! 
One of my friends at the time bought a new gen 1 CRX SI, and all I could think was what a sissy. I mean, come on, heat AND air.... Of course I was really just jealous and yes, it was a fantastic car.
And Tom, the 370 is about as useless as the 350 for cargo space, but the interior space is pretty decent.
Keith Tanner wrote: Sports cars are like pornography. Can't define it, but I know them when I see them.
say what?
The 240Z hatch is pretty useless, can't even haul a set of spare tires in the hatch. The CRX is just so much more practical and functional than a miata, Z, vette, cayman, x19, 914 or MR2. The CRX does have a good argument in that there is nothing added to that car in the way of weight or dimension that isn't needed. The mustang, camaro, supra, frs, genesis coupe all have dimension and weight added to the car to make them more practical, making them compromise cars. If you took the extra dimension and weight for those cars what's left would be a sports car. My argument against the CRX is simply that the car too practical and useful.
I actually hauled 1 square of shingles in a miata once, that baby was dragging but got the job done in a pinch.
I enjoyed the sports car article very much. It was interesting to see what the creator of the answers opinion was, and more importantly, how he justified them.
4cylndrfury wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: Sports cars are like pornography. Can't define it, but I know them when I see them.say what?
I know excatly what you mean Keith
To 4cylinderfury
That is pretty much a quote from one of the Supreme Court justices back in the day. He could not define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it.
I don't classify the CRX as a sportscar because of its drivetrain layout.
I have to admit, after all the discussion I went back and read the article. My arguments against "What is a Sportscar" still stand, but the packaging and layout discussion was good. Also, he's damn funny in spots. Glad I read it after all.
jsquared wrote: I don't classify the CRX as a sportscar because of its drivetrain layout.
Have you actually driven one?
4cylndrfury wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: Sports cars are like pornography. Can't define it, but I know them when I see them.say what?
he's paraphrasing
The phrase was famously used by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio
jsquared wrote: I don't classify the CRX as a sportscar because of its drivetrain layout.
ok … it's usually called wrong wheel drive … but with a smaller engine and the wrong end doing the work … I often outrun the "true" sports car
so if you're saying that the slower, less useful car is the sports car …..
oh, and don't get mad … I'm just teasing 
BoxheadTim wrote:jsquared wrote: I don't classify the CRX as a sportscar because of its drivetrain layout.Have you actually driven one?
Not a CRX, but I have driven a gutted/caged B18-swapped 90s Civic hatch built to Honda Challenge specs (I think B18C1 but can't remember for sure or which class it was for) and have ridden shotgun in a track-oriented ITR (and in a Mini Cooper S, during instructor group laps at CMP, driven by a BMWCCA/PCA/Mustang Club instructor). FWD drive is FWD, no matter how well it is done compared to other FWDs. Can't argue with physics. I am fully aware that Andy Hollis came in 4th at One Lap with a 300HP NA CRX, I still don't care, it's not a sportscar (actually I do care outside of this argument, because it's awesome that a homebuilt car with 300HP can run with those big-money big-power bruisers!). I'd argue the GT-Rs that beat him aren't sportscars either.
wbjones said: so if you're saying that the slower, less useful car is the sports car ... :P
That's exactly what I'm saying My 370+wHP STi will annihilate a Miata (or a 986 Boxster S or an E36 M3) at a track day, but all of those mentioned are far more sportscar than my STi. Tease away, it IS the internet after all
you missed my point … your car has more motor/hp than either of those … you should out run them
and if I remember correctly, one of his points was, it had to be 2 seater … the STI and the E36 M3 aren't
evildky wrote: The 240Z hatch is pretty useless, can't even haul a set of spare tires in the hatch.
I'm glad I didn't know that. I went to many an autocross with 4 tires and a jack in the back of my beloved 240Z.
I had a '90 CRX DX for about 5 years. Not a sports car in my opinion. It was fun and useful, but in the end I couldn't stand the fwd aspect of it. I don't miss it either. Don't get me wrong, they are GREAT cars!!! Just felt like a dead-end for the money I put into it and where it got me. It served me well though, and it took me and two (!!) other friends from Portland to Smith Rock National Park, 3 hours each way, for rock climbing countless times, gear and all. It is certainly refreshing to see a nice one on the road nowadays; especially the first gen ones. I have no desire to get another though. Maybe I just got spoiled with my first car being a 1971 240Z. Man I'd love another one of those!
-Hamid
wbjones wrote: great article … 'cept I not amused that my 2 SEAT CRX isn't considered a sports car
Have not read the article, but I am betting that FWD and "Sportscar" are mutually exclusive concepts to Mr. Garret. Even Lotus was excluded from the club when they made the (GM/Isuzu) FWD Elan.
Worth noting that the press at the time could not bring themselves to utter the "sportscar" word when doing reviews of the Elan; Lotus had to settle for press like 'the finest front wheel drive [car] bar none'
It was 1989 and I had been saving for the Elan for years, but when I read that sentence I read it as "If you have to have cancer, this is the best kind to have".
Bought a Miata.
wbjones wrote: you missed my point … your car has more motor/hp than either of those … you should out run them and if I remember correctly, one of his points was, it had to be 2 seater … the STI and the E36 M3 aren't
I don't think I missed the point: you went faster around the track than the "sportscar," but I'm saying lap time does not a sportscar make. I reinforced that point with my STi, it is tremendously fast around a track, but it is not a sportscar, while the Miata and Boxster than I am passing with ease are both actual sportscars. The E36 M3 is just closer to sportscar than my STi
parker wrote:evildky wrote: The 240Z hatch is pretty useless, can't even haul a set of spare tires in the hatch.I'm glad I didn't know that. I went to many an autocross with 4 tires and a jack in the back of my beloved 240Z.
You need bigger tires ;) I recall not being able to fit 4 225 50 15's in the back of mine but that was a long time ago before I upsized to 315 35 17's certainly will not fit
Yup, 225/50 on 15x8 wheels. One in the spare tire well, prop the other 3 against each other like a tepee and push them down
You'll need to log in to post.
