|
True Sports Cars. Who makes the cut?
Car magazines in the 1990's standards stated, the best sports cars met these criteria.
Perfect sports car ride height 48.0" to 51" with the ideal height of 49.5" GT performer cars ideal ride height was considered between 52" to 54" Perfect sports car weight was considered 2,200 to 2,900 Perfect GT weight was somewhere between 2,9,00 to 3,500lbs. Let's see how today's cars stack up? From my research, only 3 cars stack up as true sports cars by description. Toyota 86 Mazda MX5 Alfa Romeo 4c. But only one of them actually gets 100% sports car performance #'s. Alfa Romeo 4c Here. Are the top 5 that come closer to being a real sports car. Porsche Cayman Porsche 911 GTS Lotus Evora 400 Audi TTS Nissan 370z _list of weights n heights__________________ MB c43amg------- 56.3"/3,741 BMW M2------------- 55.5"/3,450lb Lexus F350/RCF-- 55.0"/3,748lb RCF 3,958lbs Cadillac ATS-V----- 55.0"/3803lb BMW M4------------- 54.5"/3,553lb Infiniti Q60---------- 54.5"/3,862 Mustang GT350-- 54.4"/3,781 Mustang GT--------- 54.0"/3,701 Nissan GT-R--------- 53.9"/3,933 Lexus LC 500------ 53.0"/ 4,280 Audi TT-S------------- 53.0"/ 3,164 Camaro SS ---------- 53.0"/3,883 Camaro SS 1LE---- 52.0"/ 3,820 Nissan 370z"-------- 52.0"/ 3,292 370z Nismo---------- 51.6"/ 3,379 Jaguar F-Type------ 51.5"/ 3,455 to 3,847 *Toyota 86------------- 51.0/" 2,800 MB AMG GT-S------- 51.0"/3,627 Porsche 911 GTS--.50.6"/3,197 Porsche 911 GT3-- 50.4"/3,505 Porsche Cayman-- 50.0"/2,976 Audi R8-v8------------ 49.0"/3,627 Corvette GS---------- 49.0"/3,450 *Mazda MX5---------- 48"/ 2,340 Lotus Evora 400--- 48.0"/3,153 Acura NSX------------ 48.0"/3,803 *Alfa Romeo 4c----- 47.0"/2,450 I'm not discrediting any cars performance value. This is really just a measurement of how far car companies have strayed from dimensional boundaries within the definition of a sports car. Though I feel a true sports car is RWD only. I had to give respect to the Audi TT for making such a light technically advanced performance car. |
Interesting info.
There are several reasons cars (all cars, not just sports cars) have gotten heavier over the years, mainly comfort and safety. The 370Z is much more comfortable than the 280Z and a lot more crash-worthy - both of which add weight. The only reason cars don't weigh a lot more is modern, lightweight materials. Just think how much more a 370 would weigh if made with 1960s materials. I miss chrome. :( |
Interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to record all those stats. I had no idea Lexus' were so heavy!
|
Quote:
|
Interesting. The premise is by 1990 standards. That's when I was fat at 230 lbs. I'm leaner now. Granted I was 27 years younger. Should the standard change as well? Everything on the list are sports cars. Just a thought. As for the weight, with the amount of regulations and market driven accessories, safety, and convenience features it's just harder to get to the ideal weight without spending on lightweight materials.
|
Quote:
Forgot something....LOL I miss chrome. |
A friend of mine in the Ford business told me the GT40 got it's name by being 40 inches in height :eek:
|
Quote:
|
A sports car IMO has to have a manual tranny. I know.....F1 cars are all auto yada, yada, yada...... but just saying rowing thru the gears is a good chunk of the fun for me!
|
The 370z is on the bottom of a list of 8 cars that are either true sports cars or close to being true sports cars by definition. There's a lot to be said about that. The 370z does get a bad rap. A few cars I realize are missing here including the soon to be cancelled BMW z4 and Fiat 124 both of which may possibly put the Z down to #9 or #10? I would have to research the specs. But the Z in reality is in the top 10 of 29 cars by definition. Weight and size constraints are often overlooked. The Z is right at the cusp of GT and sports car in size, with a GT weight. For what you get. It's a great buy.
I think the corvette is in a different league as an affordable hypercar. I don't see the Z and vette as competitors. They do not offer the same driving dynamics. |
Wow, good stats! Thanks for compiling that.
Most "sports cars" don't know what they want to be when they grow up, anymore. I'm torn between chiding Nissan for not upgrading the 370Z, and lauding it for keeping a winning formula. Dollar for dollar, I think it really is one of the best sports cars available these days. Even if you have to lower it a few inches to fit the 1990's definition. ;-) Don't forget, in the 1990's we had 15" wheels (height), minimal SRS and crash test requirements (weight), and efficiency/environmental requirements were far less stringent. We also had a lot lower horsepower in most cars, so top speeds (and therefore braking and cornering forces and suspension complexity were lower/lighter). Finally, nobody had more than a 12V battery in their sports car (talking to you, NSX). In the end, when somebody tells me that they own or want a sports car, I always reply "what sport?". Because usually, they are a dentist who's real goal is to be seen shimmying golf clubs or attractive women out of their poser-mobiles!!! A "sports car", today, to my mind has to be suited to purpose. Ideally, as close as possible from the factory. So, Auto-Cross is a totally different animal from 1/4 mile and different again from a road course car. But there's no market for that, so cars have to be more things to more people, and let the outliers mod for their car's specific role. Almost everything has grown over the years to accomplish at least a bit of the role of GT as well. With that have come bigger dimensions. To me the "new" line is if it has enough storage to take more than an overnight bag, driving shoes and a helmet, it's a grand tourer in sports car clothing. Nothing wrong with that, but call it what it is. |
Quote:
|
For my purposes, the Z has been a good daily-driven sports car (meaning I drive it in the winter as well). My next car purchase will be a bit more practical as I am looking for something that has some paddles and AWD and possibly a hybrid. After that, who knows how the Z will be transformed? I can shed a bit of weight and height so eventually it could be an "ideal" sports car for the track on the twisty mountain roads.
|
Doing that research on real sports cars kind of nauseated with me with the corporate automotive structure and realize there's little to no balance in the car culture. The industry has no respect or integrity in the way of traditionalism. It's disheartening to know the only true AFFORDABLE sports cars are flimsy and underpowered. I've been debating going severely upmarket for a better driving experience but Porsche is a fancy computer and the lotus, well I saw a video where everything beat it, down to a modded elantra. I'm VERY dissatisfied with the car market. In 2 years I been pondering this moment. Which is fall of 2018. When I estimated my next car purchase. Nothing has satisfied my need. My Z has been the best balance between power handling and feedback.
As the tech junkies ogle over disconnected steering, braking and little to no feedback. I ponder and hope for a car that's a mix of several cars. A Cayman sized car designed more like a 4c with an engine like either the 4c, Cayman or even a q60rs if possible. Hydraulic or no power steering that can weight about as much as a Cayman with at least 7cu.ft. of trunk. Keep the car around $65k-90k. I'd be all over it... Well since I can't really find what I want. I decided to just take one final look out in the world. N visually, the Q60 is the most striking to me. It's not my type of car. I'm usually about the DSC(dedicated sports car) but that Q60 stirred my soul in real life. If I were to go that route there would be some things I'd have to accomplish. BBS wheels Michelín or Pirelli tires Brake upgrade. Intake, downpipes, exhaust, tune. Sound system enhancement. And the big one, suspension-lowering... what happens when the Q has that dynamic suspension? Can you still put swifts and Koni in a Q RS? At this juncture no car is really worth irs weight in performance so I'm thinking. Just buy what I like?! A Q60RS without PS4 steering costs about $57,000. Not terrible. Almost half of what I intended to spend at first. Any thoughts on going this route? |
This is not my cup of tea when it comes to debates. But i don't believe this list is accurately depicting what you consider "true" sports car. Most of the cars listed under this imaginary umbrella are not even categorized as "sports cars" but touring cars, muscle cars, GT's (grand touring) or sports touring cars. None of which is defined by weight and size, but power and luxury. Your frustration by what is on the market is not the markets problem. Most cars do not fall under this definition of "sports car" because it's an unreasonably expensive and useless sales category most people do not care for or can not accurately afford with its relation to actual race cars. In reality the affordable "sports car" still accurately reflects what most drivers consider a true sports car in relation to the era in which the term was coined. The 60's to early 80's before the advancement in computer control and F/I.
Most people can not handle the physics of a modern day race car, and even if we could handle it, you're asking for amount of power and suspension geometry that exceeds the laws of the road 99% of the time. The amount of reliable power and suspension features available is an expensive assembly of parts. Back in the 60's, a reliable 250hp was expensive! 250hp is about what you'd expect out of a "affordable" sports car nowadays weighing in under 3000ibs. Anything above that back then was considered muscle cars or exotics, and both filled a niche with massive trade-off's. It's exactly the same now, and to be honest the pricing accurately depicts this. An Audi R8 would absolutely wipe the floor of a BRZ, stock for stock and regardless of the weight difference. The trade off is about 80 thousand dollars and 25% more in maintenance. A 370z may get dragged hard by a Hellcat. The trade off is the Hellcat will burn in hell trying to get around a corner like a Z can. Race cars today are producing upwards of 600hp easily restricted by performance caps. Getting 600hp out of any engine nowadays (reliably) cost about 25-75k alone not including the chassis. Trying to squeeze that into 2500-3000ibs only further compounds cost figures. No one will ever continue backing a car manufacturer if they put out crappy unreliable cars, certainly expensive ones. One reason you never here the masses complaining too much about unreliable ecoboxes is because they are boring and CHEAP! Cheap to fix, cheap to replace and cheap to warrant. You here about one Huracan engine exploding and everyone will lose there mind and hang the designers by their neck ties. We also have to consider the amount of materials need to be split over a significantly larger population, in 1960's there was an estimated 180million people in the US, today there are over 305million. So building 80%+ more v8 supercar engines is never going to be easy or cheap. But 100k boring 2liter engines is significantly more feasible. If the Alfa 4c had the same engine as the 8c with a similar weight, the cost would probably be (at minimum) double what it currently is. Quote:
What exactly are you trying to quantify as reasonable performance per dollar? Do you just want the look and features of a sporty car? or the actual performance prowess its actually capable of on a race track? 65-90k is a massive price gap. 25k dollars can buy you just about any mod that will make a dirt box faster than a stock 911 in a straight line or around corners. |
Quote:
My 94 Mazda rx7 tt is what's missing today. The Mitsubishi eclipse gsx is what's missing today. The Porsche 944 turbo is what's missing today. Balanced vehicles that felt fast. They are either fast n heavy, or light and slow. N the cars that meat these criteria just don't seem worth the price tag So I decided to go GT. I'll keep my Z. I will trade it at a later time for a nismo. The Evita almost had me. But average modded elantra's kill it at the track. Unacceptable @ 100k. Even if it's only straight line . performance. If I didn't need some type of space, bigger than a duffel. I'd buy the 4c. Nothing really touches it. But I need space for various reasons PS. The racecar rant was od. My list only was comparative to a 20year old measurement. But I feel it was the best measurement ever created for a sports enthusiast. I think I made clear that there were different types of PERFORMANCE cars here. So what was your point with that? |
Quote:
Race cars today are the bench mark you are trying to compare things too. Race cars of era's before are what you are trying to compare things too. You stated in your last post you were disappointed and unsatisfied by the offerings on the market and made up a potential price range you feel a car manufacturer should make your hypothetical car in. fact is ALL the manufactures you listed provide a car in that range with an engine capable of producing the power you want and potentially the weight you want. You haven't stated exactly what you are looking for other than the fact you are happy with the Z and unhappy with everything else. Are you saying there isn't a car more expensive worth the cost difference? Even still based on the original argument, the Z isn't an outright sports car. Its a sports touring car. The 944 turbo is a sports touring car and rx7 and GSX are tuner cars. So you've never really got a "sports car". My point about the race cars was clearly this, sports cars are based closely off of Race cars. And race cars of today are EXPENSIVE, meaning a true SPORTS car is EXPENSIVE. These are your Mclarens mp4's, Audi R8's and GT3's. In which they are lightning fast and relatively light weight. The fact is there are a whole lot a of cars that will beat and outperform all the cars you just listed. You being unsatisfied with them doesn't really say much. What do you actually want? You also comparing stock cars vs heavily modified ones is also apples an oranges. Nothing really touches a 4c? really? The 4c is over 5 seconds slower than a z/28 around Laguna Seca and will lose a drag race too. < around the same price now. :icon18::tup: |
I stopped reading your post when you went on the 600HP. Nobody said that. You're creating your own debate by twisting my words.
Watch this video.... it's like the Illuminati just posted it in my YouTube just for you after saying what I said. Just so you know, my Z comes really close to what I want but nobody really knows how to make one step better without tagging on 100k. N if I wanted 600HP. I'd buy a vette.... SMH |
I pulled the 600hp figure out of average power figures based on GT race cars. I never said anyone said that. I made the figure to further the discussion on what is a definitive average amount of power of today. I don't know how i'm twisting your words when i'm clearly asking for clarification on what you want. So far what you are saying is that you already have it but want more. If thats the case start modifying it.
I agree the the Z is a perfectly balanced car. And even though the pricing is increasing for unknown reasons, the platform is a great one with very few faults. You didn't post anything..... And again you haven't stated anything about what exactly is worth the extra amount of money. You dont want power, you dont want slow and light...you don't want fast and heavy? What is One step better? There are plenty of cars one step better under 100k...under 65k...probably used under 50k. |
Quote:
I decided I'll MOD a GT car.preferably a Q60. It looks like nothing out there... I'm think a 35mm drop, sways, intake dp exhaust & tune n I'm good. My interest in the Nismo is based more on experiencing how much better or worse the nismo could be compared to my mods... but also just to have a slightly different body. It's my opinion the best body kit is the nismo... BUT. If I buy a Nismo... it'll be my 3rd Z34 n I had a sudden change of heart. If you been on here the last couple years I been flip flopping thru various car experiences and trying to find WHAT I consider to be the best balanced sports car that has character. I've driven great cars. Nine stir my soul. The Z and evo were special. The GTR is sick but I think I'd rather put in the work on the Q60. Period. I'm hoping the Z35 will come? At that point I may get a z35 during its refresh phase. |
True sports cars are all about compromise. Just, instead of compromising performance for the mundane, they compromise what most drivers consider essential. Or, put differently, they often force compromises on the driver.
In the end, I don't know how relevant some 1990's magazine's perception of suitable heights and weights can be today. Whether or not it truly was so even back in the day, is debatable. Interesting, for sure, but not of any use (IMO) for a 2017 purchase decision. The limits imposed by last century's technology made these stats far more important than they are now. Back when "double nickel" had more to do with the price of a pack of smokes than the interstate speed limit, there were lots of cars that would have trouble getting a ticket on a normal road. Now, even a Yaris can get you into "lose your license" territory in under 15 seconds. Today, we have the ability to employ better brakes rubber and suspension, a lighter chassis, lighter and more powerful (and more efficient) engines, better drive trains, aerodynamics, and computer trickery on everything from damping to KERS to displacement to torque vectoring. All that despite the weight and performance penalties imposed by increased safety and environmental regulation and the pressures of the business world on auto makers. In the end, and in 2017, the BEST CAR (sports or otherwise) is the one that suits you (and often you alone, as that's how full most vehicles on the road are) the best. The BEST COMPETITION SPORTS CAR is the one that will help you win your class. Unless you truly compete your vehicle, the BEST SPORTS CAR is the one that makes you feel the best inside. And that is something only you can judge. |
I don't know where else to put this, but it does kind of speak to the advancement of technology in sports cars.
Not from 1990's to now, but almost 90 years of tech from what was bleeding edge in the late 1920's, to the best of the best of modern hypercars today. The format is a bit of a ripoff from Road & Track's article on the Alfa Romeo Typo B P3 from last year (find that and read it if you want to learn some real automotive history). But Harris does a credible job in explaining how that car must have been the Chiron of its day, and then some. But it was as much about lightness and simplicity back then, as it is about power and wizardry today. Which is why it relates to this thread. |
1 Attachment(s)
UNKNOWN_370, I think that I found you the perfect sports car.
Might be a bit of a pain to daily - it's hard enough going through a drive-through in the Z - but ain't nobody beating you to the next red light... http://www.the370z.com/attachments/o...26950185_n.jpg The owner says it makes 7,200lbs downforce at 150MPH. That's 3 of my cars! :-) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2