Li'ldude
|
...Definitions of a Supercar1) 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'?
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
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
|
"More than 8 cylinders..."
So, that discounts the Porsche 959 and the Jaguar XJ220? I think not.
|
PR
|
Fast
Low
Double-take styling
Loud
Expensive
If a car does not satisfy all of these criteria, it is not a supercar.
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
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
|
Jawdropping
Impractical
Otherworldly
Malevolent (noise, handling or both)
Aspirational
|
Racing
|
As my mother would put it:
..."Capable of snapping knicker elastic from 50 yards"...
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
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!
|
PR
|
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
|
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.
|
kraftwerk
|
| Propellorhead wrote: | | 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. |
You can hardly deny the 220 entry in to the supercar club for this reason, can you? So, if it's not a supercar, does that mean it's just an ordinary motor? Hardly.
And, as far as I'm concerned, the 959 is pretty much up there in supercar terms. Always has been. I mean, just look at it... PHWOAR!
|
M.
|
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.
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| Michael H wrote: | | 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. |
It's about being totally removed from the norm; the problem with a V8 supercar nowadays is that even middling saloons have V8s - it's not special enough. We need some other definition for cars like the 911, V8 Vantage, etc.
|
kraftwerk
|
| Propellorhead wrote: | | Michael H wrote: | | 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. |
It's about being totally removed from the norm; the problem with a V8 supercar nowadays is that even middling saloons have V8s - it's not special enough. We need some other definition for cars like the 911, V8 Vantage, etc. |
See, you're getting bogged down by numbers of cylinders as the key criterion - this way only madness lies. Sorry to bang on about the Porsche 959, but it has six and is every inch the definition of 'supercar'. The McLaren-Mercedes SLR has 'only' eight and is another bona fide example of the breed.
Your equation needs to find a replacement for displacement. It's not the number of cylinders that matters - it's what you do with them that's crucial.
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
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
|
| Twelfth Monkey wrote: | | 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! |
My sort of Orang Utan (In a nitpickitty mood, so technically speaking, it's spelt Orang-Hutan in Iban Malay and means 'Man of the forest') would realise that the McLaren F1 was designed for one thing. Speed, and lots of it. Sure it had 3 seats and something resembling a boot, but it is a raw machine. The Veyron, on the other hand, is about luxury and comfort, and it just happens to have enough power to pull your face off. I think of the Veyron as the ultimate GT car, rather than a supercar. A sort of, Hyperspacial-GT.
Oh, and another vote for the 959, one of the true greats.
|
E36 320i
|
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
|
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.
|
Soulless
|
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
|
Would an F40 beat an F1 on "the twisty bits"??
I thought the Macca was rather a fine-handling machine...
|
D.
|
Apparently it's quite skitish ;)
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
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.
|
alco
|
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
|
| the CSL wrote: | | 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. |
True, in the mid 1980s the 959 was monstrously fast, but the current "regular" turbo would probably beat it. Cue discussion of whether the 997 turbo is a supercar ...
|
Racing
|
A supercar must be judged agaisnt the standards of its day!
|
.
|
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
|
| Propellorhead wrote: | | the CSL wrote: | | 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. |
True, in the mid 1980s the 959 was monstrously fast, but the current "regular" turbo would probably beat it. Cue discussion of whether the 997 turbo is a supercar ...
|
Well, no, the current 997 Turbo is not a supercar - its rivals are the 430; Gallardo; AM Vantage; R8... none of which are supercars. However, the Carerra GT most certainly is, as are Enzo and Murcielago.
The question of whether the current Turbo is faster than the 959 is a moot point as they're from different generations (and I'm not sure whether the current Turbo would outgun a 959 point-to-point on, say, a decent circuit or twisty B-road). A supercar 'then' will always be a supercar - ie Countach, Miura, 959, F40 - supercars all, but superseded in their respective ranges. This doesn't rob them of supercar stauts.
Funny old world, innit?
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| kraftwerk wrote: | | However, the Carerra GT most certainly is, as are Enzo and Murcielago. |
Indeed they are. I was thinking about the Murcie last night, and how it's kind of a bargain in supercar terms. In its latest form, it's actually more powerful than the Zonda F, Carrera GT, and even the McLaren F1, and not far short of the Enzo. Funny old world indeed ...
|
kraftwerk
|
| Propellorhead wrote: | | kraftwerk wrote: | | However, the Carerra GT most certainly is, as are Enzo and Murcielago. |
Indeed they are. I was thinking about the Murcie last night, and how it's kind of a bargain in supercar terms. In its latest form, it's actually more powerful than the Zonda F, Carrera GT, and even the McLaren F1, and not far short of the Enzo. Funny old world indeed ... |
Of the current crop, The Murci is probably my favourite. Imagine you had £200k-or-so to spend on one car - it'd take an awful lot of soul searching to make the right choice. Having said that, I'd probably spend it on a lightly used RR Phantom... another supercar?
|
E36 320i
|
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
|
Murcie LP640 roadster would be my current supercar of choice. Only 211k. *sigh*
|
PR
|
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
|
| Piers wrote: | 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. |
OK, a super car, then. On this we can agree. How that wee space makes all the difference...
|
Mad Max
|
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
|
| Twelfth Monkey wrote: | 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. |
Well Twelfth, how many F1's have you driven today?
Exactly.
|
kraftwerk
|
Touche!
|
Li'ldude
|
Sorry, double post.
Would like to think of something amusing to go in here, but I can't...
|
M.
|
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?
|
Li'ldude
|
Lol (God I hate saying that).
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
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...
|
Sav
|
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
|
And the 959? Supercar.
|
D.
|
It was then, so it still is now.
|
Li'ldude
|
No question the 959 is a supercar. And, while we're on the subject of front-engined supercars, what about the 300SLR?
|
LittleSwill
|
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
|
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.
|
