Originally Posted by Brent
You had me untill you went there Brent. Blasphemey!
Truth is that the term needs to apply to vintage cars as well. Given some of the above, that would be impossible.
There is an old saying amoung airplane guys, "Real Airplanes have two wings and round engines." Some of those old kites were very underpowered but the experience of flying them was very
real.
I would say sports cars have a similar mantra, "real sports cars have two seats, a rag top, and manual transmisions."
Having driven an SRT autostick, I'll cut you all some slack on the manual tranny.
roadster with a stick.
A real sports car has two seats blah blah blah. But that is one definition of a sports car. If a car has superior acceleration, superior handling, superior braking; and has all of these features not because they are needed but has them just because they make the car fun to drive, well then that's a sports car to me. And I don't need a rag top or two seats to have fun in such a car, though a rag top and limited seating helps. Now if a car has these fun to drive features just because, and also happens to have a rear seat and four doors, well that's a sports sedan to me.
I'm thinking more that a definition of a sports car be based on what the car can do, and not on it's configuration. An alternate criteria is any car Consumer Reports does not "get".
Two wings and round engines. Would that be radial or rotary engines? Real airplanes also have a tailwheel.[/quote
]
By your definition my 69 Barracuda was a sports car, and so was my 75 Oldsmobile Starfire. Hell, throw in the 60 Chevy impala 348 with tripower, ragtop and manual trans.
All were fun cars, High performers in their niche and turned heads.
None were sports cars. Not even close.
That would be radial engines as rotary engine, AKA Wankel, were not round, they were curved triangles.
roadster with a stick.