Reading the thread about 4X4s in Gran Turismo made me recall a debate about what a sports car is, and isn't. It's fairly easy to say the Ferrari F430 is a sports car, but it's harder to say why. Is it the speed? The looks? Maybe because it's rear wheel drive, has only two seats, powered by petrol, or just because it's a Ferrari?
Moving down the scale to a 370z, car of the moment; most would agree that's also a sports car for much the same reasons, except of course the word 'Nissan' doesn't evoke quite the same visceral reaction in one's nether regions as Ferrari.
Then we get to the likes of the hot hatches, the Golf GTis, quick Hondas and the Focus. Now we have four or five seats, more doors, front wheel drive, and these cars aren't even designed from the ground up as sports cars. Do they still qualify? What if they have a diesel engine or an automatic gearbox? I think most people would still rate these vehicles as sports cars, if there was a measure of clear sporting intent in the design or maybe just looks.
Now what about 4X4s? Could a 2500kg offroader with low range be a sports car? Most would scoff, but why? What exactly is about the car that makes it not a sports car? Speed? Doors? Engine? And if it's diesel and automatic? Handling? (but try one before you claim that). Similarly, we have nondescript family cars with no apparent pretensions at 'sportiness' which as more than adequately quick.
It's a difficult decision, this definition of 'sports car'. You can't do it based on any objective criteria as for any measure you care to name someone can find cars which are 'sporty' that don't meet it, and 'non-sporty' than do.
To solve the problem I've created my own very simple definition. If I am driving a car and I have just a little extra time for the journey, do I start to feel an overpowering urge to take the long way home via the back roads? If I do, that's a sports car. If I want to get home as quickly as possible and hide the car in the garage, then it's not a sports car. It doesn't matter how fast the car is -- a sports car is just about driving pleasure, not a set of specifications.
Moving down the scale to a 370z, car of the moment; most would agree that's also a sports car for much the same reasons, except of course the word 'Nissan' doesn't evoke quite the same visceral reaction in one's nether regions as Ferrari.
Then we get to the likes of the hot hatches, the Golf GTis, quick Hondas and the Focus. Now we have four or five seats, more doors, front wheel drive, and these cars aren't even designed from the ground up as sports cars. Do they still qualify? What if they have a diesel engine or an automatic gearbox? I think most people would still rate these vehicles as sports cars, if there was a measure of clear sporting intent in the design or maybe just looks.
Now what about 4X4s? Could a 2500kg offroader with low range be a sports car? Most would scoff, but why? What exactly is about the car that makes it not a sports car? Speed? Doors? Engine? And if it's diesel and automatic? Handling? (but try one before you claim that). Similarly, we have nondescript family cars with no apparent pretensions at 'sportiness' which as more than adequately quick.
It's a difficult decision, this definition of 'sports car'. You can't do it based on any objective criteria as for any measure you care to name someone can find cars which are 'sporty' that don't meet it, and 'non-sporty' than do.
To solve the problem I've created my own very simple definition. If I am driving a car and I have just a little extra time for the journey, do I start to feel an overpowering urge to take the long way home via the back roads? If I do, that's a sports car. If I want to get home as quickly as possible and hide the car in the garage, then it's not a sports car. It doesn't matter how fast the car is -- a sports car is just about driving pleasure, not a set of specifications.
