[gringo]

Originally Posted by JoeCamaro444

You're trying hard, but you're still wrong...

It's not a sports car. The Corvette is a sports car. You want a sports car, then buy a Corvette. Plain and simple.

[JoeCamaro444]

Originally Posted by gringo

It's not a sports car. The Corvette is a sports car. You want a sports car, then buy a Corvette. Plain and simple.

Ok

[DenverTaco07]

this question really gets folks going.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I've given up. I frankly hold to the "historic" definitions but I get why people want to identify with one or the other. But how can it be both?

Good question.

Exactly why the Grand Touring tag is a better 'fit' than either. It implies having power plus handling without being bare-bones minimalist.


With the performance capabilities that these cars have, why aren't we calling them exotics? The sixxer performs at the original Countach level (or better) in every respect other than top speed (which the SS essentially matches and the ZL1 blows away).

Or has the term 'exotic' been granted immunity from being morphed by Polk and the rest of those entities who claim to be The-Ultimate-Authorities-On-Automotive-Category-Naming?


Norm

[gringo]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Good question.

Exactly why the Grand Touring tag is a better 'fit' than either. It implies having power plus handling without being bare-bones minimalist.


With the performance capabilities that these cars have, why aren't we calling them exotics? The sixxer performs at the original Countach level (or better) in every respect other than top speed (which the SS essentially matches and the ZL1 blows away).

Or has the term 'exotic' been granted immunity from being morphed by Polk and the rest of those entities who claim to be The-Ultimate-Authorities-On-Automotive-Category-Naming?


Norm

The type of category a particular vehicle represents is more than just the performance potential. Exotic cars typically have extreme sports car based designs and are designed/manufactured in far away exotic (to us) foreign lands like Italy, etc.

The new SS may completely blow away the original Lambo LP400 and the Ferrari 308 GTB in all performance metrics, but it will never have the panache or appeal those cars had (and still do) no matter how fast it is.

[F1FTY]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

You've just tripped over the poster-boy example for why the meaning of the term 'sports car' needs to be left as close to its original meaning as possible.

4DSC has been a joke among those who actually owned Maximas since the day the tag was first used (the one in my sig is our second, they're not bad at all as FWD sedans but by no stretch of the imagination are they sports cars regardless of door count).


Norm

Tripped, or just pointing out that the term was bastardized so long ago (25+ years now), that its apparent it's not going to be changed back to the glory days.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by gringo

The type of category a particular vehicle represents is more than just the performance potential. Exotic cars typically have extreme sports car based designs and are designed/manufactured in far away exotic (to us) foreign lands like Italy, etc.

The new SS may completely blow away the original Lambo LP400 and the Ferrari 308 GTB in all performance metrics, but it will never have the panache or appeal those cars had (and still do) no matter how fast it is.

So it's OK to dip into the subjectives bag when it suits a person's opinion, but not when it would oppose that position??? I'm not looking at you personally here.

People here and elsewhere tend to look down their noses at such "girly cars" as the Miata . . . and yet they want to identify their Camaros/Mustangs as fitting into that same category? The appeal is certainly different. A Caterham has a panache unlike almost any other (albeit limited) production street-legal car, and I doubt anybody is ever going to call the descendant of a mish-mash of Lotus's 6 and 11 designs 'exotic'.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by F1FTY

Tripped, or just pointing out that the term was bastardized so long ago (25+ years now

However you want to describe it, it was flat-out wrong and is a pretty darn good argument for denying wider applicability of the 'sports car' term.

At best, 4DSS (4 door sport sedan) - a lot closer to the truth and still overstated.


Norm

[gringo]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

So it's OK to dip into the subjectives bag when it suits a person's opinion, but not when it would oppose that position??? I'm not looking at you personally here.

Well, I think there can be some exceptions to the rule especially when referring to those legendary models.

People here and elsewhere tend to look down their noses at such "girly cars" as the Miata . . . and yet they want to identify their Camaros/Mustangs as fitting into that same category? The appeal is certainly different. A Caterham has a panache unlike almost any other (albeit limited) production street-legal car, and I doubt anybody is ever going to call the descendant of a mish-mash of Lotus's 6 and 11 designs 'exotic'.


Norm

That's true. I guess it goes back to the original premise that a sportscar is actually more than the sum of its parts, in many ways. Sure, it has to have only two seats (in my opinion at least), but other factors that determine that definition would have to come together in just the right amounts.

The fact that the Camaro and Mustang now have performance rivaling that of past sports cars and exotics, still does not mean that they are now "sports cars" or "exotic cars".

[Rusty35]

Originally Posted by gringo

The type of category a particular vehicle represents is more than just the performance potential. Exotic cars typically have extreme sports car based designs and are designed/manufactured in far away exotic (to us) foreign lands like Italy, etc.

The new SS may completely blow away the original Lambo LP400 and the Ferrari 308 GTB in all performance metrics, but it will never have the panache or appeal those cars had (and still do) no matter how fast it is.

So can Italians call camaros "exotic"?

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Originally Posted by Rusty35

So can Italians call camaros "exotic"?

Lol

[IMadeYouReadThis]

I guess everybody's got their own opinion on this. For me this is the third straight generation of Camaro that I've owned. The 4th gen was an unruly Beast. You treated her nice or she would throw you into a ditch. Now I had a stripper model of that F body. So it truly was a muscle car

The 5th gen was a nice big car it was a good family Cruiser for me. To me it felt more like a sedan than anything else. It was huge and it had a nice ride. And it was super comfortable I had to throw an editing to come back and put that got to give credit where it's due

The 6th gen is smaller inside than either of the other cars. I had more into your room in the F body then I have in the alpha platform.

The thing about the 6th gen that makes me consider it a sports car is how well at corners how well it can handle while on the road. It just feels like handling Wise It's So Much ahead of my older cars that I really can't compare it to them

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by IMadeYouReadThis

The thing about the 6th gen that makes me consider it a sports car is how well at corners how well it can handle while on the road. It just feels like handling Wise It's So Much ahead of my older cars that I really can't compare it to them

So let me ask you this . . .

If Mazda was to suddenly upsize their Miata just a couple of inches here and a couple more there so they could fit a 3.5L V8 (and just for grins let's make that a pushrod V8 with a carburetor-looking throttle-body injection setup a la Holley's NASCAR Cup device sitting on top of it all) . . . would anybody here then start calling Miatas "muscle cars". It'd really be the same thing, just seen from a different perspective.


I'm fully aware of how far the Camaro and the Mustang have come as corner-carving cars since their humble beginnings. It's why I even own the car in my sig; I'm really a sports car guy at heart, just with a preference for more power than what most of the traditional sports cars ever offered.

If 50 years ago you'd told me that some day the Camaros would be crowding 1g in the corners straight off the production line (and exceeding that in some trims) I'd have accused your imagination of being aided by some sort of illegal chemistry. But here we are, with the capabilities having changed very much for the better . . . in cars that really haven't changed all that much otherwise as cars meant to be driven.


Norm

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

So let me ask you this . . .

If Mazda was to suddenly upsize their Miata just a couple of inches here and a couple more there so they could fit a 3.5L V8 (and just for grins let's make that a pushrod V8 with a carburetor-looking throttle-body injection setup a la Holley's NASCAR Cup device sitting on top of it all) . . . would anybody here then start calling Miatas "muscle cars". It'd really be the same thing, just seen from a different perspective.


I'm fully aware of how far the Camaro and the Mustang have come as corner-carving cars since their humble beginnings. It's why I even own the car in my sig; I'm really a sports car guy at heart, just with a preference for more power than what most of the traditional sports cars ever offered.

If 50 years ago you'd told me that some day the Camaros would be crowding 1g in the corners straight off the production line (and exceeding that in some trims) I'd have accused your imagination of being aided by some sort of illegal chemistry. But here we are, with the capabilities having changed very much for the better . . . in cars that really haven't changed all that much otherwise as cars meant to be driven.


Norm

So, now we are reduced to considering contrived hypotheticals vs what manufacturers actually are telling the press what the cars they make are. Seems normal.