Talk:Sports car

message: As much as this is intended to be an encyclopedia, the article fails in doing its primary job, which is, to define a sports car.
If information is verifiable it doesn't mean straight away it is accurate. Now according to the latest edits a sports car hapens to be tied to an specific engine layout, seat layout, drive and now it even has to be open-roof, quite funny.
The article has to be reworked.
Start with: Sports Cars originally come from Motor Sport; What you need in motorsports is what you find in a sports car, then the other things as comfort, layout, are not determinant, a given sports car can be luxurious and other stripped down; one sports car can be FF, other MR; One can be low and with stiff suspension other can be high and with soft suspension; One can be street legal another can be track-only...
A tag has been added  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.232 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics and Definition of a Sports Car

message: "MR is a layout found only in sports cars"? Is this a fact? The Zundapp Janus minicar used this arrangement and I don't thnk anybody can call that a sports car.  // Liftarn
:There are other examples. Also, I think it's pretty daring to say that Porsche is The Only RR-using manufacturer. It is or will probably be wrong without exclusions. You can exclude DMC as dead, maybe, but how about RUF, for example?
:: RUFs are derived from Porsches so they don't really count. // Liftarn
This is probably really old now but the Tata Nano is RR and so is the Smart for 2, neither are sports cars.(94.3.100.240 (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: What Sam and I are trying to say is that, in an encyclopedia, we cannot be inventing anything, or even trying to make strict definitions for terms that are vague in popular usage.  Instead, we need to rely on what the world says, even if (in your opinion) "they" are "wrong".  It's not like we're dealing with facts here - if we were talking about the exact horsepower or wheelbase of a car, then the minority would win because they are correct.  But for vague categories, the minority does not win.
Jon, We all have been trying to reach a compromise with you on this topic (look at the very non-negative answers above) but you seem to just continue arguing the point.  Even after you concede that power and weight are not the strict definitions of a sports car or supercar, you keep coming back to those particular elements.  I think the time has come to stop talking about this.
I will not respond to anymore argument on this point, and will not engage in a revert war about it.  Instead, I will follow the concensus of the community whatever that may be.
I propose a straw poll on the categorizing vehicles in their respective talk sections.  In other words, we add a straw poll to the Mustang, Corvette, Murcielago, etc asking for votes on the definition.  Since we are dealing with matters of opinion rather than fact, we can rely on a democratic process for this.
Please, everyone, vote on the question in the following articles:
* Talk:Chevrolet Corvette
* Talk:Ford Mustang
* Talk:Honda NSX
* Talk:Lamborghini Murcielago
* Talk:Mazda Miata
* Talk:Toyota MR2
Thank you.  --SFoskett 13:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
: If it's clear that the term is clouded, why not say so! Document different uses and views and related terms and cars that may/may not qualify.
Please note that the Ford Mustang page has ignored the vote count and kept "Class:  Sports car" in the table.  I deleted the "best selling sports car" title from automotive superlatives because that is too vague a title to be listed.  David R. Ingham 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion of the argument

message: For your information, there is currently an Article for deletion vote regarding the Fisker Coachbuild car manufacturer here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisker. You may wish to comment on this. --Edcolins 09:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisker Coachbuild 

message: It seems to me that this postpones the central part of the definition, which is a low center of gravity for better car handling, reduced risk of rollover and braking.  Since, on public roads, speed is usually limited by safety considerations, these are much more important than acceleration or top speed.  Some sports cars have jump seats and the Morgan four seater has full rear seats in place of luggage space.  Something about being low, and why, must be at the very top.  This is what I have seen in dictionaries.
More precisely, it is a question of what thrills one.  The cars for people who are thrilled by acceleration or gas economy have other names like muscle car, microcar and Hybrid vehicle.  Sports cars are intended to be fun for people who like handling.  David R. Ingham 08:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "While opinions differ as to the exact definition, most sports cars have two seats and two doors, and are designed to provide excellent acceleration, top speed, and good looks." 

message: An article in Motor magazine compared sports cars and the editor's race prepared sedan.  The last word from the editor was that the racing tyres made it faster (in the handling sense) than the sports cars.  The trouble with that is that, though it did go around curves faster, its cornering was limited by rollover instead of by adhesion!  David R. Ingham 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anecdote 

message: That, if true, must be because of the Edsel/Mustang principle that a car's value is defined by styling trends and how much your girlfriend knows it cost, rather than by whether it could avoid her dog, if it wanders onto the street.  David R. Ingham 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the idea of an affordable sports car vanished" (Don't take this seriously.) 

message: Sorry, Image:Venn_cars.PNG is a nice idea but the classifications strike me as not NPOV. And if strictly going by objective criteria, would be original research too? — Shadowhillway 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Venn_cars.PNG 

message: Most fighter planes, like racing cars, have had only one seat.  This has changed to some extent, now that the missiles do much of the maneuvering.  David R. Ingham 04:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "high performance airplane" 

message: "(The Thunderbird or BMW M6] would be sports cars if they gave up a bit more comfort, and the [[Spatz would have been, if it had spent a bit more money.)"
should have been (The Ford Thunderbird and BMW M6 would be sports cars if they gave up a bit more comfort, and the Spatz Kabinenroller would have been, if it had spent a bit more money.)
David R. Ingham 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my "fairly" edit comment 

message: "Modern sports cars have a FF layout" =laughable
This is precisely what makes them NOT sports cars but sporty cars, hot hatches, or economy cars. Section is being removed. CJ DUB 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2006 Cleanup Efforts 

message: You are confusing two terms, SUPERCAR and SPORTS CAR. They are by no means the same. A very significant portion of sports cars, I would in fact say the archetypical sports car, like a Triumph Spitfire and an Austin Sprite, has very humble origins. The thing that makes a car a sports car is not its price, its performance nor its pedigree, but the priorities it makes within the available resources. Neither the Triumph Spitfire nor the Austin Sprite are high performance nor particularly well handling cars, not even for their time. But they are undeniable sports cars. The Porsche 911 is also undeniable a sports car, even though it is a four seater and has a fixed head. The Fiat Barchetta is just as much a sports car as any of the above. Just like a BMW M5 never is a  sports car, even if its performance is ten times better than the Barchetta. -- Egil 18:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we stop this nonsense, please?

message: Please discuss before you edit and ad large blocks of text. I have done some cutting to remove the endless repetition in the opening section. I also removed some irrelevant trivia.CJ DUB 03:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too many infantile edits May 2006

message: Does the number of doors matter for a sports car? I've always been under the impression that a sports car could have a maximum of two doors, and after reading this page, I kind of kept that impression, but after looking at a couple of other pages here on wiki with car types on them, I've seen a couple of four door sports car, mainly the whole srt line of dodge cars... So does the number of doors matter for a sports car? Alex
: Traditionally sports cars are roadsters so they would have two doors (and no roof). But some have four (or even five) doors. The line between sports car, grand tourer, sports sedan, muscle car, supercar and hot hatch is also a bit blurred. // Liftarn
::I would say, a sports car should have two doors and a rear coupé like hatch for some and if that is 4-doors or more, then that makes it a sport sedan. Willirennen 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Doors?? 

message: The examples are more like examples of ordinary car companies which manufacture some sports cars rather than sports car companies and their cars. At least one of the following should be in a list of sports car companies, Lotus, Ferrari, Porsche, and MG as they are some of the most important sports car companies of all time. Nasty 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Someone listed Corvette as a marquee/company in the list.  Obviously the Corvette is a sports car by a large car manufacturing company (Chevrolet) and NOT a company/marquee.  I will delete that from the list.  Also Panoz is USA based (Georgia being a US state, not to be confused with the country Georgia).  Also Alfa-Romeo is Italian based.
:While we're on the topic, the image for Corvette says that it was "based upon European sports cars."  I would like to see a reference for that.  As I know the Corvette, it wasn't comparable when it came out to any European sports car, primarily because it was being made by a high-volume company, and because it was tepid and soft.  And it ultimately became even more different from European cars, with huge V8 engines and beautiful looks that were made in-house without the omniscient presence of Giorgetto Giugiaro or Pininfarina.  What European sports car was Corvette based on?
:Sorry, forget to sign that. Chaparral2J (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the closest car the Corvette came from Nash Motors when in 1951 the Nash-Healey was introduced as a halo car built in partnership with the Italian designer Pinin Farina and British auto engineer Donald Healey. At least the Hash-Healey was not only luxurious and expensive, but also had performance, as well as real motorsports experience in Europe! — CZmarlin (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough, but two things.  Firstly, the Corvette is still highly dissimilar to any European sports cars for most of its life.  And secondly, it doesn't provide any meaningful clarification to say that it was based on European sports cars.  The comment for the Jaguar E-Type says that it's a classic and very beautiful, yadda yadda, and that's all true.  But it doesn't say "it was based on the Jaguar XK150, XK120, etc." even though it is true, and it is extremely similar to them.  Likewise, there is no car aficionado who hears "Corvette" and says "Yeah, that's SO European."  Chaparral2J (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corvette 

message: I always assumed that a sports car was a small, lightweight car either with 2 or 2 plus 2 seating, and 2 doors and was designed for sporty driving, not comfort. A prelude is a small GT car, but what about an integra? to me its just a coupe. A boxster is a sports car, while a 911 is a GT/coupe.
Does a sports car have to be convertible? in my opinion, maybe. A merc SL is just a convertible because of the levels of comfort and size, while an SLK is a sports car.
are there any citations to back up any specs of what is and is not a sports car? Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  weight/size/convertible 

message: According to page 2206 of Webster's Third New International Dictionary unabridged Volume 2 L-Z 1966 G. & C. Merriam Co.,  , a sports car is:
a low-slung open or convertible automobile designed for high-speed transportation on regular roads and having rapid acceleration, more or less smooth horizontal lines, and usu. seats for two people.
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol II N-Z, Third Edition Revised with Addenda 1956 Reprinted with corrections 1968, no ISBN given (and I forgot to note the page number) gives a shorter definition under "Sport (Comb. with pl.)":
an open low-built fast motor car.
I will check more recent dictionaries later; these are the ones available to me at work.  My sister's Random House College Dictionary is from 1975 which, while newer than these, isn't exactly current.
Still, the Oxford definition (open, low-built/low-slung, fast) is contained within the Webster's definition.  I suspect either of these could be a good starting point.
No signature (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is/isn't a sports car? - Part II 

message: for the most part car classification terms like "sports car" is not a technical term with a precise definition. The statement "the first true sports car" begs the question. saying a certain car is too heavy, or an engine is too small, or a ride too comfortable, doesn't work because there is no universal standard that makes a car too heavy or which size engine is too small. It is not our job as wiki editors to determine such things. Sports cars are sports cars, because they are considered sports cars.
similar things could be said about muscle and super cars. muscle cars and super cars grew out of change in technology. Muscle cars were created when manufacturers started using bigger engines, and supercar, as the term is now used, refers to a class of cars made possible by more modern technology. I have also brought up another point, terms change in uses.
my final point is that there are official classifications of cars. Governments and insurance agencies have specific classifications for cars.
98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  car classification 

message: The statement is made in this article that this car was a sports car. (Third paragraph under Early History) So this is an American article about American cars but this has to be one of Wikipedia's sillier statements. Eddaido (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly it may be true - the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost was supplied as a chassis and coach builders could put any sort of body on it the customer chose. Even very un-sporty ones like this one: Rolls-Royce Armoured Car.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost

message: Hello SamBlob, the 959 is a very exotic car and I think not a typical sports car. For SuperCar definition try here []. Yes, of course such an exotic car is a sports car but I think that it is a poor example, not typical of most people's image. DesmondW (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned many times, including quite often on the discussion page for the Supercar article, the term "supercar" is very vaguely defined and, as such, is not used as an automotive classification on Wikipedia. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Porsche 959 a sports car?

message: MathiasHasselmann (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazda MX-5, the world's best selling sports car 

message: Richard Hough's publishers may have obtained the endorsement of Bentley and Sammy Davis. Does it make the opinions of a maritime historian any sounder? I see the local copy of his book isn't due back at Takapuna until 2 June 2017 so I cannot check. His 1961 opinions are still outweighed by subsequent judgements already quoted in the article. The same for the 1957 opinions of John Stanford. Might they have reflected opinions of that day when there was no easy access to historical records?
The heavily linked claims about the Mercedes are superfluous and should be deleted and in any case the source, a contributed article to Supercars may be OK and then may be not OK.
The Rennzweier (The Double Racer) is clearly intended to be a racing car - why is it there? Of course there were sports/racing cars, cars that required a passenger seat and could be and often were driven on the open roads to the competition. Again the Bugatti type 13 is described inits article as a racing car (with the require seat for the ride-on mechanic) not for entertainment. ("a car that is fun to drive and use for the sake of driving")
Eddaido (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Hough and a 60 hp Mercedes and the new gallery 

message: Hi from Waitakere, Eddaido. Hough's book is a great read, I'll have it back to the library fairly soon.  Hough was a WWII fighter ace among other accomplishments, so his reputation as a maritime historian didn't hold him back in that field either -- I'm joshin'. Hough published over a hundred books on all sorts of topics, even children's literature I think. Neither Hough nor Stanford argue that the Mercedes Sixty should be attributed the title of "first sportscar" - there is a strong consensus among historians (that I can see anyway) that the honor belongs to the Prince Henry Vauxhall and Austro-Daimler, even though they're both really fast tourers, "sportscar" being a post-WW1 term.  Rather they argue the 'Sixty' is important for laying out a successful configuration that was followed for decades by almost all "fast cars", and to presenting a more complete history. I believe this wiki is still very clear in that regard, but the reader gains by the Mercedes' inclusion a more accurate feel for the gradual evolution of sports car design, rather than an impression that 'someone' (even a Porsche or a Pomeroy) one day invented the "sportscar" out of the blue, which isn't how it happened. I've given the Grand Tourer wiki a similar treatment that seems to have been well received so far.
I think the views of Hough and Stanford are especially relevant to wiki readers in the 21st century because of their immediacy to events in the early 20th century. Many of the people involved, like Bentley and Davis, were still alive, and the cars would have been more commonly available to the average enthusiast than now (when they invariably belong to collections of the super wealthy).
The "Double Racer" image has been on this wiki for ages, but I agree it doesn't really fit any more - in any case I'm pretty sure it's in one of the racing wikis.  Cool car though.
Have lots of interesting stuff to add yet, am a bit slow though, and time is limited. Look forward to talking with you more. :-)
Steve Limpus (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hough and Stanford on the 1903 Mercedes 

message: Hi Eddaido, added more recent 60 h.p. citation I think you'll enjoy, by W.B. from Jan. '82. Unlike Hough and Stanford W.B. goes as far to call the 'Sixty' "very definitely a sports-car years ahead of its time" but semantics aside the overall sentiment is very smiliar to H. and S. http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/january-1982/40/sixty-mercedes
Steve Limpus (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MotorSport Magazine: ''The Sixty Mercedes'' 

message: The Grand Tourer page format was revised (by another editor) to feature the most general information, most suited to a casual reader, at the top, with historical information relevant to more expert readers further down. The revised layout appears sensible, and it's desirable the two pages appear somewhat similar as the topics overlap, so have adopted the format here too. Will improve the general information sections with a view to removing the "verification" template.
Steve Limpus (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Layout 

message: Hello. Perhaps the 1901 Mercedes 35 hp and 1899 Turcat-Méry should be mentioned as predecessors to the sports car? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercedes 35 hp, Turcat-Méry 

message: I just tried to make a Wikipedia  on sports cars Zgcargideon (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cars 

message: I replaced the Saab Sonnet and Berkeley Cars with the Mazdaspeed3 and Ford Focus ST because the article explicitly mentions hot hatches (and then doesn't list any), and also because Berkely was a tiny manufacturer only around for 4 years that nobody's ever heard of. It doesn't add anything of value, I don't see how the Focus ST is a questionable example when Berkely isn't. Berkely is also a brand, not a specific car of a FF layout. I also wanted cars that the US might be familiar with, and I'm sure most car people would recognise the Speed 3 and Focus ST as popular FF cars (they have a lot more relevance). I fail to see how this replacement is controversial. HarryKernow (talk)   22:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the Mazdaspeed3 nor Focus ST meet a strict definitions of sports car and therefore make for poor examples. They are hot hatches and not specifically good examples of FF sports cars. This article, while mentioning hot hatches, is not about them and certainly doesn't claim that they are sports cars. This is not a US centric site and there is no reason that examples should be US centric, though they should represent the variety of sports cars throughout time and place. Therefore other examples would be welcome, but the Mazdaspeed3 and Focus ST are not such. Issues, such as whether you've seen one at a car meet or not are completely irrelevant. There are rather few cars which meet the strictest definition of FF sports car and I do agree that it would be good to have a more contemporary example, and non-European example. Nasty (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The FF section specifically mentions sport compacts and hot hatches specifically. You are contradicting the article saying "Mazdaspeed3 nor Focus ST meet a strict definitions of sports car", not only by ignoring the fact it SPECIFICALLY STATES hot hatch / sport compact, but also the first line of the article "A sports car is designed to emphasise handling, performance, or thrill of driving", which both are (obviously). My argument barely hinges on US-centricness, in fact both were sold internationally while Berkely wasn't. So here's what I propose: we replace Berkely with Mazdaspeed3 but leave Saab Sonnett, because the article (again) mentions hot hatches and then doesn't list one, making the MS3 a prime example. Also, the Berkely is much further from a "sports car" than the MS3 is considering that it's a company, not even a car. If you don't like the MS3, we can get closer to "true sports car-ness" with the Honda Civic Si, which was a coupe meant for better performance. If I don't get a reply whenever I next see this I'll assume you agree, or you can implement the change yourself. HarryKernow (talk)   04:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please point out where in the article it says, explicitly that sports compacts and hot hatches are sports cars? In fact a careful reading of it would suggest that it does not classify them as sports cars. Additionally, please read earlier discussions re "FF Sports Cars". To quote where the article suggests that sport compacts and hot hatches are not sports cars: Although front-wheel drive with the engine at the front (FF layout) is the most common layout for cars in general, it is not as common amongst sports cars. Nonetheless, the FF layout is often used by sport compacts and hot hatches. Nasty (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you point out where it says anything is specifically a sports car? Sports car is the general term for a sporty car, and perhaps the sportier it is the closer you get to a true "sports car". People were also arguing that the MX-5 wasn't a sports car. Sports compact is a subset of sports cars, just like muscle car is a subset of sports cars. Sports car is made out to be a rather vague term, so I don't see the gatekeeping as anything useful. If you really want, just remove Berkely Cars and write something like "The FF layout, while not popular with traditional sports cars layouts, is very popular for sport compact cars such as the Mazdaspeed3 or the Honda Civic Si." I'm sure you wouldn't object to that, and I'm sure you agree that Berkeley Cars is a rather poor example to have there, being a tiny defunct company and all. HarryKernow (talk)   04:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific examples for cars of different layouts 

message: — Assignment last updated by EmPatch (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Women and Gender in the Middle East