Personally, I've tried to apply actual metrics and always come up short. For me a sports car is pretty much anything I want to own and drive fast, despite the fact that it may have valid logical shortcomings as an automobile.
And, yes, I absolutely consider a Honda CRX Si a sports car.
Interesting responses. Perhaps I should be calling my definition of sports cars "sporting cars". I've owned many light 2 seater convertibles that handle well, mostly British, but have always considered any car that elicits certain feelings or a state of mind than the actual physical construction, a sports car.
JG Pasterjak wrote: Personally, I've tried to apply actual metrics and always come up short. For me a sports car is pretty much anything I want to own and drive fast, despite the fact that it may have valid logical shortcomings as an automobile. And, yes, I absolutely consider a Honda CRX Si a sports car.
Absolutely, JG, exactly. If I'm in a corner yelling "WOOOOHOOOO!!!", it's a sports car.
In reply to Chris_V:
Lightnings, GNX's, and Galaxies do not fit what I consider to be the contemporary definition of sports car, any more than they do the classical one. Specifically they are neither light, nor nimble, nor agile, regardless of how "fast" they might be in either a straight line or even a corner.
Station wagons and Suburbans were synonymous at one time, as taxi's (hacks) used at the train depot. Today's closest relative to the station wagon was probably called a Sedan at one time. There were sedans with both two doors and four doors. There were both sedans and coupes available as convertibles. Pickup trucks that are still commonly referred to as 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton all now have significantly higher payload ratings. Shooting brakes were hunting vehicles, with longitudinal seating in the rear for numerous people. And that's not even going back to the horse and buggy days from which many of these terms had already evolved from as they were applied to our horseless carriages. So yes, those terms too have ALL evolved along with the automobiles that they describe...And that's not even going back to the horse and buggy days from which many automotive terms evolved as they were applied to our horseless carriages. Yet strictly adhering to those naming conventions in conversation today would only serve to create even more confusion by mixing various degrees of classical with contemporary definitions.
Consider that originally the only cars designed and built from the ground up with recreational sporting intentions were almost exclusively open topped...Thus the two would necessarily be synonymous at that time. But as cars with roofs being designed from the ground up with otherwise the same type of recreational sporting intent became more common, the etymology of the term went along with it.
This is subjective topic for sure. I remember Road and Track asking this question back in the '80's, and it wasn't easy then either to define. I say it's different for different people. Anything I find fun to drive just for the sake of it is a sports car.
I never consider a Mustang or other muscle car in the past a sports car, but the newer ones are changing that. My old Fiat 600 by definition wasn't a sports car, but to me, it was moreso than others I had owned. Usually I limit my definition to 2 seaters, just to have a tighter term. Normally I place 4 seaters in the grand touring category.
In reply to Chris_V:
No, the differences in most, if not all, of our definitions of what makes a sportscar are very, very small compared to your extreme examples in your banana quote above.
I cannot understand why one would use extreme examples and write "define it any old way" or "if it's red, then it's a sportscar" when no one is saying anything of the sort.
I am enjoying the information you are contributing but ya gotta quit trying to make the rest of us out to be fools who have no clue what a sportscar is. No one here is making claims like the ones you wrote earlier.
ebonyandivory wrote: 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!)
Not so fast, there, brother - NASCAR brethren of the Regal/Galaxie ilk spoken of heretofore go in circles. Not sportscars; those go left and right. And the only time they go in circles is when the driver spins out after having gone left or right a little too briskly.
In reply to OldGray320i:
"the only time they go in circles"? Not so fast!
You've never been to Seekonk speedway huh!
I'm sure you'll agree, there are very few absolutes!
Ok, it ain't a 'sports' car but they did turn left and right...
1963 Ford Galaxie 500, driven mainly in endurance races by Dan Gurney, Sir Jack Brabham, Jim Clark, Denny Hulme during the 1963 and 1964 British and European Touring car championships. All set fastest laps at one or more events in this car.
Most of you can't properly identify a hatchback so I am not surprised in the least that you have a hard time defining a sports car
irt ebonyandivory - well, yes, there may be few absolutes, but one of them is that sports cars are small, lightweight, two seat roadsters (convertibles), four or sixpot, may or may not have wire wheels (panasports are welcome), and are rather adept and going round corners, but never soley in circles. Seekonk Speedway is not the preferred environment for sports cars, rather, for family coupes (or sedans, these days) turned racers (NASCAR).
Therefore, a 911 is NOT a sports car, and neither is JGs CRX.
irt fasted58 - ratehr good of you to note, it's NOT a sports car. 
Nick_Comstock wrote: Most of you can't properly identify a hatchback so I am not surprised in the least that you have a hard time defining a sports car
GRMers will argue about how to make toast.
There are no V8-powered sportscars? Dammit!
I gotta explain to 99% of the population that this IS NOT a sportscar:
[URL=http://s265.photobucket.com/user/derekrichardson/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image-81.jpg.html]
[/URL]
In reply to ebonyandivory:
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Just look at what percentage of the population believes in ghosts.
Nick_Comstock wrote: Most of you can't properly identify a hatchback so I am not surprised in the least that you have a hard time defining a sports car
lol this.
A GTI is not a sports car, sorry. Not in any universe unless the GTI in that universe is like the Renault Clio V6.
Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to ebonyandivory: Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Just look at what percentage of the population believes in ghosts.
This again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sports%20car
In reply to Nick_Comstock:
Sure. I just wish Porsche would quit calling the 911 a sports car on their site. Idiots!
Because you get dummies like the Wall Street Journal, Top Gear, FoxSports, USNews, Edmunds, Car and Driver, LA Times et al saying different.
They obviously don't read GRM.
In reply to ebonyandivory:
I've also heard on numerous occasions Top Gear and the like calling the 911 a GT car.
So you tell me, are the terms mutually exclusive?
Really I'm just playing the devils advocate here. I don't care what they're called, I just want to drive them.
In reply to Nick_Comstock:
Agreed!!!
Rental cars make the best sports cars /thread
If it's completely impractical it's probably a sports car.
So a convertible Vette is a sports-car and a hard top Vette is a GT? Good, that means I can get a Miata cause my wife says I don't need two sports-cars!
Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to ebonyandivory: Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Just look at what percentage of the population believes in ghosts.
Even Merriam-Webster and Oxford University Press aren't stubborn enough to completely disregard the simple fact that common and widespread useage greatly influences the contepmorary definition of any given word or phrase.
In reply to Driven5:
Doesn't make them any less wrong. If 99% of the population believe blue is green and green is blue they're still 100% wrong. Blue is blue and green is green.
For me it's a small 2 seater with RWD, a flexy chassis, convertible top, more agility than power and a fairly punishing ride.
That means I've owned 3 MGBs, an MGA, a Fiat 850 spyder and 2 R Pkg Miatas. One of the Miatas had a decent suspension in it and as a result, was fairly comfortable. Needless to say, it wasn't my favorite.
Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to Driven5: Doesn't make them any less wrong. If 99% of the population believe blue is green and green is blue they're still 100% wrong. Blue is blue and green is green.
Do you believe even ONE PERSON thinks blue is green or vice versa? Again, I'm sorry but that's a poor analogy because it's not even close to reality.
The reality is that likely 99% of the population sees a 911 as a sportscar. Definitions evolve as time passes. Lines defining objects are blurred as we create new things with new options and amenities and attributes.
The shooting brake was a great example of this. Pretty sure a two-door station wagon doesn't currently include carrying men with guns in a carriage pulled by horses but it sure as heck did back "in the day".
Horsepower figures change over the years due to changing formulas. Many things do.
The bottom line is that I'd never correct someone for calling a 911 GT3 a sports car no matter how wrong they may be.
You'll need to log in to post.
