Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Car Comparisons' started by CitroenSM, Oct 13, 2009.
I can't imagine how much he would queef once Zonda's replacement and the next Ferrari flagship come out.
By then he would queef even harder to convince everyone here that K'segg is still the most "perfect".
yes corvette ZR1 and nissan GTR = sueprcar, F50 and F40 = super exotic ect ect
Anyone attaching numbers to what constitutes a supercar is pretty stupid. numerical times always evolve.
Siriusly, Miura is about as quick as a 350Z.
true very true
Well, we could work with index figures in a perfect world. Which it isn't.
A supercar cant claim a specific LOOK or image. that doesnt make a supercar anything. they can be as ugly or as plain as they want to be.
its when you start to name off hypercar and exotics etc that become more into that roll of IMAGE or look of the car.
you also cant say a supercar has mid engine only. you can classify such a thing as only a supercar, because there are cars better that are not mid engined and it singles out alot of cars.
a supercar doesnt have specific specs, but ratios or limits that are broken that normal cars dont have. say a power to weight ratio and a top speed limit that most cars cant attain. but being a supercar its not ASTRONOMICAL, but its above all the average at least most likly way above average. if a car can go 250mph thats more than a supercar dont you think? but if it lacks in other criteria maybe a supercar is all that it is with a higher top speed.
it has to be ballanced, well rounded well above the average car. it has to be considered to have a very good weight to power ratio.
anything too low its just a GT just over a GT would make it a supercar and there are plenty of things that can make it more than a supercar like exotic or hyper.
strait line performance is not what makes a car supercar, thats why top fuel dragsters are not supercars. SO using a benchmark like the nurinburgring and its laptimes shows a great compairo of how super a car is. but its not what makes a supercar complete if it gains that benchmarks goal. eight minutes is damn fast and alot of cars small and large are now finaly committing to those times, but the other factors are needed for a complete supercar.
power weight ratio is a major roll. it must weigh four kilograms [8.8 pounds] or less per horsepower-our ratio is 3.6 kilograms. seems pretty logical. This insures that the supercar has testicals and it can use them.
a decent top speed around 190mph. more than most cars can do. of course we all like top speed but that doesnt neccessarly make something more of a supercar than something else. alot of cars dont need that speed, why make the car go faster? especially if the other ratio items are on the lower scale of the supercar standard.
sure you could add more to this equation... but this is pretty standard and a great benchmark to make a supercar what it is.
so, by mindlessoaf's measure, the ferrari daytona isn't a supercar (4.62kg per horsepower) despite it being the fastest car in the world when it came out....
the main point is that you CAN'T quantify what a supercar "is" by using its statistics. You just have to compare it to what a "normal" car is/was at the time it was released, and use your own judgement.
no point putting figures to it. using the Daytona again: 353hp. the E46 M3 CSL has more horsepower. does that make the M3 a supercar, and the Daytona not? I'd be willing to bet that in most people's minds, the daytona is the supercar.
hypothetically, a well tuned fiero could be one, however
Ferrari Daytona is a Gran Turismo automobile.
And a supercar cannot be a modified car... that would just be a modified car. it has to be stock from factory.
I do also agree that time DOES change every year. what you would call a supercar in the 70's is clearly not one today. but then again, i wouldnt call a Ferrari Daytona a supercar, nor a nissan R32 GT-R. even tho they were the fastest in there time period. those are clearly GT cars in my honest opinion.
you're getting WAY to tied up in trying to pigeon-hole every single car into weird sub-categories
so a car can't be a GT and a supercar?
...to name three GT cars that are also supercars.
stop trying to be so specific - the definition changes as the decades pass. It's all about context.
why are we even arguing this? you clearly don't get it
james gets it.
finally, someone with a brain! (hai phano <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>)
screw you hippie. my definition fits all your descriptions and you all looked over it.
The DBS isn't a supercar IMO, it's not quick enough and it looks to much like the DB9.
That said, I absolutely #$%#ing love that car and would give my leftie to drive one again.
Anyway, Mindless's long post was basically designed to make sure the GT-R is a supercar, and yet, it isn't.
you really don't think the DBS is a supercar?
Hell, I'd call a DB9 a supercar simply for having a 6 litre V12. lol
performance to a new level ay
Haha, well different strokes for different folks I guess.
I actually can't believe I said it isn't quick enough, when I drove it, being pressed into the seat with the merest of throttle and so on, maybe it is a supercar and I should stop thinking it can 'only' do 191.
I #$%#ing adore the DBS.
Mindlessoaf is living up to his name; he really doesn't have a brain
it took you this long to realise that
A Lamborghini Countach or perhaps a Diablo is the first thing that comes to mind when i hear the word "supercar"
a large amount of cylinders,
a engine sound that is awesome.
And a few other "things" that these 2 cars have.
Supercar =/= # of cylinders