FlightService wrote: Wow copy from page 2, already? I like the Quattro but I wouldn't call it a sports car. Definitely a GT but maybe not a sports car.
Ooops, wrong link, meant to post this:
Javelin wrote:aussiesmg wrote: 4 seats does not make a real sports car IMHOPorsche 911, Porsche 944, RX-7 2+2, and Mazda RX-8 all disagree with you strongly.
The exception makes the rule but really I stand by my comment, a real sports car has 2 seats.
GT cars, sporting cars, pony cars, 2 door sedans and 4 door sedans are not sports cars IMHO.
Webster's definition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sports%20car
sports car noun
Definition of SPORTS CAR
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving
FlightService wrote:pinchvalve wrote:Wow copy from page 2, already? I like the Quattro but I wouldn't call it a sports car. Definitely a GT but maybe not a sports car.
Maybe it deserves to be on every page...
pinchvalve wrote:
I owned one of these! I totally forgot about them. I guess you could say I wasn't that impressed... Big inside and just as dead reliable as any other '80's 'Yota, but not in the Civic Si/CRX Si/GTI ballpark by a long shot. Surely nothing like an AE86!
Please don't level the ban hammer on me for this one but at first glance, i thought that was a gen1 Probe. :-)
ShadowSix wrote:pinchvalve wrote:I owned one of these! I totally forgot about them. I guess you could say I wasn't that impressed... Big inside and just as dead reliable as any other '80's 'Yota, but not in the Civic Si/CRX Si/GTI ballpark by a long shot. Surely nothing like an AE86!
You had an FX16 GTS? Or just the normal run of the mill FX?
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:ShadowSix wrote:You had an FX16 GTS? Or just the normal run of the mill FX?pinchvalve wrote:I owned one of these! I totally forgot about them. I guess you could say I wasn't that impressed... Big inside and just as dead reliable as any other '80's 'Yota, but not in the Civic Si/CRX Si/GTI ballpark by a long shot. Surely nothing like an AE86!
Just a regular FX, i guess it was down like 20-30 hp?
ShadowSix wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Just a regular FX, i guess it was down like 20-30 hp?ShadowSix wrote:You had an FX16 GTS? Or just the normal run of the mill FX?pinchvalve wrote:I owned one of these! I totally forgot about them. I guess you could say I wasn't that impressed... Big inside and just as dead reliable as any other '80's 'Yota, but not in the Civic Si/CRX Si/GTI ballpark by a long shot. Surely nothing like an AE86!
Heh, among other things. 
The FX16 GTS is a viable alternative to the GTI/Si things.
The regular FX is more like... a CRX HF.
No one has said a Supra MKIII?
Also I will second the Spitfire, X1/9 and GT V6.
Does the Spitfire count as an 80 Sports car since it died in 1980?
No doubt it's a sports car but they basically just kept using part till they ran out.
humm.
aussiesmg wrote:Javelin wrote:The exception makes the rule but really I stand by my comment, a real sports car has 2 seats. GT cars, sporting cars, pony cars, 2 door sedans and 4 door sedans are not sports cars IMHO. Webster's definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sports%20car sports car noun Definition of SPORTS CAR : a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed drivingaussiesmg wrote: 4 seats does not make a real sports car IMHOPorsche 911, Porsche 944, RX-7 2+2, and Mazda RX-8 all disagree with you strongly.
Hey, check out that strange word in the definition.
FlightService wrote: Does the Spitfire count as an 80 Sports car since it died in 1980? No doubt it's a sports car but they basically just kept using part till they ran out. humm.
I was shocked they made them that long. I have rarely seen any newer than the mid '70's.
I feel like I set a pretty flexible standard for the "'80's" by including the Miata, probably opened up the definition of "sports car" by adding the CRX. I'm no purist.
Cant wait to go hunting for a gti this summer. I have miss the peasure of driving smiple sporty car.
How do C4s handle stock? Haven't driven one IRL but I drove one in a simulator and it had pretty awful "typical muscle car" handling, it was just looking for an excuse to spin out if you took a corner like you were in a hurry. A quick bit of searching seems to back this up.
Wikipedia sez the Fiat 124 was available into the 80's... dunno if that counts as "great"...
stroker wrote: Wikipedia sez the Fiat 124 was available into the 80's... dunno if that counts as "great"...
The purists would disqualify it on the grounds that it had something called a back seat:
GameboyRMH wrote: How do C4s handle stock? Haven't driven one IRL but I drove one in a simulator and it had pretty awful "typical muscle car" handling, it was just looking for an excuse to spin out if you took a corner like you were in a hurry. A quick bit of searching seems to back this up.
The C4 still has one of the most modern suspensions around and huge tires. I've driven 3 different ones, and none of them have been like that (though granted, I was not on a track or auto-x course). C3 on the other hand...
impulsive wrote:
OH! Is that yours? How do you like it? How does it drive? Is it hard to find parts for?
I LOVED the way those cars looked when I was little!
Javelin wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: How do C4s handle stock? Haven't driven one IRL but I drove one in a simulator and it had pretty awful "typical muscle car" handling, it was just looking for an excuse to spin out if you took a corner like you were in a hurry. A quick bit of searching seems to back this up.The C4 still has one of the most modern suspensions around and huge tires. I've driven 3 different ones, and none of them have been like that (though granted, I was not on a track or auto-x course). C3 on the other hand...
Modern suspension or not IMHO it drove like a nose heavy pig with everything being done by the tires and the flexible flyer chassis.
Very, very poor car. The only thing that makes it abysmal existence tolerable is how much worse the C3 was.
It does have one redeeming feature. It paved the road for this
FlightService wrote:Javelin wrote:Modern suspension or not IMHO it drove like a nose heavy pig with everything being done by the tires and the flexible flyer chassis. Very, very poor car. The only thing that makes it abysmal existence tolerable is how much worse the C3 was. It does have one redeeming feature. It paved the road for thisGameboyRMH wrote: How do C4s handle stock? Haven't driven one IRL but I drove one in a simulator and it had pretty awful "typical muscle car" handling, it was just looking for an excuse to spin out if you took a corner like you were in a hurry. A quick bit of searching seems to back this up.The C4 still has one of the most modern suspensions around and huge tires. I've driven 3 different ones, and none of them have been like that (though granted, I was not on a track or auto-x course). C3 on the other hand...
I rather enjoyed the C3. Never really drove them in anger, but I have driven three from vastly different ages and I have liked them all. The C4 I drove (again, not in anger) was fine, too, although I have heard the chassis needs work for track action.
IMO here is the lineage of Corvettes worth owning.
C1-Not the muscle sports car today but more of an american take on a British tradition and a damn fine one at that.
C2- Quite possibly one of the most perfect cars ever built for it's time. Size, power, handling (with the tech of the day), these cars do very well with modern tires and shocks. The fundamentals still hold true
C5 - GM realizes that the corvette for the last two generations has been a laughing stock of the globe and decides to fix it. Still looks like a Pontiac Grand Prix on the interior but you will be going to fast to focus on that.
C6 - I think for the money the fit and finish are a little down on these cars, especially the upper levels ones. The ZR1 has had complaints it wants to kill you as a driver and that the Z06 and Grand Sports are the ones to have if you want to actually drive them. Either way the performance is hard to argue with.
so if the pattern holds, go buy a nice C5 or C6 now because the C7&8 will be junk.
I had an LT1 C4 for a while - the car was pretty flexible with the roof off, but wasn't terrible with it on. I found it incredibly well balanced, steering with the throttle was easy, and understeer was never a problem. Note: stock car with good bilsteins, RA1's, and a good alignment. I found the interior pretty terrible, but handling was definitely NOT the car's weakness.
OH! Is that yours? How do you like it? How does it drive? Is it hard to find parts for?
yes that's one of mine & I love it.
it has a 2.6 swapped in place of the original 2.0. even with the stock undersized turbo it can move quite well, pulls hard in every gear and makes me smile.
pretty agile handling for stock suspension(Lotus) and the skinny moped tires so I anticipate palpable improvements with basic mods & a wide rubber/tire combo. got a Holset to mount up as well as some electronic do-dads. once I sort it out it should be a blast.
maintenance & usual consumable parts are available but beyond that you need to get creative.
You'll need to log in to post.
