What exactly makes a sports car?

In reply to Chris_V:

I stand by my assertion whether you agree with it or not.

jsquared wrote: Driver involvement is key, more important than outright power or the ability to turn a fast lap. Handling, lightweight, agility, balance, etc are key components that contribute to driver involvement.

Chris_V wrote: 2 seat, 2 door convertible (as opposed to a GT car with has a fixed roof) designed primarily for agility and motorsports, not necessarily outright speed. Companies that cut their teeth building sports cars for sports car racing classes are the ones to look to for definitions. Notice that Ferrari made sports cars that were open top cars and when they grew a roof they became GTs and said so in their names. Ferrari also reserved 2+2s as GTs as well. Porsche also know that the roof makes a car a GT and thus has it in the name of the performance variations of the 911 (GT2, GT3, etc). Look at MG and Triumph. The convertible MGB was the sports car. Give it a fixed roof and it became a GT (and said so in the name). Spitfires were convertibles. Give it a roof and it became a GT as well. Look at Alfa and the GTV.

I strongly disagree. A GT car is more refined and shifts emphasis towards comfort far more than a sportscar would. A sportscar with a roof is still a sportscar, "roofness" has nothing to do with a car being a GT or not. It's literally in the name, "Grand Touring." The roofed Ferraris were called GTs because they were more focused on power and high-speed cruising than agility and handling.

Again, disagree. Look at a 250 GT SWB or 250 GTO. They are raw, sports cars with roofs. That was the whole point of FIA GT cars.

This was distinct from the Ferrari 250 sports cars:

Same year, similar chassis, similar engine, open bodywork.

And the difference between the MGB and MGB GT was in fact, virtually down to the roof.

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to Chris_V: I stand by my assertion whether you agree with it or not.

Answer my question! Was that 427 Galaxie, which fits your description, a sports car or not? Is the Buick GN one? How about the Ford lightning? it's a 2 seat, 2 door vehicle made for the automotive enthusiast, but it's ALSO not a sports car. You wanna make up your own definition for words, we don't get to have a working conversation. Just because you're stubborn.

Is a banana a yellow edible fruit or is it a square metallic grey box? Definitions matter when having a berkeleying conversation. Otherwise "may I mambo dogface to the orange patch" means exactly the same as "bring the car to the front of the building" simply because I define those words my own way.

Quick question, is this a sports car? Why not, as it fits most definitions here (including Dave's) and it's even autocrossing.

Stock, 2 seat, 2 door, with a roof, designed for the automotive enthusaist and designed for agility vs the more standard version.

On-line dictionaries say:

a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

a production car designed for speed, high acceleration, and maneuverability, having a low body and usually adequate seating for only two persons

a small, high-powered automobile with long, low lines, usually seating two persons.

Well, that lets Miatas, MGBs, Midgets, Tr250s, etc out, as they are not for high speed or high acceleration.

Nope, not a sports car then:

And I think this story is going to generate more than a few letters to the editor. I mean that in a good way, of course.

Does there have to be one and only one definition?

Is an emu not a bird because it doesn't fly? Is a bat actually a bird because it does fly?

I think that there got to be an acceptable amount of grey area or else we just go in circles (like sportscars do!)

In reply to Chris_V: While I can't disagree on the historical origins of the terms, I'd argue that they have a different meaning in our modern world. Language evolves and the usage of specific terms often change.

Personally, I find it hard to stomach that a convertible Corvette is a sports car, but a fixed roof version is a GT. I'd argue those nomenclatures now refer to cars either completely focused on some-or-all aspects of performance (more on that later) or cars that are meant to be a blend of performance and comfort, no matter what's covering the driver's heads.

As for arguing against the dictionary definitions and their usage of "high speed driving" - I'd ask what kind of high speed driving? It's not always about sheer acceleration or top speed. Obviously, autocross is a great example of "slow" cars equaling more powerful ones in that particular measurement of speed. Also, some of the older examples you mentioned probably were considered fast at their time, at least in some way.

That said, I agree with you on the muscle car argument.

In reply to ebonyandivory:

Flying doesn't define a bird, structure and DNA does. Is a Miata not a sports car if it isn't actually raced? Is a Lighting a sports car when it IS raced?

We're trying to narrow down "exactly" what a sports car is, and I say letting people define them as any car that's red just won't cut it (and yes, I know people that do just that: a red Cavalier is a sports car to them).

Sports cars CAN be powerful and used for high speeds, but many traditional ones are not. So power is obviously not really a big part of the definition (otherwise musclecars are sports cars and we know traditional sports car guys are not going to accept a true musclecar in as a sports car). Sports cars can be used fo rmotorsports, but we know many are not and many non sports cars ARE used for motorsports, so that can't be it, either. It can' tbe merely (as Dave suggested) a car aimed at the enthusiast because we have enthusiast oriented station wagons and trucks and musclecars and luxury cars. None of which are sports cars.

My point is that if the definition is too loose, then we can drive a (pictured) truck through it. If it's too tight, then traditional sports cars get left out for not being fast or powerful enough. If the definitions don't actually mean anything, then why even bother? Let's just call everything you like a sports car because you feel like it and stop trying to actually communicate. And youll end up calling about an ad for a classic sports car that grandpa had that they just want to get rid of and you get there only to find this:

Says sport right on it. And it has a spoiler. And it's red.

Chris_V wrote: 2 seat, 2 door convertible (as opposed to a GT car with has a fixed roof) designed primarily for agility and motorsports, not necessarily outright speed. Companies that cut their teeth building sports cars for sports car racing classes are the ones to look to for definitions. Notice that Ferrari made sports cars that were open top cars and when they grew a roof they became GTs and said so in their names. Ferrari also reserved 2+2s as GTs as well. Porsche also know that the roof makes a car a GT and thus has it in the name of the performance variations of the 911 (GT2, GT3, etc). Look at MG and Triumph. The convertible MGB was the sports car. Give it a fixed roof and it became a GT (and said so in the name). Spitfires were convertibles. Give it a roof and it became a GT as well. Look at Alfa and the GTV. Calling a car a GT instead of a sports car is not an insult that should be avoided, as the GTs were often faster than their sports car stablemates, due to better aerodynamics and better rigidity.

couldn't agree more....

I actually cleared up some confusion by reading Chris_V's well written description of roadsters, cabriolets, phaetons, etc. Also, fasted was wise to refer us to the dictionary.

Having owned a very large number of Spridgets, MGs, Triumphs, and a few American convertibles the British versions always come to mind first relative to the words "sports car". I have no problem accepting that an MGB GT is a sports car, as well as a GT. I also considered my Porsche 914s as sports cars even thought they were Targas.

It seems that most of us have our own image of what a sports car is.

Chris_V wrote: Again, disagree. Look at a 250 GT SWB or 250 GTO. They are raw, sports cars with roofs. That was the whole point of FIA GT cars. This was distinct from the Ferrari 250 sports cars: Same year, similar chassis, similar engine, open bodywork. And the difference between the MGB and MGB GT was in fact, virtually down to the roof.

Your own examples validate my point. The 250 GT SWB was a shorter-wheelbase competition version of a GT car, and one that was more comfortable and better for long hauls than the 250 TR, the open-top racecar of which you posted a picture, etc. The 250 GTO was named the GTO because it for homologation into the GT racing class. Again, it says it right there in the name, but in Italian thankfully, because GTH wouldn't sound quite so nice Neither were called GT simply because they had a roof. Additionally, there are open-top cars off that same platform which are still called 250 GT, like the California spyder owned by Cameron's dad .

Honestly, the definitions that intro their respective wikipedia entries pretty much nail it down:

A grand tourer (Italian: gran turismo) (GT) is a performance or luxury automobile capable of high speed or spirited long-distance driving. The most common format is a two-door coupé with either a two-seat or a 2+2 arrangement. The term derives from the Italian phrase gran turismo, a tribute to the tradition of the grand tour, used to represent automobiles regarded as grand tourers, able to make long-distance, high-speed journeys in both comfort and style. The English translation is grand touring.

A sports car (sportscar) is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling.[2] Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite.

Chris_V wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to Chris_V: I stand by my assertion whether you agree with it or not.

Answer my question! Was that 427 Galaxie, which fits your description, a sports car or not? Is the Buick GN one? How about the Ford lightning? it's a 2 seat, 2 door vehicle made for the automotive enthusiast, but it's ALSO not a sports car. You wanna make up your own definition for words, we don't get to have a working conversation. Just because you're stubborn. Is a banana a yellow edible fruit or is it a square metallic grey box? Definitions matter when having a berkeleying conversation. Otherwise "may I mambo dogface to the orange patch" means exactly the same as "bring the car to the front of the building" simply because I define those words my own way.

Is the 427 Galaxy a sports car? No. This is consistent with what I said "A car designed with the enjoyment of an auto enthusiast as its focus."

The Ford Galaxy, which is the platform, was not designed with the enjoyment of auto enthusiasts as its focus. They added a big engine to a family car to then try to appeal to auto enthusiasts. The fact that you had to specify an engine proves that the platform, which is really what matters, doesn't fit the definition. An engine doesn't define a sports car - the platform does. An AC Ace is a sports car before it gets a big V8 and becomes a Cobra. Sports car at its heart.

GNX a sports car? Again, the platform wasn't designed around auto enthusiasts, it's a special engine they through into a mediocre platform.

Is the Ford Lightning a car? No. So it can't be "A car designed with the enjoyment of an auto enthusiast as its focus." Also, again, not a platform designed with enthusiasts in mind.

By the way, Norman's story acknowledges that answering this question might lead to fisticuffs.

Can't we all just get along???
The definition is largely defined by a set of 'rules', but like most everything the final details are only applied by the end user.

In reply to Chris_V when he said "We're trying to narrow down "exactly" what a sports car is, and I say letting people define them as any car that's red just won't cut it"

Who said that? Anyone here?

Let's not go to unrealistic extremes like the above quote if you indeed want serious debate as you described.

The banana vs the steel box analogy isn't even close to how this debate is actually being had.

We're all much closer and our definitions have more in common than not but your analogies do not refect that at all.

By the way, yes a banana is a yellow, edible fruit. But so is a lemon.

jsquared wrote:

Chris_V wrote: Again, disagree. Look at a 250 GT SWB or 250 GTO. They are raw, sports cars with roofs. That was the whole point of FIA GT cars. This was distinct from the Ferrari 250 sports cars: Same year, similar chassis, similar engine, open bodywork. And the difference between the MGB and MGB GT was in fact, virtually down to the roof.

Your own examples validate my point. The 250 GT SWB was a shorter-wheelbase competition version of a GT car, and one that was more comfortable and better for long hauls than the 250 TR, the open-top racecar of which you posted a picture, etc. The 250 GTO was named the GTO because it for homologation into the GT racing class. Again, it says it right there in the name, but in Italian thankfully, because GTH wouldn't sound quite so nice Neither were called GT simply because they had a roof. Additionally, there are open-top cars off that same platform which are still called 250 *GT*, like the California spyder owned by Cameron's dad . Honestly, the definitions that intro their respective wikipedia entries pretty much nail it down:

A grand tourer (Italian: gran turismo) (GT) is a performance or luxury automobile capable of high speed or spirited long-distance driving. The most common format is a two-door coupé with either a two-seat or a 2+2 arrangement. The term derives from the Italian phrase gran turismo, a tribute to the tradition of the grand tour, used to represent automobiles regarded as grand tourers, able to make long-distance, high-speed journeys in both comfort and style. The English translation is grand touring.

A sports car (sportscar) is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling.[2] Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite.

Is a 250 GTO really any more comfortable for an endurance race then a 250 TR? I'd say the only reason it's more comfortble is the roof. And the 250 California is a GT car because it was not for motorsports, according to Enzo (who was the most strict about the definitions of sports cars and GT cars). Street cars and 2+2s were GT cars to him, which is how you got the GTS Ferraris. It's the same for Porsche GT2 and GT3 cars. They are LESS comfortable than the street 911, but designed for motorsports in well, GT classes. Why would they be in GT classes instead of sports car classes? Because 911s are GT cars. Always have been. Closed roof or 2+2.

If they aren't 2 seat cars, then we open up sedans to being sports cars. If they aren't light and agile, then we open up to musclecars and drag cars. If they aren't open cars then we open up to vehicles like the Lightning (which gave up it's towing and hauling capacity for agility and speed, and is a 2 seat, 2 door vehicle aimed at the enthusiast).

Simply put, a 2 seat, 2 door, open car designed for agility and potential road racing use covers all sports cars past and present, fast and slow, luxurious or spartan, roadsters and convertibles, and excludes musclecars, sedans, trucks and GTs. It lets even the layman know exactly what is a sports car, old or new, with no confusion, which is exactly what a definition is supposed to do in order to facilitate effective communication. It's worked since the dawn of sports cars and will work far into the future.

A 1 or 2 passenger car that by design is intended for sporting ambitions.

'Monsieur Bentley builds the world's fastest lorries.' 3,583 lb

I define a sports car as a car built for two people (can have a rear seat but it mostly there for insurance purposes ie FRS, Porsche 911, etc) with an emphasis on driving enjoyment on twisty roads and race tracks and is generally RWD or maybe AWD (only exception I can thing of to that is the early '90s Lotus Elan).

Whereas GT cars are cars built to eat up the miles with fun thrown in.

Basically sports cars are like p0rn I know it when I see it.

So basically these are sports cars to me.

GT cars

I agree 100% with chris_v, for the first time ever, about anything.

ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to Chris_V when he said "We're trying to narrow down "exactly" what a sports car is, and I say letting people define them as any car that's red just won't cut it" Who said that? Anyone here? Let's not go to unrealistic extremes like the above quote if you indeed want serious debate as you described. The banana vs the steel box analogy isn't even close to how this debate is actually being had. We're all much closer and our definitions have more in common than not but your analogies do not refect that at all. By the way, yes a banana is a yellow, edible fruit. But so is a lemon.

I go to extremes to illustrate the point that we can't define things any old way we want to or they lose all meaning.

Your example of a lemon is actually proof of that. Bananas are specific things and letting the definition be too loose (yellow fruit) lets in too many options that are not bananas. If you want to be understood when you want a banana and say banana, that word has to have a specific meaning, not just to you, but to everyone. Otherwise your taste buds are in for a shock.

By allowing a specifc term to be defined on a "what it means to me" basis you lose that meaning and ability to communicate. And we're diluting sports car in such away as to be too inclusive and too open to interpretation which only leds to confusion and lack of communication. We might as WELL call any red car a sports car for all the good we're doing by diluting the term.

I ask again, because it fits so many of the definitions here, is the Lightning a sports car? If not, why not? Oh, it's a truck, not a car? Are you using a specific definition to determine that? Yes, you are, and for good reason. Specific definitions are what allow us to know what each other is saying.

While I certainly appreciate Chris_V's historical and educational take on the subject, the fact of the matter is that over time definitions will inherently evolve and sometimes even change completely. Otherwise the claiming that "the defacated water you gave me was awful" would be a compliment, and that "your dapper friend was nice" would be an insult. I'm not sure whether the manufacturers changing use of the terms led to the revised common definition, or the changing common use of the terms led the manufacturers to revise their definitions....Either way though, the manufacturers of such cars themselves have altered their own use of the terminology that they originally defined.

I'm certainly not ready to live in a world where the word "roadster" simply ceases to exist outside the world of kit cars and DIY'ers, because it wasn't allowed to evolve along with the cars that it is used to describe.

I would therefore tend towards the more commonly accepted contemporary definition(s), like those offered by jsquared.

So what you're saying is that Lightnings and GNXs and Galaxies are in fact sports cars, 'cause they can fit those definitions.

We know that a current FRS/BRZ is not a convertible or a sedan or a station wagon or a pickup truck, right? Have those terms evolved too? No? Why ONLY "sports car?" Is it because we get emotionally invested in a car that ISN'T a sports car and want to call it one?