VR-4, correct me if im wrong, but i didnt i say that is something that defines a sports car to "ME"? OBVIOUSLY by having ME in there, its an opinionated response, no something that is official.

Im simply trying to open the eyes of people who define what a sports car is. And since there isnt an exact definition of it ( i know there isnt because i read an article about it from the creator of the RX-8, as to what he "thought" a "sports car" was) why dont we all look at this like simple minded adults before snapping at eachother. Take the basic words SPORTS and CAR and lets see what they mean seperate and then try and apply them towards one another. Because unless either one of u two has a PHD and can write a book on what a sports car is and have a huge fan base to agree with you, im afraid that this arguement could last forever.

SPORTS
Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
A particular form of this activity.
An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
An active pastime; recreation.

CAR
An automobile.
A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on rails: a railroad car.
A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on a conveyance: an elevator car.
The part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo.

Now where in there does it define what you think a sports car is, or what i think one is? So before you go and type judgements about people (ie and that thing about "I drive a stock civic.................i will never understand" comments like that are stupid, its like you stand on some high horse because your older than me and you drive an S2k? Oh well, i guess ill understand why you make comments like that, when i reach that pinacle ripe age of 24

 

shut up, bitch.

 

look to me like the general concenses on this site is that sports cars consist of or are closely related to the following:


supercars
GT cars
rally cars

and.. underpowered overpriced econoboxes, FWD with 4 doors.


it is apparent that this thread accomplishes nothing. self brainwashed opinions will not change any time soon

 

shut up, bitch.

 

I am not going to debate what is a sports car and what is not, because what does it matter. What matters is what gets you around the track fast. What I am going to debate is the fact that S2000s, Miatas, MR2s, etc are better engineered because they can get around a tight autocross fast. They do well on an autocross course because that are small not necessarily better engineered. Most Solo II style autocrosses will favor small cars because they are so tight and the gates a so narrow that the sheer fact that your car is narrower and shorter is an advantage. You basically have more room to maneuver. I am not sure this means better engineering, maybe if all people did with cars was drive around a tight autocross course. Yes I have autocrossed both large and small cars, f-bodies and vettes to 1g DSMs to little formula cars.

In my opinion the Road Course is going to tell you best about the complete package of the car. You need both handling and hp to do well.

 

Where in the world do you get that? I have never seen a comparison of the 2 cars where it was thought that the Mustang was the better handling car. In any of the race series that require the cars to keep the stock suspension (T2, American Sedan, and Motorola Cup) the f-body dominates the mustang. It is generally known that the Mustangs suspension geometry is not the best design and that is why you will find that, in series that it is allowed, the old suspension is ripped out and basically replaced with a completely new geometry suspension. This would be something like a full Griggs suspension. The American Iron series allows this and here the Mustangs have been doing well because they now handle better and are easier to make into a lighter race car than the f-body. The f-body on the other hand has a very good suspension design and generally does not need any change in geometry to improve handling, just a change in spring/ bar rates and the stiffening of parts. This is not a flame, just facts.

 

but the s2000 is a convertable. And by your defination of a sports car (vtecnology) a convertable isnt purpose built for the race track. Actually its on the other end of being luxury/cruiser.

If it was ment to be on a race track, why would honda waste their time making the chassis heavier and less rigid by putting a soft top? It would obviously be lighter, handle better, achieve a higher top speed if it was a hard top. Do they leave it up to companys like mugen to make a 8000$ cf one? The same applies to miata...and the elise ( not 100% sure because thats not a convertable per se, it just has a removable T-Top)

I'am just trying to understand the logistics of making a "sports car" that is purpose built from the ground up to be on a race track....a convertable. Unless there is a technical advantage I'am not aware of; a convertable soft top is a mistake.

 

If the car was designed from the ground up as a convertible it doesn't hamper it's performance at all. An S200 is not totally wothout compromise though. I think the main reason it was built as a drop top was because the old S600- S800 were drop tops. An Elise however is without a doubt a hardcore no compromise sports car. I think an S2000 is the closest a nomal person will come to an all out sports car though.

 

Stock for stock an S2000 will beat almost any F-body around most road courses. Both track events I've been to (Road Atlanta and Laguna Seca) S2000 in the hands of a proffesional driver were faster than any of the F-bodies (I don't know who was driving the F-bodies). It was honestly amazing to see how much ground the S2000s would pick up in the tighter parts of the track. In the long open parts, the F-bodies would catch up though. Don't take anything the wrong way...Like I said, I'm not downgrading a car or it's abilites just because it's not labeled as a sports car.

 

So the s2k is a convertable first, then a sports car 2nd.

That imo is not a sports car.