How would you define a Supercar?

[lfb666]

0-60mph under 4.0 seconds?
Price?
Company?
Country?
good performance?
good handling?
other?

[Batmobile_Turbo]

It would have to have a 0-60 in about 3.5, not just under 4. it would have to be over 100,000 just to be out of price range of the people who actually want it ;) it be preferably mid-engined but doesn't have to be. Has to be very exclusive, not more than 500 or so built. also, Not nessesarily superb handling but just enough to handle it's power and a little more. It also must be tempermental and high-maintainence. It has to have a cool name like Zonda or Fulgura. And lastly, it has to have an interior that makes you feel like you're Batman. :cool:

[Homem de Gelo]

Supercars are cars that, in one way or many, represent an exageration of the possibilities and characteristics of common cars. For example, my 4 banger 1.0 gets me 35-40mpg, which is normal.However, I'd call it a supercar if it got me 70mpg and had the same performance simply because that is, considering today's automotive standards, way above the normal. I'd also consider it a supercar if it's engine produced 200hp straight out of the factory and still got 35mpg, not because 200hp is a monstruosity, but because it certainly would be unheard of in today's scenario.

Supercars are all about exageration.

Exotics are cars that, IMO, must be very rare, valuable, desirable and hold at least some historical importance.

Too help you put things in perspective:

supercars - porsche 911 GT2, ferrari 360 modena...
exotics - porsche gt1, ferrari f40...

[Homem de Gelo]

By the way, a tuned Supra with 800hp would be a supercar, because 800hp is way above the normal and average of the cars made today, but it wouldn't be an exotic because it would fail the desirability and historical value items.

[fpv_gtho]

if it has too much power
handles too good
weighs too little
stops too good
and above all costs too much its a supercar to me

[baddabang]

if it has too much power
handles too good
weighs too little
stops too good
and above all costs too much its a supercar to me

haha very well put :p

[crisis]

My definition would be that they set a new level for speed, power, acceleration, handling, and braking. They are road registerable versions of racing cars.

[Swissbeatz]

By the way, a tuned Supra with 800hp would be a supercar, because 800hp is way above the normal and average of the cars made today, but it wouldn't be an exotic because it would fail the desirability and historical value items.

For me a super car must be car who can beat 0-100km/h in 5.0 sec without any mods. It must be STOCK.

[lfb666]

I found the following definition in the internet:

to qualify as a super car have all of the bellow:

1. the visibility of the rearview window is the size of the hole in the dounut.
2. your car has a spoiler or a diffuser.
3. you can barely say the cars name.
4. it can go to at least 200 mph
5. you can't speak to your passenger over the engine noise.
6. your car is at least takes up 90% of the lane.
7. your insurance is more than your house bills.
8. teenagers gaw at the site of the car.
9. you would never give the keys of the car to the valet person.
10. your car does not have a 10 year/100,000 mile warrinty (if it has one)

My definition:
You CAN NOT define a supercar by engine location and number of doors/seats/cylinders/seconds for 0-60.
Seems to me a lot of people have different opinions on the definition of a supercar.
Steve Saleen's definition of a supercar doesn't apply to everything.
For me, Bugatti Royale is a Supercar.

[Batmobile_Turbo]

I found the following definition in the internet:

to qualify as a super car have all of the bellow:

1. the visibility of the rearview window is the size of the hole in the dounut.
2. your car has a spoiler or a diffuser.
3. you can barely say the cars name.
4. it can go to at least 200 mph
5. you can't speak to your passenger over the engine noise.
6. your car is at least takes up 90% of the lane.
7. your insurance is more than your house bills.
8. teenagers gaw at the site of the car.
9. you would never give the keys of the car to the valet person.
10. your car does not have a 10 year/100,000 mile warrinty (if it has one)

My definition:
You CAN NOT define a supercar by engine location and number of doors/seats/cylinders/seconds for 0-60.
Seems to me a lot of people have different opinions on the definition of a supercar.
Steve Saleen's definition of a supercar doesn't apply to everything.
For me, Bugatti Royale is a Supercar.
i think that the definition of a supercar varys by the time period. like the Shelby Cobra was a supercar back when it was out, but is now a "classic"

[DiabloGTR]

A car that can go 0-60mph in under 4.5 seconds. I don't think you can just call any powerful exotic car a supercar. It all just depends on your point of view.
For example, to me a Porsche 911 GT2 is a supercar, while an Aston Martin DB7 is not.

i think that the definition of a supercar varys by the time period

Even some older cars like the Porsche 959 and Ferrari 288 GTO would be considered supercars in todays' world. Doesn't matter if they are older, they can still kick ass.

[Batmobile_Turbo]

A car that can go 0-60mph in under 4.5 seconds. I don't think you can just call any powerful exotic car a supercar. It all just depends on your point of view.
For example, to me a Porsche 911 GT2 is a supercar, while an Aston Martin DB7 is not.

i think that the definition of a supercar varys by the time period

Even some older cars like the Porsche 959 and Ferrari 288 GTO would be considered supercars in todays' world. Doesn't matter if they are older, they can still kick ass.
late eighties to today is the same time peiriod supercar-wise

[crisis]

[QUOTE=lfb666]I found the following definition in the internet:

to qualify as a super car have all of the bellow:

1. the visibility of the rearview window is the size of the hole in the dounut.
2. your car has a spoiler or a diffuser.
3. you can barely say the cars name.
4. it can go to at least 200 mph
5. you can't speak to your passenger over the engine noise.
6. your car is at least takes up 90% of the lane.
7. your insurance is more than your house bills.
8. teenagers gaw at the site of the car.
9. you would never give the keys of the car to the valet person.
10. your car does not have a 10 year/100,000 mile warrinty (if it has one)

QUOTE]
Thats about it.

[NAZCA C2]

I would say a supercar is a car that is rare and has performance well in excess of your average car. Something like the car below.http://www.ascari.net

[hunkyweasel]

it must be over 600hp and must have corbon-fiber or aluminium bodywork like ascari a 10 and must be produced limited numbers must have unique specs ( like 4 turbo ) (like laraki fulgura or veyron)

[roosterjuicer]

it must be over 600hp and must have corbon-fiber or aluminium bodywork like ascari a 10 and must be produced limited numbers must have unique specs ( like 4 turbo ) (like laraki fulgura or veyron)

i agree with the above 600hp for now. but i also consider the f40 to be a super car and that had less than 600hp. i dont really consider a z06 to be a super car even though it has the speed requirement it doesn't have the same "supercarness" exemplified by cars like the carerra gt, f40, enzo, bugatti eb110 and veyron, jaguar xj220, mclarean f1, ect...

[Ferrer]

i agree with the above 600hp for now. but i also consider the f40 to be a super car and that had less than 600hp. i dont really consider a z06 to be a super car even though it has the speed requirement it doesn't have the same "supercarness" exemplified by cars like the carerra gt, f40, enzo, bugatti eb110 and veyron, jaguar xj220, mclarean f1, ect...
But the F40 is from 1987. Since then things have moved. ;)

[Niko_Fx]

But the F40 is from 1987.

Year in which this thread was made.

[roosterjuicer]

But the F40 is from 1987. Since then things have moved. ;)

i think you are missing my point. my point is although the f40 has less than 600hp and was made in 1987, i still consider it to definately be a super car so its a tough definition.

[2ndclasscitizen]

I think since performance specs on supercars have moved on so much, that Top Gear's idea of the "hypercar" holds a fair bit of merit. I'd call cars like the Asacri KZ1, 997 Turbo, F430, Gallardo, Z06, etc supercars, whilst stuff like the Zonda's, Enzo, Murcie, et al are in the realm of the hypercar.

[clutch-monkey]

supercars should do everything a normal car does but faster
hypercars should just be stupid fast, no matter how impractical
hm kinda hard to determine i guess :)

[SlickHolden]

Speed handling and no creature comforts. And a look that says "don't dare think more then 2 are getting in, And don't think your taking me shopping and forget the boot you don't get one"

[roosterjuicer]

"don't dare think more then 2 are getting in,

so do you not consider the maclaren f1 to be a super car? that seats three:p

[SlickHolden]

so do you not consider the maclaren f1 to be a super car? that seats three:p
Ok shut up smart arse! lol:p

[roosterjuicer]

Ok shut up smart arse! lol:p

haha i couldn't resist

[SlickHolden]

haha i couldn't resist
When i get in there is only 2 seats:D

[clutch-monkey]

hahah he's got you there rooster :D

[SlickHolden]

Elbows flying cheeks out:p who would share a car with me:D. I seen tiff neddell get in the mclaren and he had trouble i might not even get in the door:p

[Ferrer]

i think you are missing my point. my point is although the f40 has less than 600hp and was made in 1987, i still consider it to definately be a super car so its a tough definition.
Well I still think the car has to be seen in its context. While a Cayman could outrun a Miura today, the Miura still is a supercar while the Cayman isn't.

[roosterjuicer]

Well I still think the car has to be seen in its context. While a Cayman could outrun a Miura today, the Miura still is a supercar while the Cayman isn't.

i guess i never really considered the miura to be a super car...diablo definately tho

[Vaigra]

The Miura was the first supercar to utilise the mid-engine layout. It's definately a supercar.

[roosterjuicer]

The Miura was the first supercar to utilise the mid-engine layout. It's definately a supercar.

i dunno if being mid engined justifies supercardome...unless of course the mercedes slr maclaren isn't a supercar...

what are the specs on the miura, i dont know much about it.

[Ferrer]

i dunno if being mid engined justifies supercardome...unless of course the mercedes slr maclaren isn't a supercar...

what are the specs on the miura, i dont know much about it.
175mph in 1966 definitely warrants a place in the supercar club.

[nota]

The Miura was the first supercar to utilise the mid-engine layout. It's definately a supercar.
Did it precede Ford's GT40 in particular the MkIII? :confused:

[Jack_Bauer]

I thought the Miura was the first car to use a V12 in a mid-engine layout, rather than being the first mid-engined car per se. Could be wrong though. :confused:

[Ferrer]

Did it precede Ford's GT40 in particular the MkIII? :confused:
I think it is the case, by one year.

[nota]

I think it is the case, by one year.
Thanks mate. A quick squiz of the UCP database suggests that both models debuted in 1967

[Ferrer]

Thanks mate. A quick squiz of the UCP database suggests that both models debuted in 1967
I have a book which says that the Miura actually debuted in 1966, altough I've also find information hinting at a '66 debut for the Mk III as well. However technically this is irrelevant because both are predated by Pininfarina's '65 250 LM Speciale, an attemp to disguise the 250LM as a road going GT.

[nota]

Could be wrong but I vaguely recall reading about and seeing pics of an early Ford GT(40?) that was sold into private hands in the UK equipped with wire wheels and road-registration, which might have a chance of predating that Fazz you mention

[nota]

175mph in 1966 definitely warrants a place in the supercar club.
And Pegaso would rate as a bona fide supercar to my lexicon

[kingofthering]

Only 3 GT40s were converted to street use.

[Ferrer]

Only 3 GT40s were converted to street use.
31 Mk III road going versions were actually made between 1966 (1967?) and 1968.

[nota]

Only 3 GT40s were converted to street use.
Not according to this dubious source (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=2178) ;)

Wikipedia lists 31 built of the later MkIII model

[roosterjuicer]

not to change the subject but do you guys consider an nsx to be a supercar?

i know when it first came out it was coined as the "everyday supercar". and i think the price is pretty close to supercar standards, however i think the performance is definately lacking. what is your take on the nsx's supercar status?

[Ferrer]

not to change the subject but do you guys consider an nsx to be a supercar?

i know when it first came out it was coined as the "everyday supercar". and i think the price is pretty close to supercar standards, however i think the performance is definately lacking. what is your take on the nsx's supercar status?
I personally don't think it can be considered a supercar. As you pointed out it's not fast enough, not exclusive enough, not expensive enough. And may I add a V6 isn't enough either.

[nota]

Are the various solid selling flat-6 Porsche 911s of similar era to NSX also not considered to be a supercar?

[Cyco]

I wouldn't consider any, other than the original Turbo to be in that class

[jcp123]

Supercar:

Impractical, uncomfortable, overpriced, and cartoonishly styled car bought my men who feel the need to make up for a lack of... :rolleyes:

[Ferrer]

Are the various solid selling flat-6 Porsche 911s of similar era to NSX also not considered to be a supercar?
No, I don't consider any 911 to be a supercar. The 911-based 959 is though.

[clutch-monkey]

i dunno if being mid engined justifies supercardome...unless of course the mercedes slr maclaren isn't a supercar...

the mercedes maclaren is mid engined, if you think about it...the engine is behind the front axle. Just because you sit behind it doesn't change that :D


Are the various solid selling flat-6 Porsche 911s of similar era to NSX also not considered to be a supercar?
no
too practical, lol.

[roosterjuicer]

the mercedes maclaren is mid engined, if you think about it...the engine is behind the front axle. Just because you sit behind it doesn't change that :D

pssshhhh then i guess a 350z is mid engined too :cool:

[2ndclasscitizen]

pssshhhh then i guess a 350z is mid engined too :cool:

No, the 350Z isn't midengined. Look at a picture of the SLR's engine bay and look how far back the engine is.

[roosterjuicer]

to me, the only way to have a truly midengined car is for the engine to be right behind the driver pretty much in the middle of the car.

[Mr.Tiv]

No, the 350Z isn't midengined.
Are you sure? I recall reading that engine is completely behind the front axle, which would make it front-mid-engined. It's even what the name of the platform derives from, is it not?

[Jack_Bauer]

Are you sure? I recall reading that engine is completely behind the front axle, which would make it front-mid-engined. It's even what the name of the platform derives from, is it not?
Nope, the 350Z is definitely front engined. Take a look at this press shot - http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=103915&d=1114186511


to me, the only way to have a truly midengined car is for the engine to be right behind the driver pretty much in the middle of the car.

A mid-engined car is one in which the bulk of the engine's mass resides somewhere between the front and rear wheel-centre lines. That can either be in front of the driver or behind. Something like a Caterham or any other Lotus 7 replica would be a mid-engined car, not really front-engined, as the engine sits very clearly behind the front axle, in the middle of the car. In fact it's probably more mid-engined than a supercar like a Lambo Diablo where the bulk of the engine sits virtually on the rear axle.

[Mr.Tiv]

Nope, the 350Z is definitely front engined. Take a look at this press shot
Fair enough, I'm sure that I read it was front mid, though. I hate being misinformed.

[Kitdy]

A mid-engined car is one in which the bulk of the engine's mass resides somewhere between the front and rear wheel-centre lines. That can either be in front of the driver or behind. Something like a Caterham or any other Lotus 7 replica would be a mid-engined car, not really front-engined, as the engine sits very clearly behind the front axle, in the middle of the car. In fact it's probably more mid-engined than a supercar like a Lambo Diablo where the bulk of the engine sits virtually on the rear axle.

J_B, I thought that cars like the Caterham and the like are still front engined, but they are called front-mid engined as the engine is behind the front axle but ahead of the driver, just like you coulfd (and probably should) cal a mid engine in the rear a rear-midengine (behind the driver, in front of the rear axle). This would mean there are 4 engine layouts, not 3:

Front
Front-Mid
Rear-Mid
Rear

This would mean that the definition of the "middle" is essentially the driver.

What say you?

[CdocZ]

This would mean that the definition of the "middle" is essentially the driver.

What say you?

I say we revert back to the Flinstone's type of cars so there can be a real mid-"engined" car again :p

[Kitdy]

I say we revert back to the Flinstone's type of cars so there can be a real mid-"engined" car again :p

1 hp = 1 humanpower!

[orshow]

Jaguar XJ220, defined