Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknroll_jeph
I read that article on R&T (I think) and I didn't really agree with what the author was saying. I feel that as language has evolved and what a "Sports Car" really is has changed too.
We can't use definitions made so long ago because they are out of touch with what we have today. I enjoy reading books written in the 40's and 50's and there are many words used in those books that we wouldn't think of using in that context any more. Why should we stick to an outdated way of classification?
When the term "sports car" was coined, there were not so many variations of car design as there are today. It seem to me by all of the different publications I read that a common consensus of what a sports car is today is a CAR that has seats 2, has 2 doors and is light, nimble and can be used in motor sports and/or spirited driving.
GT cars seem to be cars that have a similar emotion and driving connection, but have 4 doors. I don't like the 4 door coupe phrase.
Even though a muscle car was originally a normal car that was stuffed with a huge motor, that is not really what manufactures do anymore so that now the turbocharged 4cyl cars can still be referred to as a Muscle Car. I think the muscle cars are mostly 2 door American manufactured cars that can seat for, have a long hood, short trunk/ deck proportions.
Of course there are many variations of each of these and not one definition will make everyone happy. I don't have a problem with that article calling a Mustang a sedan, but their definition of what a sports car is surely needs to be updated. I'm shouldn't be too hurt, because I think that they are calling my 2003 BMW Z4 a sports car because it has a soft top.
However, based on my own logic and reasoning, I am having a challenge figuring out what my first car should be classified as. In 2007 I bought an 07 Hyundai Tiburon. It has 2 doors, seats 4 but is not very sporty, not a good GT and not at all a muscle car. I guess it is just a Coupe, and where I live it was not called a Tiburon, but simply Hyundai Coupe...
|
The end result of revising the names of these various categories is to take all meaning away from all of them. Imagine rainbows suddenly having only barely distinguishable shades of beige, and trying to explain that to your students.
Let the rainbow keep its colors and the category names stay fixed, and if any given car does not fit where revisionist thinking might want to put it, assume that it really doesn't belong there and find a better place for it.
There is no way that the Camaro or the Mustang belong in the same category that includes the Miata. Or the BRZ, Boxster, or your Z4 for that matter. The first two are too big, too heavy, and a little too deliberate in their handling (not to mention being more isolated in terms of "feel").
Sports cars are more about the subjective driving experience, almost to the point of spite against the idea of utility. Camaros and Mustangs are actually quite useful as all-around cars, at least for people whose kids are either small or all grown up and out on their own.
I understand why you might object to the 'pony car' tag, but it does truly fit your Chevy and my Ford. Bigger and less nimble than a Miata, smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable than Dodge's Charger. What's the point in re-inventing this wheel?
Incidentally, I agree that the Tiburon isn't much of a sport coupe, never mind sports car. A guy I knew tried autocrossing one some years back, and it was clearly out of its element at that activity.
Norm