Talk:Sleeper (car)

message: Why is a Peugeot 607 the picture for this page?  This was a front-wheel drive executive car and the top-spec engine was a 2.9L V6 with barely more than 200 horsepower, with a heavy body, which gives it a power-to-weight ratio of 114 hp/ton (probably less given that the police version would have equipment and modifications).  It's not a quick car by any means. Chaparral2J (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad picture?

message: This page needs some actual sleeper cars past and present, not just cars which were considerd to be fast at one time and nobody notices them anymore. These are more like bang for buck used cars, NOT sleepers. Also this page shouldn't recognize cars that are large family sedans, luxury car or SUVs, which simply have the more powerful engine option, but in reality do not provide a competitive perfomance boost (Caddy, GM 3800 S/C, Toyoto PREVIA???). Most of the cars on this list have 200 hp or less. Finally, cars such as the Volvo or any of the small economy cars by Chrysler, especially and FWD cars shouldn't be considered. This may be a POV issue, since the idea of "my car is fast so it's a sleeper" with a econobox is pretty laughable CJ DUB 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, categorizing one car as a sleeper and another as not is inherently biased and/or POV, no matter who is doing the judging. Therefore, I think, just like rice burner, that a specific listing of sleepers doesn't really belong in this article. Bloodshedder 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Plymouth Acclaim was available with the 2.5 Turbo I between 1989 and 1991: .  Chrysler's use of that engine on a lot of cars in the late '80s made for a dizzying array of potential "sleepers".  Though I think that list needs to be excised as well.  Unmaintainable, ambiguous listcruft. — AKADriver ☎ 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, a sleeper is NOT a stock vehicle at all. A car is only given the title when it is no longer within its original performance capabilities. Basically, you could not have a VW Jetta, throw a large turbocharger on it and call it a sleeper. MOST of the time you are going to have to perform an engine swap (or something just as drastic) to obtain the sleeper status. Like throwing a 302cu.in. Ford V8 in a Ford Focus is a prime example of a sleeper because the result is tire melting, body twisting, heart stopping performance that just couldnt be obtained by modifying the stock engine. I agree with Bloodshedder and that a list of sleepers is not realistic. I think that examples are important but the examples should include pictures and links to video sites illustrating what a sleeper really is. atshaw 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page not very good 

message: Agreed with most of the above. This article is not well written. None of the listed cars (maybe with the exception of the Mercury Marauder) are what I would consider sleeper cars. To me a sleeper car is a normal car (sedan, eco box, whatever) that has no appearance of being extremely fast, but . . . well. . .is extremely fast. Most sleeper cars are done by individual consumers or sometimes tuners, not by major car companies (with few exceptions). Ms, AMGs, Vseries, SRT's, S, Type-s, RS, STi (even the limited), SSs are not sleeper cars, even the average person know's those are different. Neither are Mitsubishi Evolution RSs (its an Evo), Volvo S60Rs (quite clearly an R badged car), Pontiac GTOs (famous American muscle),Volkswagen Passat W8 (expensive European sedan to start with, it is not a sleeper, just all other b5.5s were shockingly slow), Nissan Skyline GT-R (that, a sleeper?), nor is a Mustang (America's favorite pony car?). The car you can start with might be relatively sport (say a 3 series; 325i), but to be a sleeper car it must a) look completely stock, or as close as possible, and b) go WAY above the performance of the stock car (say the 325i series with a 7 series v12 squeezed under the bonnet; an M3 is not a sleeper unless it is A) made to look like a non M 3 series, or B) has so much power (still with stock looks) that it can surprise people who know what M3's can do). The definitive sleeper car in my mind (I am biased, I built one), are those "monster" Miata's. They are stock looking Mx-5 Miata's with either a Ford Mustang 302ci (5.0L) or Chevy LS-1 v8 under the hood. Assuming the miata has a stock exterior . . . that my friends is a real sleeper. BMan1113VR 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I will create a draft of an updated version to show to you guys. Give me 2 weeks. BMan1113VR 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should include both definitions and a mention of the controversy/ambiguity of the term. That would seem like the more encyclopedic thing to do. 99.247.211.44 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Page not very good 

message: I oppose it, to a point; the terms are something of an example of convergent evolution with separate histories.  The American term "sleeper" tends to be applied in drag racing contexts especially. — AKADriver ☎ 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also oppose. It's two different things. // Liftarn
Oppose totally, as a sleeper is modified to preformance by the owner/driver, and a Q-car is a "factory hot rod". - 70.109.72.185 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There seems to be merit in a merge, the articles do describe quite similar vehicles, even if the terms were coined in different places at different times.Alastairward (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Q-car]] 

message: I actually don't know this - but I was surprised at the reason given for calling it a sleeper car:
'Sleeper cars are termed such because their exterior looks little or no different from a normal version of the car, but internally they are modified to perform at higher levels, thus they can catch the unaware "sleeping".'
My original assumption about the word's origin was that it had one of two senses given by the Oxford English Dictionary.  I quote from the OED's entry for "sleeper":
'4. a. A thing in a dormant or dead state.'
'6. Something whose quality or value proves to be greater than was generally expected; a ‘dark horse’. orig. U.S'
But this really may not be the case - and the reason currently given does sound plausible.  Just wondering if anyone actually knew.
OED doesn't have "Sleeper Car" at all.  Urban Dictionary does (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sleeper), but it doesn't have any etymology info.
Multi-wall 04:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason why it's called a sleeper car 

message: The "sleeper car" article seems to be way too specific in places it needn't be. I agree
with the points made in the other postings. At the risk of sounding redundant, a sleeper car is a "sleeper" because it is intentionally made so. Pulling the badges off a fast car isn't what making a sleeper is all about. The 96' Impalla, for instance, is a fairly unassuming vehicle with decent performance potential, but that doesn't make it a sleeper. Factory built "sleepers" are a completely differant category of vehicle and exist, often, for very differant reasons than a home brewed sleeper. For example, it was common practice in the 1960's for American manufacturers to slot race caliber engines into normal production cars for homolugation purposes. This created a sleeper but of a very differant nature than, say, an acura with a hidden turbo or a mustang with a hidden NO2 plate. In short, the article shouldn't list cars that are considered sleepers, especially the SRT-8 Charger because that's not going to fool anyone, and more research might be due before declaring a 1980's Mercedes the first "Super Sleeper" (has the author ever heard of a COPO camero-he aught to look it up).
(65Glassback 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a very balanced or logical article  

message: The terms Q-car and Sleeper both describe cars that externally do not suggest the performance gain that the model has over the car it is mimicking. I propose redirecting Q-Car to this article, there is much in that article that is in essence repeated here. Alastairward (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Q-car article, much of it is idle speculation and unreferenced material, if that was cleaned up it would be nice regardless.Alastairward (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put together a proposal for the merged articles in my sandbox, I'll have a further go at the weekend.Alastairward (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The term Q-car is probably supported by the cars from James Bond movies, but the character Q didn't appear until From Russia With Love, which was released in October 1963, months after the term first appeared in Motor Sport Magazine (assuming that part of the article is correct). Q didn't even modify a car until Goldfinger, realeased in 1964.
A sleeper is also a type of terrorist. The following link gives a good explanation of the term:
http://thesop.org/index.php?article=6485
"Altimimi arrived in Bolton and then used his wife and children in a bid to blend into the community appearing as an ordinary family. But behind closed doors he was downloading shocking videos of executions, bomb-making recipes and information on how to establish a terrorist cell. He appears to have been a 'sleeper' remaining in the shadows waiting and preparing for action."
I have no idea if this the original reason for the term "sleeper (car)" but it is a great explanation. 99.247.211.44 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term Origins 

message: These look much like their normal 3/5 series counterparts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullo exclamation mark (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMW M3/M5? 

message: its a friggen minivan!!! with 503 horsepower! how is that not a sleeper?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.122.128 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a cite for that? Alastairward (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who took out the Mercedes R63 AMG? 

message: I removed a bunch of cars that are not sleepers. They do not meet the definition of the sleeper. Most I removed are simply high end mass produced cars with a bit more hp. They are not special in any performance sense, and would not be any faster than your average V6 crossover. Some of the adds were totally preposterous, such as the V6 toyota Camry. That's pretty sad for the person who thinks that has some sort of sleeper performance when it would be smoked by a Golf or some random economy car. CJ DUB (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the TRD Toyota Aurion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Aurion#TRD_Aurion While you are removing high end mass produced cars with a bit more hp, why not remove everything except the Chrysler 300C and how about adding the Mayback 57/62? Other candidates for removal from the current list are the Saturn, Skoda, Rover, Volvo S60R, etc. Hullo exclamation mark (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: As great as Subaru's WRX STi is, I don't believe that it fits under the sleeper category, what with the bright pink (Fine, "Cherry Blossom Red") stickers and badges on many of its body panels, the hood scoop, and the wing. Moogleluvr (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Subaru WRX STI 

message: I assumed the term derived from the James Bond Q, because all of the gadgets he created were unassuming on the outside, but deadly within. -- œ™ 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q-car 

message: Substituted at 20:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment