I believe that I wrote this the last time this subject was broached. I don't remember where I read it, but it was the best definition I have ever seen.
A sports car, is a car that you smile when you climb in, smile when you get out, and sometimes, weakly, while fixing it.
A sports car is any vehicle you can have fun with. Driving , that is.
Chris_V wrote: You still don't get to just make up definitions as you go along.
Accordingly, I have yet to find any 'official' references that include an open-top requirement in their current definition of the term "sports car". Maybe you could do us all a favor and cite the widely accepted source for your definition, beyond your wonderfully provided snippet of historical correlation, that includes such mandates and supersedes the general English language definitions from Merriam-Webster and Oxford?
2 doors, 2 seats, rear drive. Overall performance should exceed a 'standard' sedan of the same time period.
Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers are pony cars. GTO's, Chevelles, Chargers and Torinos are muscle cars.
Chris_V wrote:Driven5 wrote:You still don't get to just make up definitions as you go along. The language in this case hasn't "evolved" to a completely new, but well agreed upon definition. It's fractured and a free for all where everyone defines it on their own. That's not "evolving" but completely losing the plot. Using your logic, can I just start calling pickup trucks station wagons because I feel like it and it be YOUR fault that you don't know what I'm talking about? No.Chris_V wrote: Definitions matter, and they shouldn't change just because you have a different opinion otherwise we can't have a coherent conversation about anything, from sports cars to vegetables.All languages continue to evolve over time. If one person chooses to ignore (or is unaware of) modern use(s), while the other chooses to ignore (or is unaware of) historical use(s)...Who is to blame for their combined inability to have a coherent conversation?
Of course in 1960 or whenever someone coined "sportscar" pretty much all performance cars WERE RWD 2-seaters that were (or evolved from) convertibles. Sedans and wagons back then were not sporty and usually not fast in the curves and not fun and didn't handle well. So yeah, in 1965 RWD/Vert/2 seats DID describe pretty much all "cars that did motorsports" or "sporty cars."
Simply isn't the case anymore. Definitions change as technology does.
ae86andkp61 wrote: In reply to pjbgravely: I beg to differ. I would agree with the last sentence, but have to ask what about a fixed roof makes a light, responsive, focused coupe incapable of being driven for fun? Are raw cars like the Porsche GT3RS, Ferrari 599 GTO, or Lotus Exige best described as a GT and not a sports car simply because of the roof? In my mind, a GT is a coupe that includes enough comfort and a little luggage space without making a huge compromise in performance or driving experience. Long-legged performance+driving experience+a touch of luxury/comfort is a GT. Engaging driving experience is a sports car, and it can be open-top/fixed roof and higher-performance/lower-performance but focused on driving fun, and it should be two-door, two-seat or 2+2, light and responsive. Convertibles are heavier, flexier sports cars for people who care less about performance than about making sure everyone can see them at the wheel and are too scared to ride a motorcycle for that open-air feeling.Whoops, I mean convertibles can also be sports cars.
Don't shoot the messenger. It was a long thread a few years ago, and I learned a lot. Before that I didn't know what any of the terms meant. I don't own a sports car and I may never own one.
The fun car I drive is a pony car. I like them under powered which means I get to WOT for 8 seconds before having to let up.
People confuse sports with games, Football ( both kinds ) is a game, auto racing is a sport. A sporty car is different that a sports car.
Definitions change all the time. It used to be that there was no year zero, and decades and millenniums started on a year with a 1 in them. Now is seems even scientists count a year zero.
You can make a camry a sporty car, but it can never be a sports car
People confuse sports with games, Football ( both kinds ) is a game, auto racing is a sport.
That's ridiculous. Let's go to every dictionary, ever. And I'm pretty sure they are more authoritative than "some guy who said something on a forum" or "some old guy who told me the origins of a word at a car show."
Sport (noun): 1. a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other. 2. a physical activity (such as hunting, fishing, running, swimming, etc.) that is done for enjoyment.
The term "sports" dates to the 15th century. Pretty sure there was no automobile racing going on back then and it wasn't developed for chariot races. I'm guessing it referred to croquet or something
I won't argue that racing ISN'T a sport. It obviously meets the dictionary definition. But it isn't any more of a sport than football, tennis, or distance running as a physical competition.
For that matter, if the term sport refers to auto racing and not football, then why isn't this simply the "Grassroots Sports" forum. Putting "Motor" in the middle would be pretty redundant, wouldn't it?
I mean, this is a dumb argument anyhow, but my wife is busy watching hockey (which she claims is a sport, by the way) so I have nothing better to do :)
In reply to Jerry: Knock off wire wheels (in rare cases it may have real magnesium pin drive knock offs). A top that is never to be used and most likely is stored in the garage. Two bucket seats. Manual transmission that requires skill to avoid grinding gears. A minimal foldable windshield. No radio.
I think a more fun argument is that the current Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, and Charger aren't muscle cars, and that term probably needs to die.
You'll need to log in to post.
