It's a question we could probably debate for a while, right? Well, we tackle that subject in the next issue of Grassroots Motorsports. The piece was written by Norman Garrett, the design engineer for the original Miata. We figured he'd know a thing or two.
Okay, here's the sell: Not a subscriber and you want to get that issue for free? Just go here and enter your info: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/try
Enjoy.
I'll take a crack at it.
2 seats, built for fun, not work.
Manual, 2 seats, 2 doors, no significant trunk space, and dare I say it RWD (Yes I know Lotus and some other built FWD cars that would otherwise fit, but this is my description so nyaah)
2 door, 2 seat, fun, manual and most importantly a very bright color 
Its a car where performance > practicality that puts a smile on your face with its good dynamics.
Light or lightish, RWD, good handling.
A sports car >involves< you in the driving experience rather than insulating you from it.
A sports car feels like a mechanical object, with things rotating and pulsing and gears meshing, rather than a piece of furniture or a marshmallow.
David
I have to add might have 2 unusable rear seats. In general the car should have some feeling of freedom and escape from the appliance vehicle. And plenty of extra room within the width of a highway lane
Can't share a platform with a boring sibling?
I write that without thinking too much but it seems right.
That is until I think about all the generic Mustangs out there.
aussiesmg wrote: Manual, 2 seats, 2 doors, no significant trunk space, and dare I say it RWD (Yes I know Lotus and some other built FWD cars that would otherwise fit, but this is my description so nyaah)
\ AND a top that goes down.
BTW, I got into a long argument with an English teacher in high school who told me its sport car, not sports car.
ebonyandivory wrote: Can't share a platform with a boring sibling? I write that without thinking too much but it seems right. That is until I think about all the generic Mustangs out there.
the Fiat 124 Spider, definitely a sports car, used the same platform as the more pedestrian 124 Sedan.. abet shortened. Many classic sports cars were built the same way, take a platform meant for a heavier sedan and shoehorn it under the svelte bodywork of a roadster, and it worked very well
An emblem that says "Sport" on it makes it a sportscar. 
My easier, less sarcastic definition: anything that can top 20 in H-Street autocross or is in a higher class by default is probably a sportscar.
spitfirebill wrote: BTW, I got into a long argument with an English teacher in high school who told me its sport car, not sports car.
I'm guessing it's a British holdover. A maths car is good at maths. A sports car is good at sports.
My Protege5 is REALLY good at playing tennis and volleyball. Because sportscar.
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.
Finally, let's stop with the 2 seat convertible sports car is automatically a roadster nonsense as well. Roadster is a distinct bodystyle. A roadster is a 2 door open top car without rollup side windows. Give it roll up side windows and it's a cabriolet/convertible (or if you are British, a drophead coupe). Often there were roadsters and cabriolets in the same model line. For the Sports car crowd, the most noticeble is the Jaguar XK120/140/150 line where you could get a roadster, a drophead coupe, and a fixed roof coupe in the same model line.
Roadster:
Cabriolet:
All of this came from early days of coachbuilding where there were many bodystyles to choose from for each model car. There were 4 door cars without rollup side windows and they were called phaetons.
Her's another example of roadster vs cabriolet in the same year and model:
cabriolet (rollup side windows):
Roadster (no side windows):
And Phaeton:
Cobras are roadsters. So are early Viper RT/10s. Caterham 7s are roadsters (and their Locost bretheren). So true roadsters do exist, even now (Ariel Atom is a roadster). Miatas are convertibles, but not, even with Japanese engrish marketing, roadsters. They are, however, the quintessential modern sports car.
a sports car is much like an attractive or well endowed woman, you're willing to put up with it's shortcomings as it's fun to push it hard and you enjoy taking the top off of it even if it does seem to attempt to empty your wallet any chance it gets.
captdownshift wrote: a sports car is much like an attractive or well endowed woman, you're willing to put up with it's shortcomings as it's fun to push it hard and you enjoy taking the top off of it even if it does seem to attempt to empty your wallet any chance it gets.
QFT
A car designed with the enjoyment of an auto enthusiast as its focus.
DaveEstey wrote: A car designed with the enjoyment of an auto enthusiast as its focus.
Well that could include musclecars and drag racers, too, and I'm not going to call a 427 Galaxie a sports car, even if it's competing in NHRA motorsports.
This is not a sports car, even though it's being used in motorsports and it's main focus was enjoyment by an automotive enthusiast:
Cool, awesome stuff. I think you're all going to enjoy reading Norman's article.
Chris_V wrote:DaveEstey wrote: A car designed with the enjoyment of an auto enthusiast as its focus.Well that could include musclecars and drag racers, too, and I'm not going to call a 427 Galaxie a sports car, even if it's competing in NHRA motorsports. This is not a sports car, even though it's being used in motorsports and it's main focus was enjoyment by an automotive enthusiast:
You're comparing modified to stock.
In reply to DaveEstey:
Musclecars (and that GN) are available in stock form for the enjoyment of automotive enthusiasts, and used in stock form in motorsports (drag racing, circle track). So they very much fit YOUR definition you posted, and sorry, but that's NOT a sports car.
And to your point, this is still a sports car, even though it's not stock:
So stock/modified has nothing to do with it. using your definition, any car that is aimed at automotive enthusiasts is a sports car and that's obviously not so.
This is stock, it was aimed at automotive enthusiasts, and destined for motorsports. Is it, then, a sports car?
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. Eventually it just became a naming convention. Porsche's GT2/3 name has nothing to do with the roof, it's named that because the car's name reflected the class in which the race version was placed at LeMans. A Subaru BRZ is not a "GT car" because it has a roof, it is still a sportscar. A Jag XKS, Aston DB7, or a BMW 8-series is a GT car. Still sporting, but emphasis has shifted to include comfort at the expense of some of the edge of a sportscar.
Wiki says the term "Sports Car" was coined after WWI in reference to the 1912 Prince Henry Vauxhall and it's direct competitor the Austro-Daimler. So, if we are not going to redefine it... it means one of those two.
What it means to me is a toy of an LBC in BRG with horrific structural rigidity, poor handling, terrible reliability, great soundand beautiful two up driving with no roof. It probably also smells like burning oil and saddle soap.
What it probably means today is any car a company wants to sell to people with disposable income as a toy for 0% financing.
You'll need to log in to post.
