Favourite supercar manufacturer?

[GT_Prologue5]

McLaren and the amazing F1. Honestly, 1150kg, 3 passengers, 2 trunk spaces, and a huge V12 engine sitting behind the 3 lucky people.
Tell me I'm wrong, but they're the last British manufacturer to build an out of this world hypercar that has a smidge of practicality.

It also looks amazing, is extremely rare, and won the biggest endurance race- Le Mans. And come on, only McLaren would name a car "F1"

Oh and the MP4-12C isn't horrible, either.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^Mp4-12C needs more credit.

Apparently it's boring looking to others.

I think it excudes Mclaren design philosophy.

 

[Eric.]

Astons all have slushboxes. They're GTs, not supercars.


I'm going to consider "Supercar manufacturers" to be manufacturers who primarily make supercars. For example, excluding Ford even though they made a supercar.


So I think I have to go with Lamborghini. Ferrari has lost a lot of respect from me with their latest crap with specially tuned test models and whatnot, and I've always felt them to be a little overrated anyways. There isn't a Lamborghini model I don't like, but there are Ferraris that I don't like. I also like Lambo's latest push for lightweight tech, showcased by the Sesto Elemento.


If I were able to own any supercar, it would without a doubt be a McLaren F1. But that's entirely unrealistic. Instead I would choose a Ford GT. Closely followed by a Murcielago LP640 Roadster (or an Aventador Roadster, whenever that happens).

 

[Stotty]

But Porsche is not all "super car" like Ferrari is though.

At this moment in time Ferrari don't make a Supercar.

None of their current range is a Supercar as far as I'm concerned. The last supercar they made was the Enzo, before that, the F50, before that the F40 and before that the 288GTO.

You can't call 430, 458, California, 612 or 599 Supercars IMO.

 

[CarreraGT]

Astons all have slushboxes. They're GTs, not supercars.

What exactly constitutes a slush box in your opinion?

 

[Stotty]

I wouldn't classify any Aston as a Supercar, but I'm pretty sure they do a mix of traditional automatics (DB9), automated manuals (Vanquish, V8V) and proper manuals (V8V, DBS).

IMO, a mid engined layout is one of the characteritics a car must have to be considered a Supercar, so no Astons would qualify.

 

[Ru-fus]

voted Lambo

as nearly all if not all their cars are supercars, the majority of the other manufacturers have madea few supercars but Merc, Porsche etc also make sportscars cars and the likes of Bugatti, McLaren etc are hypecars. Then that leaves companies like Koinegsegg and Pagani...as much as i love them, they haven't been knocking about as long as the other companies, so Lambo it is!

 

[Adamgp]

um...

Ford?

x2. Probably the only supercar I would own if I had the $.

 

[Clark]

I wouldn't classify any Aston as a Supercar, but I'm pretty sure they do a mix of traditional automatics (DB9), automated manuals (Vanquish, V8V) and proper manuals (V8V, DBS).

IMO, a mid engined layout is one of the characteritics a car must have to be considered a Supercar, so no Astons would qualify.

I'd maybe argue the front-engined thing, stuff like the 250 GTO and the Sagaris are supercars to me. Even though the 250 GTO existed before the term 'supercar' was coined.

 

[Stotty]

I'd maybe argue the front-engined thing, stuff like the 250 GTO and the Sagaris are supercars to me. Even though the 250 GTO existed before the term 'supercar' was coined.

The mid engine requirement is just my opinion 👍

TVR Sagaris? Hmmmm... great car, but not a Supercar for me... engine's in the wrong place, has too few cylinders, and it was far too accessible pricing wise.

250GTO… an amazing car, but personally, I wouldn’t consider anything before the Muira as a Supercar in the modern use of the word.

There is one front engine car I might consider a Supercar, primarily because I wouldn’t know how else to categorise it and it fits in with all my other personal Supercar rules… the TVR Speed 12.

 

[Clark]

I just think the Sagaris as it's just bonkers, and price wise, not that much less than an Ultima GTR, which I'd class as a Supercar.

Now I've said that I'm unsure, as I think the Ultima is too much like a race car/track car. But then that would also rule out the 288 GTO, F40, F50 and Enzo.

Maybe the Sagaris and Ultima aren't as they don't have the air of ultimate 'unobtainability' about them.

 

[Stotty]

An Ultima could be a Supercar... fits a lot of the criteria as far as I'm concerned... except it has no heritage and it's pretty much a kit car!

Off the top of my head, Supercars should be...

Mid engined
Perferably 12 cylinders, though cars like the 288GTO, F40, 959 and Jaguar XJ220 prove there are exceptions to that rule
Pinacle of a manufacturers range
Inaccessible to people who are meerly rich
Styling... the most difficult one... low, wide, outlandish, statement cars

I don't mention performance for a good reason... the cooking models in top end manufactuers ranges are now incredibly fast... eg; a 458 is pretty much as fast as an Enzo, so differentiating the top models from the next model down on performance is almost impossible.

 

[Liamdude 00]

x2. Probably the only supercar I would own if I had the $.

Ford may make the GT but they don't make any other supercar.

 

[Liamdude 00]

I'm suprised that noone has voted bugatti yet.

 

[Luminis]

Well, from Wikipedia (and I think I can agree with that):

Supercar is a term used most often to describe an ultra-high-end "exotic" automobile, whose performance is superior to that of its contemporaries. It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car".[1] Stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match," "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own".[2] However, the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. So-called vehicles are typically out of the ordinary and are marketed by automakers to be perceived by the public as unusual. The supercar can take many forms including limited production specials from an "elite" automaker, standard looking cars made by mainstream companies that hide massive power and performance, as well as models that appeal to "hardcore enthusiasts" from "manufacturers on the fringe of the car industry."[3]

As far as 'super car manufacturer' goes: If they made a super car, they're a super car manufacturer, I think. The fact that Mercedes builds econoboxes doesn't take anything away from the SLS, for example.

 

[Stotty]

As far as 'super car manufacturer' goes: If they made a super car, they're a super car manufacturer, I think. The fact that Mercedes builds econoboxes doesn't take anything away from the SLS, for example.

Does anyone consider the SLS a Supercar? It's a big GT as far as I'm concerned.

Mercedes Supercars... CLK GTR for sure, maybe the SLR... but that fails from my perspective as it's front engined.

 

[Adamgp]

Ford may make the GT but they don't make any other supercar.

I'm aware. To be a supercar manufacturer you only need to produce 1 supercar.

 

[freedomweasel]

Too many different connotations for "super car", the same problem usually comes up when trying to define "sports car".

I'll throw my 2 cents in though. As far as Aston Martin goes I think that the One-77 is a super car, but I wouldn't call any of the rest of their lineup the same.

Personally, my favorite would be either McLaren or Porsche with my two favorite super cars being the F1 and the GT, I don't think I could choose between those two cars. Between the two manufacturers overall though, I think I'd pick Porsche. That's mostly because due to the sheer number of cars they've made I simply have more that I like from them. Though, based on percentage I guess I like more McLarens, 100%.

 

[Eric.]

What exactly constitutes a slush box in your opinion?

Nevermind, thought they were all using torque converter autos with paddle shifting.


Still, they aren't extremely fast and are on the heavy side to be a supercar.


Some of the cars I consider to be a supercar would be Gallardo, F430, Ford GT, SLR, , LFA, Carrera GT, McLaren F1 and MP4. I include the higher level Lamborghinis (Murcielago, Aventador), and Ferraris, but I'm not sure whether to call the 599 one (I wouldn't argue it isn't) but I definitely do not count the 612. The FF is probably in.

I don't really want to include any Corvettes or 911s because they come down to pretty civilian levels. Viper is excluded as its so close to the Vette that I can't fairly allow it. Those are all solidly sports cars to me.

 

[McLaren]

OK, I can see your argument and now that you mention it, I do remember reading that somewhere along the line. However, I still swear by the Aston-Martin: the way I see it, others will invariably improve on the original formula, and to me at least, Aston-Martin has done the best job of updating what a supercar is and should be.

The original formula is the Miura. Aston Martin hasn't built anything like that in years.

Lamborghini's halo cars on the other hand, have never changed that formula because it's what defines them. The formula has only modernized & been made to meet constant new requirements. From the Countach to the Reventon, their top dollar cars stay true to the Miura. Loud, obnoxious cars that's only purpose is to be fast & look so far out of place that every hater will think you're a tool and every enthusiast from a mile away will ask you annoying questions.

If anyone has stuck close to that formula, it's probably Lamborghini, themselves. Pagani has done so amazingly well as well, but maybe we can attest that to Horacio's work with the Countach & the Diablo. The man was destined for greatness.

 

[CarreraGT]

Does anyone consider the SLS a Supercar? It's a big GT as far as I'm concerned.

Mercedes Supercars... CLK GTR for sure, maybe the SLR... but that fails from my perspective as it's front engined.

Of course the SLS is a supercar. It fast and its expensive, therefore it's a supercar

 

[Clark]

So is a Porsche Cayenne Turbo. That doesn't make it a supercar.

 

[CarreraGT]

Nevermind, thought they were all using torque converter autos with paddle shifting.


Still, they aren't extremely fast and are on the heavy side to be a supercar.


Some of the cars I consider to be a supercar would be Gallardo, F430, Ford GT, SLR, , LFA, Carrera GT, McLaren F1 and MP4. I include the higher level Lamborghinis (Murcielago, Aventador), and Ferraris, but I'm not sure whether to call the 599 one (I wouldn't argue it isn't) but I definitely do not count the 612. The FF is probably in.

I don't really want to include any Corvettes or 911s because they come down to pretty civilian levels. Viper is excluded as its so close to the Vette that I can't fairly allow it. Those are all solidly sports cars to me.

Also in response to his, how can you consider the Ferrari FF a supercar (4wd, front engined grand tourer) but not the Corvette? Take the ZR-1 for example: 640hp, 1500kg, 7:26 around the Nordscleife. These sound like supercar numbers to me

Also the Viper and Corvette are very different, at least do a Wikipedia search before you post

 

[AMCNUT]

The original formula is the Miura. Aston Martin hasn't built anything like that in years.

Lamborghini's halo cars on the other hand, have never changed that formula because it's what defines them. The formula has only modernized & been made to meet constant new requirements. From the Countach to the Reventon, their top dollar cars stay true to the Miura. Loud, obnoxious cars that's only purpose is to be fast & look so far out of place that every hater will think you're a tool and every enthusiast from a mile away will ask you annoying questions.

If anyone has stuck close to that formula, it's probably Lamborghini, themselves. Pagani has done so amazingly well as well, but maybe we can attest that to Horacio's work with the Countach & the Diablo. The man was destined for greatness.

I don't think that being mid-engined and/or obnoxious-looking are necessarily requisite attributes for a supercar. It sure doesn't hurt - I think the modern Lamborghinis look amazing and fit the supercar ALMOST bill as well as the Aston-Martin - but there's more to it then that. Plenty of supercars are front-engined: the Viper, Corvette ZR1, GT-R Spec V, ASTON-MARTINS, certain Ferraris, etc.

In the looks department, I bet you any money that the Aston-Martin DBS will age 20x better than the Murcielago or the Revention. Subtle, sensuous curves win out over wedges every time. The Miura? Curvy. The 250 GTO? Also curvy. Same goes with the Astons - they win 'best-dressed' no matter which company they're in. When people look at a Countach or something like that, it looks like an old car. Your Miura, much like the Astons, carries their age much more gracefully.

Things like that are the key to updating 'the formula' if you ask me. Lamborghini has gone their own unique way, but it and Aston-Martin is like comparing two girls at a prom dance; one's got blue hair, two tons of makeup, and a dress shinier than Fort Knox, while the other is that attractive redhead with the svelte black dress and just the right amount of bling. Sure, the first girl might steal the show attention-wise, but who would YOU rather dance with? At the high school reunion many years down the road I imagine the second lady will be looking a lot less aged than the first!

Long story short: More customers than ever before nowadays want a luxurious grand tourer that comes with enough power to blast across continents with ease as opposed to brutal performance. Aston-Martin (and Mercedes and Jaguar as well) represents the best modern interpretation of the formula. The supercar is evolving, and cars like the Lamborghini are no longer the bread and butter, I think.

Just my ramblings though!

 

[astrosdude91]

I'll be the weird one.

Toyota.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't really want to include any Corvettes or 911s because they come down to pretty civilian levels. Viper is excluded as its so close to the Vette that I can't fairly allow it. Those are all solidly sports cars to me.

I'd say that the Z06 Carbon, ZR1 and Viper ACR would go against what you're saying, but I get your point. We Americans are still a bit too crude in our execution, despite having the performance to hang with the world's best. That's alright, it's what we do.

 

[Dan_]

Porsche, they make the best sportscar of all times, which is the 911 and did build the best supercar to me: the Carrera GT, not to mention the 959...

Add the incredible racing heritage and you have the best manufacturer by far.

 

[Eric.]

Also in response to his, how can you consider the Ferrari FF a supercar (4wd, front engined grand tourer) but not the Corvette? Take the ZR-1 for example: 640hp, 1500kg, 7:26 around the Nordscleife. These sound like supercar numbers to me

Also the Viper and Corvette are very different, at least do a Wikipedia search before you post

Because the FF is the slowest Ferrari FF you can buy? there isn't a 350hp version , 480hp version, and 600+hp version or anything similar to Corvette/911 lineups.

And the Viper and Vette are very similar. Both big displacement, two seater, RWD, American sportscars. The Viper is more raw, if that's what you're getting at. But its the same formula. Its just that Corvette's base model doesn't have a comparable Viper. But the Z06 and Viper and ZR1 and ACR are for the most part, comparable. Not necessarily as a track comparison with the ACR's case, since that's much more of a race car than the ZR1 tries to be. But if someone were looking to buy a ZR1 they'd likely cross-shop an ACR.

Not sure what kind of smartass remark it is to tell me to go to Wikipedia to learn the difference of these two. Different designers, different tire sizes, they use different ball joints?

 

[CarreraGT]

I'm just saying that the Corvette and Viper are quite different, despite both being American. The 599 is also a big displacement, two seater, RWD sportscar but you could hardly call it similar to a Corvette or Viper...

Sure they are both American and both front engined RWD, but they use different engines, different chassis construction, different suspension design etc.

And what does it matter if a company makes lower powered models? Ford make the GT but they also make the Focus, it doesn't matter. We're only talking about supercars here

 

[McLaren]

I don't think that being mid-engined and/or obnoxious-looking are necessarily requisite attributes for a supercar.

I never said it had to be mid-engine. However, looks are a big part of supercars.

Aston Martin's look is universal through every car.

It sure doesn't hurt - I think the modern Lamborghinis look amazing and fit the supercar ALMOST bill as well as the Aston-Martin - but there's more to it then that. Plenty of supercars are front-engined: the Viper, Corvette ZR1, GT-R Spec V, ASTON-MARTINS, certain Ferraris, etc.

You think Lamborghini is almost as much a supercar as Aston Martin?

In the looks department, I bet you any money that the Aston-Martin DBS will age 20x better than the Murcielago or the Revention. Subtle, sensuous curves win out over wedges every time. The Miura? Curvy. The 250 GTO? Also curvy. Same goes with the Astons - they win 'best-dressed' no matter which company they're in. When people look at a Countach or something like that, it looks like an old car. Your Miura, much like the Astons, carries their age much more gracefully.

Aston Martin & looks is a laughable argument; they're all designed the same. Don't believe me? Look at the Virage & the DB9. Laziness at it's finest. They won't age well if they can't keep the design fresh between models. That's why Lamborghini's look so old; because 1 model stays around for over 10 years & is just updated over time.

But, that's due to money & the age each Lamborghini is built in. To have a design that makes people stop & look, you have to design something outside the box. Over time though, that design is no longer "out-there" because as time goes on, the world of design changes as well.

Things like that are the key to updating 'the formula' if you ask me.

You can't update something if you aren't building anything like it in the first place.

Aston Martin has not "updated" what made the Miura a supercar. They have gone their own path & created grand tourers.

Lamborghini has gone their own unique way

How can Lamborghini go a "unique" way if their way is still true to the original concept?

Long story short: More customers than ever before nowadays want a luxurious grand tourer that comes with enough power to blast across continents with ease as opposed to brutal performance. Aston-Martin (and Mercedes and Jaguar as well) represents the best modern interpretation of the formula. The supercar is evolving, and cars like the Lamborghini are no longer the bread and butter, I think.

Just my ramblings though!

Thank you for just shooting your argument in the foot by saying people want a luxurious grand tourer & Aston Martin is the one doing it whilst Lamborghini isn't.

As for who is the bread & butter of supercars, Lamborghini & Pagani remain true to the Miura. Supercars were not about being luxurious & driving through continents with ease (bar the Veyron). That's what the grand tourer is for. The only reason a supercar can do those things now is because people now-a-days feel they should be given creature comforts to make their drives easier. In the case of Lamborghini though, it's still a difficult task because of their width.

Besides maybe the One-77, Aston Martin hasn't built anything that could be really seen as a supercar (in the same sense as the Miura) since the F50 besides perhaps the Vantage LeMans.