The Motor Forum

Li'ldude · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: ...Definitions of a Supercar

1) Visually Stunning (Maybe not beautiful, but something that makes you look again)
2) Crudeness (Don't think that the Veyron couts as a supercar, too luxurious)
3) Rarity (Not 'Ford GT' rare but 'Lancia Stratos' rare)
4) Evil-mindedness (A handful on a bad day)
5) Price (Of just about everything, fuel, oil, tyres. Everything execpt the bloke behind the wheel)

No mention of speed or power, because we'd get drawn into an argument about 'Is the E63 a supercar'?
_________________
Ode to Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. W and the Northstar.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:58 am Post subject:

Visually stunning: agree with the above - the Enzo is not beautiful by any conventional judgement, but it looks spectacular. This also includes "openings" - doors, engine cover, etc. shouldn't be conventional. You need to be able to admire beautifully crafted suspension and drivetrain components.

More than 8 cylinders: I realise this knocks out some worthy contenders (and I might have to allow an exemption for the K'egg), but when even mid-range saloons have V8s, a supercar needs something more. A V10 is the absolute minimum, but really a V12 is what you need.

Mid engine: the Ferrari 599 is a super car, but not a supercar; rather it's the highest evolution of the GT

Ultra high performance: for just over 60k, you can buy a comfy and roomy five seater saloon that will get from 0-100 mph in less than 10 seconds. A supercar needs to be an order of magnitude faster. And it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any car whose top speed is artificially limited is not a supercar ...

Italian: sorry, that's where supercars come from - case closed

kraftwerk · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:08 am Post subject:

"More than 8 cylinders..."

So, that discounts the Porsche 959 and the Jaguar XJ220? I think not.
_________________
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.

PR · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject:

Fast
Low
Double-take styling
Loud
Expensive

If a car does not satisfy all of these criteria, it is not a supercar.
_________________

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject:

Well, I wasn't the only disappointed person when the XJ220 went from the V12 of the prototype to the V6 of the production model. Any fool can stick turbos on a more prosaic engine and claim it's a suitable powerplant for a supercar, but I won't be agreeing with them.

Stuntman · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:

Jawdropping
Impractical
Otherworldly
Malevolent (noise, handling or both)
Aspirational
_________________
Drifting through life

Racing · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:40 pm Post subject:

As my mother would put it:

..."Capable of snapping knicker elastic from 50 yards"...
_________________

Twelfth Monkey · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject:

From the original post:

Crudeness (I assume that's what you mean.)

I can't imagine what kind of Orang Utan one would have to be to consider the F1 crude, and if that's excluded from anyone's list, they should take up crochet!
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

PR · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject:

I tend to agree, Simon. I don't buy the macho bullshit about great cars having to be a handful to drive, either. If a car is difficult to drive, it's a crap car.
_________________

Stuntman · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject:

Piers, I'd qualify that slightly. A car that's difficult to drive for the majority (i.e. less skilled) but is predictable and rewarding for the skilled minority is bang-on supercar territory in my book.
_________________
Drifting through life

kraftwerk · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject:

M. · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject:

I'd say the Mercedes 300SL 'Gullwing' was the original supercar and that on;y had 6 cylinders. I think the word that sums that up, and should some up all supercars was Bespoke.
_________________
Generic reply key:
1. Happy birthday
2. Congratulations
3.

4. Good luck
5. Buy a mac

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject:

kraftwerk · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject:

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject:

Well, let's look at it this way. That is my definition. You have yours. They aren't necessarily the same, but there is no "right" one.

Li'ldude · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject:

E36 320i · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject:

The F1 raw? Is this the car that is known for its remarkabe on-road composure at high speeds?

What I think makes a Supercar (and this allows for the XJ220 and 959) is what was around at the time that was fast, but not a supercar. So when the 959 was around, it and the F40 were clearly a massive step on from the Testarossa and 911 Turbo.
_________________

Li'ldude · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject:

Well, the F1's not exactly a Rolls-Royce is it?
And, it was designed for speed, so a F40 beat it in the twisty bits.
_________________
Ode to Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. W and the Northstar.

Soulless · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject:

In my eyes a super car is defined by: Is it defining of its era? Is it ground breaking in technology? Outstanding merit in motor sports? Revolutionary in its design then and now? Is it still as great a car now as it was then?

Racing · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject:

Would an F40 beat an F1 on "the twisty bits"??

I thought the Macca was rather a fine-handling machine...
_________________

D. · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject:

Apparently it's quite skitish ;)

Twelfth Monkey · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:17 am Post subject:

Perhaps the smallest dude would care to tell us how many of these vehicles he's driven? Surely he's not just regurgitating received wisdom?

Exactly.
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

alco · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:29 am Post subject:

1. A single row of seats (was going to say two, but the F1 has three)

2. Outlandish looks

3. Very Fast

4. Sonorous

5. Large (McLaren F1 about the minimum length)

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject:

Racing · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject:

A supercar must be judged agaisnt the standards of its day!
_________________

. · Dieselhead My Car: . Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 7595

I dont think you can quantify what makes a "supercar", by having is it load, outlandish exspensive etc etc looking at what people have written, because there is always an exception to the rule or criteria you have laid down. XJ220 or Porchse for example.

You could class an Aerial Atom as a Supercar, but it doesn't fit into some of the aforementioned criterias people have laid down, but will fit into other peoples ideas.

IMHO soulless is pretty close. For me the Lamborghini Miura is a Supercar, it was started it off and was ground breaking at the time. A more modern day supercar could be seen as Nissan Skyline. You could class the M5 Touring or RS4 Avant as supercars.

Thats not to say the likes of Aston, Ferrari and Lamborghini etc are not supercars, I just thinking trying to create a set of quantities to judge them buy wont work as ther is always likely to be the exception, and thats a good thing, niec to see manufactorers thinking out the box and interpereting their idea of a suprcar.

kraftwerk · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject:

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject:

kraftwerk · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject:

E36 320i · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject:

I think my money would go on either a Murcie or 599 GTB right now. That would be one heck of a choice to make.

Jut seen the poll options. Throwing aftermarket tuning parts at a bought-in engine, does not a supercar make, IMHO.

McLaren worked with BMW to get a bespoke engine. Ferrari and Lamborghini's use bespoke engines. Chucking a Mustang lump into a Qvale and adding the full Roush (or whoever) catalogue at it, certainly doesn't qualify as a supercar to me.
_________________

Dr. Hfuhruhurr · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject:

Murcie LP640 roadster would be my current supercar of choice. Only 211k. *sigh*

PR · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject:

I don't think the Phantom is a supercar. It's a super car, but not a supercar.

It's more like the ultimate expression of the motor car.
_________________

kraftwerk · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:

Mad Max · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject:

Didn't really realise they could be so much debate over a supercar. IMO anything above M3/911 is a supercar.

If the Gallardo isn't a supercar then what is it?

Li'ldude · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject:

kraftwerk · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject:

Touche!
_________________
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.

Li'ldude · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject:

Sorry, double post.
Would like to think of something amusing to go in here, but I can't...
_________________
Ode to Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. W and the Northstar.

M. · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject:

I suppose the question isn't what makes a car super but instead what would happen if you stuck it on a conveyor belt where the belt exactley matched the speed of the wheels? Perhaps the front would get covered in flies?
_________________
Generic reply key:
1. Happy birthday
2. Congratulations
3.

4. Good luck
5. Buy a mac

Li'ldude · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject:

Lol (God I hate saying that).
_________________
Ode to Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. W and the Northstar.

Twelfth Monkey · Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:

None, wee dude. But then I'm not the one claiming that car x is raw and car Y isn't. The onus of proof would therefore seem to be upon you to demonstrate that you've some reason for holding what appear slightly contentious views.

I know someone who has been driven in an F1. I have many articles from its time in production and I have accounts of driving it in two or three books. Crude it isn't, surely you can see that?

Either that or you could continue with the petulance...
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

Sav · Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject:

Supercars have to be mid-engined, examples of supercars are the Ferrari F430 and the Lamborhini Gallardo.

Hypercars (as I like to call them) are cars like the Lambo Murcielago, Pagani Zonda, Ferrari Enzo and Porsche Carrera GT and Mclaren F1.

Cars like the Mclaren-Mercedes SLR and Ferrari 599 GTB are very fast cars. But unfortunately at the end of the day their still both comfy, relaxing GT cars despite their fericous speed.
_________________

kraftwerk · Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:29 am Post subject:

And the 959? Supercar.
_________________
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.

D. · Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:40 am Post subject:

It was then, so it still is now.

Li'ldude · Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:26 am Post subject:

No question the 959 is a supercar. And, while we're on the subject of front-engined supercars, what about the 300SLR?
_________________
Ode to Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. W and the Northstar.

LittleSwill · Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject:

This will probably get laughed at but what about a Delta S4 Stradale? It fulfills all the above requirements. Is it possible to have a 4 pot supercar? What about the 037?

Lil - do you think the Stratos is a supercar?
_________________

woof woof · Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject:

Passionate.
Inspirational.
Aspirational.
Unattainable (or almost, well, for most of us when new anyway.)
Cutting edge.

I think it's come to mean fast also but I don't think that speed is an absolute requirement. I wouldn't see sound or
outlandish looks as a requirement either.