Talk:Supercar

message: Since the vast majority of the links to this page are expecting Supercar (car classification), I propose moving that content here and moving the current content to Supercar (disambiguation).  Thoughts?  --SFoskett 21:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Cleaned up all the links to the Supercar page that referred to the TV show and moved the auto article to the front.  There is Supercar (disambiguation), which is the former Supercar, but I tried to sum it all up in a sentence, so I didn't link to it.   Also went and moved the Talk page, not sure if I'm supposed to though, I haven't deleted a word or removed any meaning, so I think it's fine.  -- Prometheus235 23:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: The Mclaren F1 XP is not a standard Mclaren F1 as it has no rev limiter and was thus able to reach its true top speed at 7800 RPM, with the rev limiter in place the maximum speed possible to obtain will be siginficantly lower as it will be held back when it reaches 7500 RPM.
The Mclaren F1 has maximum BHP at 7400 RPM, i wonder if its 0-60 MPH times, 0-100 MPH and other times are also recorded with no rev limiter in place, i imagine one would want to shift gears a bit higher than 7500 RPM when trying to set records, any thoughts on this?
:I'm pretty sure the acceleration times are done with no rev limiter, but I can't remember where I read it, so I can't confirm it. I will look out for the source. James086 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mclaren F1 XP5 

message: A super car in the antithesis of a hypercar. The disambiguation link is wrong.
See: The Hypercar concept
What is a hypercar?
Skome 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypercar shouldnt be completely deleted, however I agree that it shouldnt be linked to supercar. On a side note, so shouldnt ultracar, IMHO. I personally have never heard the term ultracar, whát's next? Megacar? OmikronWeapon 11:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypercar should not be linked to supercar. 

message: "However, Mercedes-Benz 300SL had cornering problems."  This sentance just seems entirely out of place, as no comparison is made to any other car, no specific information is given, no reason is apparent as to why it realtes to the topic at hand at all!  At the very least, it deserves to be expanded upon.
: I agree - it's gone.  We'd need more specific details as to what those problems were - and a reference too. SteveBaker 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Sentance? 

message: Many cars that fall into this category have a huge price tag. I'm sure that it's not neccessary for them to cost that much but they do so that only the "elite" can afford them. Like Ferrari selecting people to buy the Enzo and FXX, it's not neccessary but it keeps them exclusive. Anyway, what I'm trying to suggest is a section under "Other Criteria" that mentions something about price.James086 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think price is important. Track performance is a meaningless arbiter - in fact the only 'supercar' I have driven (Countach) was pretty horrible to drive on the track, I could have beaten it in a decent go-kart.  Greglocock 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that 'Supercar' is a vague term - we have to strive to be encyclopeadic - so rather than arguing about whether we think price matters, we should be looking for definitions in car magazines, books, etc that we can reference as facts.  Personally, I'd put the Ariel Atom into the supercar class because it's performance and zero-compromise styling put it there.  But then there are certainly other supercars who are there mainly for price reasons.  We need documented, referenceable definitions here. SteveBaker 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Atom is street-legal in UK - and they say that if you purchase one in the USA they will do whatever is necessary to make it street-legal in any state you purchase it from.  In some states it has to be sold as a kit-car.  Besides, there are MANY truely undeniable supercars that are not street-legal in some countries - so we can't disqualify the Atom on those grounds without disqualifying a bunch of other cars.  You say the styling is ugly - but that's in the eye of the beholder.  I happen to think it's beautiful.  I see style in functionality as well as in large areas of shiney paint.  That is therefore a matter of opinion and you can't exclude it from the class just because YOU don't like it.  I think the Bugatti is ugly as sin - but it's still a supercar. The 0-300kph time.  Well, 300kph is 186.4 mph.  I believe the Atom's top speed is 150mph - so yeah - it won't reach 300kph anytime soon.  But who made up the list of performance criteria?  The term 'supercar' is incredibly vague.  The Atom will out accellerate a good number of undeniably 'super' cars - it's lap time on most tracks annihilates most supercars - and (to pick another arbitary metric) its 0-100-0 time is the best of any car on the planet.  I'm not saying that we should necessarily call it a Supercar - but since there is no firm definition of the term, we can't say it isn't either.  SteveBaker 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Price Tag?

message: I'm somewhat less than enthusiastic about this table with countries of origin.  There are many entries that I'd argue.  For example, what makes the McLaren F1 English and the McLaren SLR German?  McLaren builds the SLRs in England.  Both use German engines.  The Bugatti Veyron is French.  What exactly is our criteria for "country of origin"? TomTheHand 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "where it's designed" is a particularly difficult one because there could certainly be a joint design team and a lot of wiki-arguing over who really did the designing.  "Where it's assembled" would be very easy but I think it's much less useful. TomTheHand 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, didn't think the country of origin column would be that controversial although I must admit I had to scratch my head a little for the very example mentioned here. In the end I settled on the marques' country. I think in the worst cases (like Bugatti), two lines could be shown with details in brackets e.g. France (marque), England (manufacture)... or whatever the case may be. What do you guys think? Deon Steyn 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like having the country of origin with the flags.  It is interesting to see where many super cars originate from and provides a nice asthetic.  It would be great if we could keep it, but I also understand the problems it presents.  I would like to stand by my initial suggestion of design origin.  Most super cars are designed with small teams working in one place, of course many components may be designed else where but their selection and integration usually occurs in the same place.  Some examples may not fit this mold but then the double line solution seems to work well.Daniel J. Leivick 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country of origin 

message: Super or not ? KIV ?
218.208.251.96 18:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Caparo]] 

message: Are this group of homologated race cars Supercars or not?
Car                  	Country
Dauer 962 LeMans     	
Lister Storm         	
Maserati MC12        	
Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR	
Porsche 911 GT1      	
(quote fom Dauer discussing)
So what I am going to do is create a subsection on the list for race homlogation cars that are seen as supercars, so in that case I support deleting the mention that the Dauer is a supercar. Willirennen 01:15, 17 December 2006 (utc)
Rayden 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the other editor meant for this list to be added to List of supercars instead of this page, to keep this page as short and lean as possible (as far as the lists go)? Deon Steyn 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercars or not? 

message: There is the only place I can find one. But it may also disappear some day. --Mato Rei 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If anyone needs the deleted list of supercars

message: Whose idea was it to put the pictures of BMW Z8 and Ford GT as examples of supercars, when looking at the cars that are similar to them rather than cars that genuinely are, they are more like large sized sports cars as they belonged to the disputed supercar section of that page that no longer exist. Thats why I supported the deletion of that lists when that term gets abused a lot even by the motoring press as that I have already taken these two pictures out of this page. Willirennen 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Personally I think of the Ford GT as a supercar but not the BMW Z8. Everyone has their own opinion. You can't determine which sources are reliable because they all have different opinions. It would be possible to have List of cars Automobile Magazine refers to as supercars but thats no good to anyone. Also shouldn't the picture gallery be at the bottom if at all? James086Talk 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercar picture gallery 

message: Personally, I am sick to death of writing and telling everybody this, but I have removed the list for the reason as I prefer people to read the article and decide for themselves what is and what isn't a supercar. As people's views differ to each other, that list is going to do nothing but create pointless arguments like that standalone list which has now been deleted a while ago. Willirennen 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that we could do to resolve the problem but still have a list of sorts is to have supercar manufacturers listed. Not the actual cars, just who makes them would be a much smaller list and readers could then explore the cars themselves. I can put this mostly together if you want. Zach4636 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the gallery is too long. Perhaps there should only be a few notable cars on it. Zach4636 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, I think we should have supercars that costs over US$500,000 when new and have been sold to the public, this will exclude one-offs and concept cars, plus anything that was built before the term was invented (pre 1966 or pre-Miura). Any suggestions are welcome. Willirennen (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Generally Accepted Supercars 

message: The gallery of super car examples has become far too long. Its no better than the list of supercars that was so heavily fought over and removed from this page long long ago. Hell, this gallery even contains pictures of cars that haven't even been released yet. Recommend it for clean up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.255.153 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the gallery is too long. Perhaps there should only be a few notable cars on it. Zach4636 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, I think we should have supercars that costs over US$500,000 when new and have been sold to the public, this will exclude one-offs and concept cars, plus anything that was built before the term was invented (pre 1966 or pre-Miura). Any suggestions are welcome. Willirennen (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery of super car examples 

message: There seems to be something of a revert war going on about a bunch of section headings with no text inside them.
I understand that the person who put them in believes that they are a good structure around which to fit more information - and they may be right about that.
But I have to agree with the people who are removing those headings.  Remember that the "current version" of the article is what the general public sees when they come here.  It shouldn't be messed up at ANY time (including, but not limited to, empty section headings).  If you want to work on some new sections, make yourself a sandbox and do it there - cut/paste your finished sections into the article when you are done.  Leaving the article in a messy state while you are working on it is unnecessarily ugly.  If you merely want the section headings to inspire other people to fill them in then put them HERE on the discussion page - not into the main article.
Hence, please do not put the empty section headings back in again until there is some decent text inside.
Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, empty section headings definitely violate WP:MOS.  We don't even know for certain whether we will have sections with these titles at any point.  I'm not really sure if all of them are even appropriate, but couldn't say until they have content.  On the other hand we could comment out the section titles so they would be visible during editing, but not during normal page viewing.  That is a compromise that would work for me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like that idea - commenting things out instead of deleting them confuses the edit history because large amounts of things can change but the edit history may only show a couple of comment delimiters have come or gone and it's really hard to see what ACTUALLY changed without reading the entiire article.   But if it will stop the edit warring, then I suppose it's a reasonable thing to try.  The main thing is that our readership shouldn't see them until/unless there is content in them.  If the anon user uncomments them - then we should go back to simply deleting them again and since that would most definitely be abusive editing, maybe we'd then consider getting an admin in to deal with this person. SteveBaker (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops Daniel. Looks like we had an edit conflict :-) I just removed the section headings outright per WP:MOS, as they can always be reinserted by viewing the page history. I also removed one spam link per WP:EL.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I wish the IP would spend time creating quality content for the article rather than warring over the presence of blank section titles. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW, it seems as if our old friend  is back. I'll add the various IPs to the list of socks.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Requested temporary page protection.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Section headings. 

message: I've added back the deleted items because I don't see anything outrageously wrong with it.  If editors will give some time I can find sources for most of the info if that was the objection (taken from above comments). 206.125.176.3 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a way this will ever happen, why, too many people squabbling. This is the reason why the old infamous supercar list is now buried and will never be be allowed back. Willirennen (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are serious problems with the material you added.  It is entirely orginal research and advances the idea that there is some kind of defined threshold that a vehicle must meet to be a supercar.  If you want you are welcome to rewrite some of the sections using sources to discuss what criteria magazines and writers point to in defining supercars for themselves. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Items

message: Jeremy Clarkson,James May and Richard Hammond have all driven the Bugatti Veyron Jeremy raced James May and Richard Hammond in a private plane James May maxed it in the Nürburgring and Richard Hammond raced a euro fighter plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.21.24 (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugatti Veyron 

message: I have rewritten the article and kept as much of the original as possible.  I have attempted to write from a NPOV.  Rather then describe what constitutes a supercar I have instead describe the various tests that are utilized in establishing performance criteria and then given the upper 10% of what production cars are currently capable of.  This approach helps readers establish what they consider a supercar based on what the top vehicles can currently accomplish.  It's not perfect but I think its a good start. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I personally have to tell you this, this has been discussed to death and I am getting sick of telling this to everybody the same bloody thing. To tell you all this, a page protection will be much better. Willirennen (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to through my two cents in.  While I certianly appriciate IP 206's attempt at expanding the article, I have to agree with the other editors that this material is not appropriate or needed.  An encyclopedic treatment of the term Supercar should include information on the meaning and usage of the subjective term, not information on the comperative performance of possible supercars.  Honestly what gets labeled a supercar by some source or another covers such a wide range that discussing comperative peformance is pointless, what is a supercar one year may not be the next and isn't directly correlated with performance. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The revised article did not include information regarding the meaning or usage of the term supercar, and instead contained needless information on performance variations and comparisons. I'm echoing Daniel's comments pretty much here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is the deal, throwing up a bunch of performance stats for so called supercars does not give the reader a better idea as to what the term means, it is in fact largely original research and takes up a lot of space without saying much of anything.  If the article is going to be expanded it should be to illustrate the terms history and meaning not someones opinion as to how it is often applied.  The word supercar according to defitions supplied by dictionaries and reliable sources means roughly an "expensive, rare and high performance vehicle."  While peformance is part of the defintion it is hardly the last word, plenty of vehicles offer similar peformance but are rarely refered to as supercars (racecars, tuned cars and in some cases cheap high performance vehicles like the Evo or STi).  To some up, consensus is clearly against a long "performance criteria" section so unless there is a compeling arguement put forth I think the topic should be dropped. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite to the past

message: Following a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this article for a period of two weeks. During these two weeks, all parties concerned should make every effort to reach an agreement on this page as to how the article should be treated on the expiry of the protection. If concencus is reached beforehand, get in touch with me or make another request at WP:RFPP to have the protection lifted. If edit warring continues when the protection expires, I will personally re-protect it (assuming another sysop doesn't get there first). I needn't tell anyone that this kind of warring is petty, and shouldn't be occuring. Finally, as stated in a number of places, my protection of this page does not imply that I endorse the current version - pages are protected in whatever state they are in, without reverting. TalkIslander 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well if you want to keep that attitude, the supercar article will propably be protected for the next decade. Here are some of the older supercar discussions, that you weren't able to find: 
**Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Return_of_the_Supercar_category
**Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11#Supercar_eradication
**Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11#Car_Classifications.--79.212.242.16 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protection

message: In looking for source material for definitions of supercars per our discussion above I came across:  http://www.freearticlesarchive.com/article/How_To_Define_a_Supercar_/63119/0/
The earlier version of the article prior to my changes extracted verbatim paragraphs from this article which constitutes plagarism.  206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the plagiarism.  Could you point me to the section in that page that was plagiarized?  Also, if it is plagiarized then it should just be rewritten in different words, not completely replaced.  Thanks. swaq 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the date shown on the freearticlesarchive article and this revision of the wikipedia article [] which pre-dates it, the freearticlesarchive is the "source" that is actually doing the plagarising. Perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia:Copyrights, but 206.125.176.3 seems to have confused which material is plagarized to justify him removing material from the current Wikipedia article. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarized Page

message: I don't understand how the title of the cited article can be considered egregious or virtually meaningless. The usage here simply implies that the car is an affordable high performance model - most people couldn't afford a real supercar.
Regardless of which, the wiki article already states that "the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts." but simply because there is no agreed objective definition, the term is still a very long way from being meaningless. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The term has been applied to many cars, to the extent that it is virtually meaningless. One egregious example is a derivative of the" 

message: I am the author of "Horsepower War: Our Way of Life." My book is cited in the "Supercar" Wikipedia page. I made a blog post responding to the Wikipedia definition at this link
http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
The following are some of the relevant sections in which I believe I have proven, with original source material, that the oft repeated line about L.J.K. Setright 'coining' the term is in fact totally spurious. 
[begin blog excerpt]
Here is my email to Great Britain’s CAR magazine...
Hello Ms. Harrison,
Thanks for responding. Let me clarify a few facts in hopes that we can find the issue of CAR wherein the term ‘super car’ is coined. The subject line of my email was taken from a Wikipedia definition of super car. Since we know anyone can tinker around with Wikipedia, here’s the part of the Wiki definition I’m talking about (in bold):
The phrase supercar did not become popular until much later and is said to have had its revival originated with British motor journalist L. J. K. Setright writing about the Lamborghini Miura in CAR in the mid-1960s. The magazine was originally launched in 1962 as Small Car and Mini Owner, and claims to have "coined the phrase".[8]
(End of Wiki quote)
I see in the CAR web page which is footnote (8) in the Wikipedia article, no mention is made specifically of LJK Setright actually ‘coining’ the word supercar. Instead the magazine itself is given credit. Here it  is cut and pasted in bold:
The magazine has a history of innovation. We invented the group test, pioneered the drive story and coined the phrase 'supercar' – and all three remain staples of CAR. The magazine is also renowned for its photography, writing and design: in 2007, CAR won two top design awards and one of our writers recently won the UK's Journalist of the Year gong from the Guild of Motoring Writers. From LJK Setright to Gavin Green and Georg Kacher, ours are some of the world's most respected automotive journalists.
'''
So the Wikipedia ‘assumption’ seems to be: Setright saw/drove/reported upon the Lamborghini Miura, and called it a ‘supercar’ at that time. As you can see, this is not specifically what the CAR website claims. In any case I ordered a Brooklands Books reprint of Lamborghini Miura road tests and this is what I found.
In the January 1967 CAR article “Riding the Wild One,” LJK Setright’s name doesn’t appear, but it could have been written by him, judging by the style. This article is actually not a road test, but a ‘ride along’ with New Zealand born Lamborghini tech Bob Wallace. No where does the word or phrase ‘super car’ appear. Also noteworthy with respect to Wikipedia, this first ride along story was published not in the ‘mid sixties’ but at the beginning at least of the ‘late sixties.’ Not a surprise considering that the Miura only debuted in March ’66 and the 1966 total production amounted to just two cars.
Then in the December 1967 issue of CAR, LJK Setright’s name appears prominently on the first page of a two part saga called “1000 miles in the Miura.” “LJK Setright gets to grips with the most exotic of ‘em all.” The story recounts a trip from the Lamborghini factory back to the UK where Setright shares the chore of driving a Miura (that had been purchased by a Briton) with a Lamborghini sales representative. The events unfold in September of ’67, again very much in the ‘late sixties.’ There are plenty of words in this two part story, the second of which is printed in the January 1968 issue of CAR, but the words ‘super car’ aren’t among them.
It’s clear that the Wikipedia article on the word supercar is in error. The CAR website does not make the same specific claim as Wikipedia, though it does insist that CAR magazine ‘coined the term.’
So I’m now even more curious. If supercar was not coined by LJK Setright, and perhaps not even to describe the Lamborghini Miura, then when and where did CAR magazine ‘coin’ the term super car?
Cheers,
Robert Harless
Some final points for part one of this multi-part blog on the Supercar kerfluffle:
I read the rest of the articles sourced from CAR magazine in the Brooklands road test reprint series “Lamborghini 1964-1970” and never saw the word “Supercar” mentioned once, by anyone from CAR. Even as late as November ’70, in a road test contrasting the Miura with a Ferrari Dino, the Miura is referred to as a “GT car” or “sports car” but never "Supercar."
That’s not to say the word “Supercar” can’t be found in the Brooklands Lamborghini road tests. The word appears in a Car and Driver March 1966 review of the first Lamborghini, the conventional front engine 350GT. C&D said “It (350GT) runs the quarter (mile) like one of our (my bold) Super Cars."
In this case the meaning of “Super Cars” (C&D tended to turn Car Life’s coinage of the word Supercar into a phrase “Super Car”) is easy to discern, since in the very same issue of Car and Driver there was special report called “6 Super Cars!” all of which were in the Car Life mold: Pontiac GTO, Buick Skylark GS, Oldsmobile 442, Chevelle SS396, Ford Fairlane GTA and Mercury Cyclone GT. 
[end blog excerpt]
I will explain the references to CAR LIFE magazine (which I will prove 'coined' the term supercar) in another talk section.
But the most important point that must be taken from this post is that all references to the L.J.K. Setright 'coining' the word/phrase supercar/super car must be removed from the Wikipedia definition. It is simply a canard.
 
RobertHarless (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LJK Setright DID NOT  'coin' the term "Supercar" when he test drove the Lamborghini Miura  

message: I am Robert Harless, author of the book "Horsepower War: Our Way of Life," which is a footnoted several times in the Wikipedia definition of "Supercar."
The following is an excerpt from my blog where I prove that the U.S. car magazine "CAR LIFE" and NOT the U.K. magazine "CAR" was the first to define and 'coin' the word "Supercar." Please note that I'm refraining from inserting scans of magazine pages in this entry in deference to Wikipedia, which construes 'fair use' of these materials very narrowly. 
http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
[Begin blog excerpt]
The word Supercar actually doesn’t occur within the text of the GTO road test in The May 1965 CAR LIFE issue, but a systematic definition is spelled out on this page. This piece of evidence – the scan above – is a ‘smoking gun’ because it clearly settles the ‘dispute,’ perhaps not about which cars are indeed super, but about which magazine gets to claim the coinage for the word “Supercar.” This article clearly, yet subtly defines the word Supercar for the first time. According to Joe Oldham, writing in the May '74 issue of the American magazine CARS - not to be confused with the UK's CAR - this is the first time the word was used and defined as such.
Later CAR LIFE articles make direct reference to the issue when discussing subsequent Supercars and whether they deserved to be listed in that exclusive club. 
In case you just can't read the text in the above scan from May ’65 CAR LIFE.
Quote: “The ultimate expression of this trend toward the personally specified vehicle is what we call the “Supercar.” It has a big engine with great gobs of horsepower and torque. It has a modest sized chassis of reasonably light weight. It has an axle ratio that lets the engine perform and it has a transmission (in most cases) that can provide optimum engine operating conditions. Many of the Supercars are options atop options; they are packages of options which supplant and complement the original options.”  
So the supercar is defined here mostly in terms of it being a 'special car' - one with very rare factory options like sintered metallic brake linings or a hard riding suspension that 99 out of 100 cars don't have.
You can hopefully make out the list of 'Supercars' which includes the 327cid/350hp Chevelle, 427 Ford and 396 Chevrolet. None of these three cars had a 'package' option (GTO, GTX, GTA, R/T or the like) at the time. In fact the whole idea as Car Life has it, is that you would have to special order all the stuff you want anyway. The idea of the supercar is not to have a 'compromise' that will fly off dealer lots but something that only one out of 100 people want. The article says that since the US car market is so big and expansive, it still makes sense for makers to appeal to this rare one percent of buyers. You can also see the oft repeated assertion of 1960's US car magazines: That a buyer could conceivably special order a car with a combination of obscure options so that no other car is exactly like his.
[End excerpt]
Here's the link to another of my blog posts on the intersection of "supercar" and "musclecar" from which I have excerpted the following passage.
http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html 
[Begin excerpt]
In the previous edition of Elvisceral Appeal, I traced the history and provenance of the word ‘supercar’ and promised to do the same for the word ‘musclecar’ next time. That time has come!
The May '65 issue of CAR LIFE magazine is credited by Joe Oldham in the the May '74 issue of "CARS" (not to be confused with the British "CAR") as being the first time that big engine, light weight cars were referred to as "Supercars." Roger Huntington wrote the road test article of the '65 Pontiac GTO in that very issue, and is surely deserving of a large measure of credit for 'coining' the term supercar. So I was struck with serendipity when I found this very early reference to ‘musclecar’ in a March '66 CAR CRAFT article also by Huntington, who wrote for a long list of magazines. Here we already have proof that the word supercar preceded the term 'muscle car,' as Huntington calls the word/phrase "The latest tag line for anything small with a big engine." Here we have the closest person to the original supercar ‘coinage’ telling us about the new ‘tag line.’
In any case, here we already see conclusive evidence that both "muscle car" and "super car" preceded the use of the term super car in the sense of "Lamborghini" or exotic car as it is mostly used today.
In the spirit of “retrodiction” (see my inaugural blog post “Wishful Retrodiction”) we might naively look back from the year 2011 and ‘reason’ that maybe muscle car was coined as a substitute for super car because LJK Setright co-opted the term. For background on the LJK Setright ‘supercar canard’ see my previous blog entry “American Supercar Provenance or UK CAR magazine Supercar Canard." Link
The canard has become a cut and paste, drag and drop hoax. Its light-speed race around the web has been turbo-charged by a demonstrably false assertion in the Wikipedia entry for “supercar.”
The ‘supercar’ definition in Wikipedia claims that LJK Setright of Britain's “CAR” magazine “coined the term supercar” after first driving the Lamborghini in “the mid sixties.” Even the highly respected, authoritative Hemmings Motor News has an online article http://www.hemmings.com/hsx/stories/2008/01/01/hmn_feature1.html claiming that it was in this “1000 miles in the Miura” story that Setright coined the term “in 1966.” The timeline seemed highly suspect, so I decided to buy a Brooklands Books reprint of the road test “1000 miles in the Mirua” where Setright first ‘gets to grips’ with the car.
I’ve read it over many times.
He doesn't use the word supercar.
Huntington would have written a March ’66 article probably in January of ’66. But in any case, no one even saw a complete Lamborghini Miura in the flesh before the March 10th 1966 debut at the Geneva auto show. Besides, the first time Setright drove the Miura was in September of 1967 (the story was published in the Dec ’67 and Jan ’68 issues of CAR). This timeline is decidedly not in ‘the mid sixties’ or ‘1966.’ So even if Setright had written the word ‘supercar’ in [late] ’67 (HE DIDN’T) it would still have been more than a year and a half after Huntington wrote [about the] musclecar [and over two and a half years after] and supercar.
So super car and muscle car (not used generically, but as terms of distinction) are indisputably of American coinage, and they are inextricably linked. I originally thought there might be an interesting shade of nuance in meaning between them within the American context (an upcoming post will address various distinctions between words like sports car and pony car) but my efforts proved to be futile. For our purposes here in divining their origins in common usage, Supercar = Musclecar. 
One other crucial factor I think must be recognized regarding supercar and musclecar: It's not good enough if one car is called 'super' or 'muscle' and considered a class of one or 'sui generis.'
That's why the Lamborghini Miura/ LJK Setright claim (we now know the claim to be spurious but one made by UK's CAR) doesn't make much sense - how could there only be one super car in the world? If there's only one why not just call it "Lamborghini"? I think the term only has meaning if, when it was 'coined,' there was an identifiable group of cars that met the criteria. That's why the May '65 CAR LIFE, in systematically defining 'super car' should ultimately be credited with delineating what we now call 'muscle car.'
[End excerpt]
Fellow Wikipedians: The origin of the term is quite indisputably rooted in the attempt to define a "Pontiac GTO type" car. I understand the use of 'supercar' is has shifted over time - and even now U.S. production cars like top of the line versions of the Chevrolet Corvette and Camaro have re-claimed the word - but Wikipedia should remove references to LJK Setright and the Lamborghini Miura as the historical origin for term supercar. 
RobertHarless (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The  May '65 issue of the U.S.'s  "CAR LIFE" first 'coined'  "Supercar" - NOT U.K.'s "CAR" 

message: The Hennessey Venom GT had a single direction test run at 435 km/h with no representatives from Guinness World Records. Thus it is not officially the fastest.  Stepho  talk  22:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest. 

message: START
Supercar differ in many ways from everyday or sports cars.
Typical characteristics:
high acceleration values ​​(hence weight savings at the expense of comfort)
high top speed (so streamlined form)
high longitudinal and lateral dynamics
Use of modern technologies
very to extremely high purchase price
very to extremely high maintenance costs
Production in small quantities (micro and small series)
Generally, one can compare two generations later, one or many properties of super sports car with those of standard sports cars. For example, the high speed of the Porsche, 959, 20 years later achieved by a production car, the Porsche 997 Turbo. A Ferrari F40 was exceeded in the final speed 15 years later the Ferrari 599 GTB.
Very much are the maintenance and insurance costs. For example, does a "great service repair" of a McLaren F1 50,000 euros.
Is supercars in common is that they want the show in its time technically feasible; For example, the 16-cylinder engine in the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 brings the car to a top speed of over 400 km / h. In addition to several major car companies are active in this segment also a handful of small manufacturers such as Gumpert, Koenigsegg and Pagani. The vehicles are usually made by hand and not on an assembly line. The number of cars produced per year is usually around a hundred pieces.''
END
That's OR, POV, uncited and wishy washy (unquantified and subjective). Their list of cars is perhaps rather better. 
Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition from German Wiki 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Supercar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110622052538/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50242443/50242443se176?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=supercar&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50242443se176 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50242443/50242443se176?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=supercar&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50242443se176
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Beginning merge from hyper car to supercar per WP:Articles for deletion/Hyper Car. I am a new user, so would be grateful for help from Afd closer User:Winged Blades of Godric or anyone else. Thanks. 
GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, User:Ecks Dey, just wondering why it is better to have  2 layers of heading (other categories-> hypercar) than one (hypercar)? Also, could you help at all with the search for reliable sources? I just realised I should have pinged you as the AfD nominator when I merged, so sorry for not doing that. Thanks for the additional content, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Reply from Ecks Dey - Yeah, that's my bad. Totally crossed my mind when I was editing. That unnecessary edit is gone now, replaced it with just "Hypercar". Anyway, not having to ping me is fine, it's human error anyways, we ain't perfect. Cheers. Ecks Dey (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  HyperCar Merge 

message: Just to show how the terminology changes, in the 1970s we had the Supercar scare in Australia. This controversy involved what we now call muscle cars, ie family passenger cars with upgraded engines (and brakes and suspension, but nobody listened to that part). It took us about 15 years to recover from that.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercar scare 

message: To ,  and . Please read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR, then discuss your differences here. The article can be changed after the discussion.  Stepho  talk  10:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not edit warring. Stop being so pompous. AFAIK the other two are messing about with photos. Care factor:zero. Greglocock (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: HI User:Greglocock, would it be acceptable to you to restore the hypercar section with the text:
"A hypercar is a more advanced version of a supercar, such as the   Porsche 918 Spyder, Ferrari LaFerrari, or the McLaren P1."
A good source could be , but I can find some more if you feel it is needed.
I would like to keep this section to implement the results of the hypercar AfD and maintain the disambiguation link from Hypercar.
Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't love Top Gear as an RS but that's the nature of the beast. Good find, yes I think that's fine. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Greglocock, I have gone ahead and added it back. The only more reliable source I could find was this from Sky, but it just uses the term without explaining it. Anyway, thanks again, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypercar section 

message: The following was placed on my talk page. I have moved it here so that others can be involved in the discussion.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On the supercar wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar), i gave information as to from where and when the term "hypercar" originated. You removed my edit wrongfully. When you mentionned that it is referenced in 1993 and 2005, that is wrong. The term is used today to describe those old cars as hypercars, but when the cars first came out, the term hypercar did not exist yet, hence the Mclaren f1 and bugatti veyron were not called hypercars before the 2010's decade. As for you saying that a wiki not a valid source, I cannot find a valid source anywhere on the internet. The "need for speed fandom wiki" is the best I could find. Here is a youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvNOr969Pus&t=31s) video in which at the 0:31 mark you can see the 5 tiers of cars which were in the game. The hyper tier contained all of the cars which are known are hypercars today (bugatti, f1, koenignsegg...). I cannot find a source for this but I can assure you that what I am saying is true because I have the game myself and I can see it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.119.78.59 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying that the game used the term. It's the claim of being first that I am refuting. Wiki's are not reliable sources. The editor of the other wiki can be any random person putting up any random "fact" and there is no way to know how credible it is - or isn't. Even Wikipedia itself is not allowed as a reference. See WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE.  Stepho  talk  22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  You removed my edit and you are wrong about your reasoning