GTP Cool Wall: Ford SportKa. Voting Open!

[Famine]

Awesome, I'm happy for you.

I don't care

See, you're being unnecessarily obnoxious again.

I'm sorry but I don't remember loaning you my car, how do you know what it can and can't do?

I don't remember you driving a SportKa. How do you know what it can and can't do - sufficiently well to deem it slow everywhere?

And that's the point. You say the car is slow and that "slow is slow". Several people have pointed out that, yes, in a straight line you won't get there in a hurry but that this is only one aspect of speed, and it's not even a very important aspect in day-to-day driving.


Did you know that your car has a 10% smaller proportional footprint than the SportKa, leading to a drastic increase in sway and an associated reduction in mechanical grip? Ooooh, I've got a better one! Did you know that in a straight 60-0mph test, when the SportKa has stopped, the GTP is still doing 20mph?

I did.

I voted the car uncool for other reasons, ya know.

To take a leaf out of your book... I don't care how you voted or why. I'm discussing your assertions that the car is "slow" and that "slow is slow" - both of which are wrong.

 

[Tornado]

I'm sorry but I don't remember loaning you my car, how do you know what it can and can't do?

The only positive experience I have with the handling of a W-body car of similar vintage is that when it rolled from the spirited driving it was put through I walked away without a scratch.

 

[Adamgp]

See, you're being unnecessarily obnoxious again.

The thread was about one particular car, everyone was to give an opinion about it, which I did. Your trying to tell me its cool because it's not the only small car in the UK. I don't care.

I don't remember you driving a SportKa. How do you know what it can and can't do - sufficiently well to deem it slow everywhere?

Specs speak for themselves. 0-60 in 10 seconds and a top end of just over 100mph is slow IMO.

And that's the point. You say the car is slow and that "slow is slow". Several people have pointed out that, yes, in a straight line you won't get there in a hurry but that this is only one aspect of speed, and it's not even a very important aspect in day-to-day driving.



Did you know that your car has a 10% smaller proportional footprint than the SportKa, leading to a drastic increase in sway and an associated reduction in mechanical grip? Ooooh, I've got a better one! Did you know that in a straight 60-0mph test, when the SportKa has stopped, the GTP is still doing 20mph?

I did.

Did you know I do not care? The thread isn't about my car.

To take a leaf out of your book... I don't care how you voted or why. I'm discussing your assertions that the car is "slow" and that "slow is slow" - both of which are wrong.

The car is slow in my opinion, if you think it's fast I do not care.

 

[Famine]

The thread was about one particular car, everyone was to give an opinion about it, which I did. Your trying to tell me its cool because it's not the only small car in the UK. I don't care.

I'm not trying to tell you that it's cool. Look:

I'm discussing your assertions that the car is "slow" and that "slow is slow" - both of which are wrong.

It matters not a whit to me whether you think it's cool or not.

Specs speak for themselves. 0-60 in 10 seconds and a top end of just over 100mph is slow IMO.

0-60mph is irrelevant unless you're into TLGPs. Top speed is irrelevant unless you're driving off the public road or on a derestricted section of highway.

Point-to-point, on the very roads this was designed for, it'll spank the ass of a car you think isn't slow. And you're right, the specs do speak for themselves. You're just looking at the wrong ones - the ones meant to grab your attention but which describe nothing relevant.

Did you know I do not care? The thread isn't about my car.

You car was used for comparison. To you the SportKa is "slow" the MX-3 is "slow" and the Pontiac GTP is "not slow". Yet of the three on the above road, the GTP will come last.

The car is slow in my opinion, if you think it's fast I do not care.

I don't think it's fast and have never said so. However I know it's not slow. If 0-60mph and top speed forms the basis of your opinion for whether something is "slow" or "fast", your opinion is a very, very narrow one and one which has little relation to reality.

 

[Adamgp]

I'm not trying to tell you that it's cool. Look:



It matters not a whit to me whether you think it's cool or not.

The point of the thread is to give an opinion on a car's coolness.

0-60mph is irrelevant unless you're into TLGPs. Top speed is irrelevant unless you're driving off the public road or on a derestricted section of highway.

Point-to-point, on the very roads this was designed for, it'll spank the ass of a car you think isn't slow. And you're right, the specs do speak for themselves - you're just looking at the wrong ones.

Slowness I was referring to is it's lack of speed. Not whether or not it can scoot along UK back roads

You car was used for comparison. To you the SportKa is "slow" the MX-3 is "slow" and the Pontiac GTP is "not slow". Yet of the three on the above road, the GTP will come last.

How are you so sure? Who cares anyway?

I don't think it's fast and have never said so. However I know it's not slow. If 0-60mph and top speed forms the basis of your opinion for whether something is "slow" or "fast", your opinion is a very, very narrow one and one which has little relation to reality.

It's slow in my opinion.

0-60 and top speed numbers reflect a cars performance. Lack of performance = slow.

In my opinion this car is slow, might be fine for you. I could care less.

 

[Tornado]

How are you so sure? Who cares anyway?

Two statements at odds with each other.
Also, to answer your first question: Its a W-Body.

 

[Adamgp]

Two statements at odds with each other.
Also, to answer your first question: Its a W-Body.

I'm aware.

 

[Famine]

How are you so sure? Who cares anyway?

The laws of physics apply to Fords and Pontiacs equally.

You clearly care. The act of someone who doesn't is to not keep responding.

0-60 and top speed numbers reflect a cars performance.

Reflect, yes. Define, no. Other factors also reflect a car's performance.

To put it another way, you might approach a corner at a higher speed than a SportKa, but the SportKa can arrive at it at a higher speed, go through it at a higher speed and come out of it at a higher speed.

Personally I'd rather have a car that you think is slow because it doesn't have some irrelevant headline figures than one that is slow. Which is why I do. You appear to think the exact opposite.

 

[Adamgp]

The laws of physics apply to Fords and Pontiacs equally.

You clearly care. The act of someone who doesn't is to not keep responding.

I don't care, Your argument is irrelevent to the thread. It's about offering opinions about a SportKa's coolness. Not about a Hypothetical race between 3 cars.

I respond because you insist on dragging this on.

Reflect, yes. Define, no. Other factors also reflect a car's performance.

Yes, performance has many aspects. You were bugging me about calling the car slow, which it is.

To put it another way, you might approach a corner at a higher speed than a SportKa, but the SportKa can arrive at it at a higher speed, go through it at a higher speed and come out of it at a higher speed.

To put it yet another way, if the SportKa is so far behind going into the corner, it doesn't matter if its cornering speed is a little higher. Acceleration out of the corner will be slower too.

Personally I'd rather have a car that you think is slow because it doesn't have some irrelevant headline figures than one that is slow. Which is why I do. You appear to think the exact opposite.

Personally I don't care. You can have the slow car.

 

[Boffin]

I can form my own opinion, I don't care if there's an "overwhelming body of evidence" that claims its a good car. I never said it was a bad car, I said I though it was uncool.

As with the Swift, I think it's uncool for other reasons than it's lack of speed. You focused on one then and your focusing on one now.




You are right, I never driven one. We don't get them in the States. My only "experience" with a Ka is in GT4. As soon as I start crapping money I'll get on a plane to the UK and try a real one.



Yeah, really.

*Sighs*



We got crappy roads over here. Larger more powerful cars handle them just fine.



I got other reasons, your assuming again that I have only one. Also, reread what I said before about how everyone has a different definition of cool.




Performance has nothing to do with your definition of cool. Maybe others take performance into account when deciding if its cool?

Ok then. Tell us in a clear, straight forward explanetory way why you don't think it's cool. I'm not saying it is or it isn't (but I voted cool), and I don't want to hear anything about you deserving your own opinion or the fact that you don't care - all of us have read it enough times to get the message. Where do you come from? That would actually explain alot as background shapes ones ideas on cars.

 

[Joey D]

Or I invite you to this thread:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=116497

To further discuss what makes cars in general cool/uncool.

 

[Famine]

I don't care, Your argument is irrelevent to the thread. It's about offering opinions about a SportKa's coolness. Not about a Hypothetical race between 3 cars.

I respond because you insist on dragging this on.

If you genuinely didn't care, you wouldn't respond at all.

I haven't picked you up on how you voted. I've picked you up on calling a car "slow" and then insisting that "slow is slow" when it isn't. I gave you an example of a car which is slow in one situation but really alarmingly fast in another and you brushed it aside.

Just like how, right now, you're trying to dismiss as "irrelevent to the thread" (sic) a point you brought up.

Yes, performance has many aspects. You were bugging me about calling the car slow, which it is.

In one aspect - and the most irrelevant one at that.

To put it yet another way, if the SportKa is so far behind going into the corner, it doesn't matter if its cornering speed is a little higher. Acceleration out of the corner will be slower too.

Is that an admission that the "slow" SportKa can be quicker than a "not slow" in some application?

Personally I don't care. You can have the slow car.

Ah-ah. I have the "slow by Adamgp paper-racing headline stats" car. You have the slow car.

 

[Adamgp]

Ok then. Tell us in a clear, straight forward explanetory way why you don't think it's cool. I'm not saying it is or it isn't (but I voted cool), and I don't want to hear anything about you deserving your own opinion or the fact that you don't care - all of us have read it enough times to get the message. Where do you come from? That would actually explain alot as background shapes ones ideas on cars.

It's slow. It's also a small stupid looking hatchback.

Take it's slowness out of the equation I'd still vote seriously uncool.

For the record, I'm from America.

If you genuinely didn't care, you wouldn't respond at all.

I don't care. You insist on dragging this on.

I haven't picked you up on how you voted. I've picked you up on calling a car "slow" and then insisting that "slow is slow" when it isn't. I gave you an example of a car which is slow in one situation but really alarmingly fast in another and you brushed it aside.

It is slow. Perhaps slow has a different meaning in the UK.

I wouldn't call this car alarmingly fast.

Just like how, right now, you're trying to dismiss as "irrelevent to the thread" (sic) a point you brought up.

You were first to bring my Pontiac into this.

 

[Famine]

You were first to bring my Pontiac into this.

Actually I was referring to your insisting that the car's speed is irrelevant to the thread when it was you brought it up in the discussion.

I don't care. You insist on dragging this on.

If I don't care, I don't comment.

It is slow. Perhaps slow has a different meaning in the UK.

No, the UK agrees with the rest of the World. You, apparently, have an independant meaning.

As I've said before, 0-60mph and top speed are aspects of a car's performance. They are not the complete summary of it - and they aren't even particularly relevant aspects given just how rarely a car does 0-60mph or its top speed.

I wouldn't call this car alarmingly fast.

Nor would I.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

We don't have turns in the US. [/discussion]

 

[Lucas]

I doubt this car is fast anywhere, even in corners. Not fast enough at least to beat a car that's faster than it in a straight line, even in the Nürburgring. That's what I believe, at least.

 

[Famine]

The 'Ring is a power track.

 

[Adamgp]

Actually I was referring to your insisting that the car's speed is irrelevant to the thread when it was you brought it up in the discussion.

As I told that homeforsummer guy, some consider speed and performance when forming an opinion if a car is cool or not.

If I don't care, I don't comment.

You must car deeply about this clown car.

No, the UK agrees with the rest of the World. You, apparently, have an independant meaning..

Reread what I said before about how everyone has their own opinion, and not everyone has the same opinion.

As I've said before, 0-60mph and top speed are aspects of a car's performance. They are not the complete summary of it - and they aren't even particularly relevant aspects given just how rarely a car does 0-60mph or its top speed.

Speed is an aspect of performance, gotcha.

This car lacks speed, i.e. slow.

Nor would I.

Ah, but you did, when you explained why you dreamed up that hypothetical race, I'll even quote ya:

If you genuinely didn't care, you wouldn't respond at all.

I haven't picked you up on how you voted. I've picked you up on calling a car "slow" and then insisting that "slow is slow" when it isn't. I gave you an example of a car which is slow in one situation but really alarmingly fast in another and you brushed it aside.
Just like how, right now, you're trying to dismiss as "irrelevent to the thread" (sic) a point you brought up.

Is that an admission that the "slow" SportKa can be quicker than a "not slow" in some application?

Umm, no.

Ah-ah. I have the "slow by Adamgp paper-racing headline stats" car. You have the slow car.

If you have the slow car, how can I?

 

[Lucas]

The 'Ring is a power track.

So where exactly should I compare this car to a superior car in terms of acceleration but inferior in terms of cornering to see how fast it really is?

 

[Quattro20v]

So where exactly should I compare this car to a superior car in terms of acceleration but inferior in terms of cornering to see how fast it really is?

In a parking lot maybe?

 

[Leonidae]

nearly any British track?

 

[Famine]

As I told that homeforsummer guy, some consider speed and performance when forming an opinion if a car is cool or not.

But you just told me that the speed was irrelevant to the thread.

You must car deeply about this clown car.

Not really. I care more about misconceptions.

Speed is an aspect of performance, gotcha.

This car lacks speed, i.e. slow.

Except it doesn't. What it does lack is outright top speed (when was the last time you even crested the SportKa's top speed?) and 0-60mph acceleration (again, when was the last time you did a 0-60mph sprint?). Because that's not what it's designed for.

Ah, but you did, when you explained why you dreamed up that hypothetical race, I'll even quote ya:

Yes. I wasn't referring to the SportKa. It was another example you completely brushed aside because it didn't fit in with your "good 0-60mph and top speed = fast" mindset. The fact you've confused it with that example is testament to this.

Umm, no.

You just said that the "slow" SportKa might be quicker than the "not slow" GTP in a set of circumstances. Looks like you're opening to the possibility...

If you have the slow car, how can I?

Your idea of slow isn't the same as reality.

So where exactly should I compare this car to a superior car in terms of acceleration but inferior in terms of cornering to see how fast it really is?

The roads for which it was designed.

 

[Adamgp]

But you just told me that the speed was irrelevant to the thread.

I told you that your imaginary 3 way race that you dreamed up was irrelevant.

Not really. I care more about misconceptions.

Slow is as slow does.

Except it doesn't. What it does lack is outright top speed (when was the last time you even crested the SportKa's top speed?) and 0-60mph acceleration (again, when was the last time you did a 0-60mph sprint?). Because that's not what it's designed for.

Exactly, it lacks speed, i.e. slow.

Slow acceleration and low top speed don't make for a slow car?

Yes. I wasn't referring to the SportKa. It was another example you completely brushed aside because it didn't fit in with your "good 0-60mph and top speed = fast" mindset. The fact you've confused it with that example is testament to this.

If it moves fast it wouldn't be slow.

You just said that the "slow" SportKa might be quicker than the "not slow" GTP in a set of circumstances. Looks like you're opening to the possibility...

Umm, no.

Your idea of slow isn't the same as reality.

Why don't you give your definition of slow, clearly it's not the same as mine, or any dictionary I could find.

So where exactly should I compare this car to a superior car in terms of acceleration but inferior in terms of cornering to see how fast it really is?

His track in fantasy land.

 

[Famine]

I told you that your imaginary 3 way race that you dreamed up was irrelevant.

Ah, you mean the imaginary 3 way race which would demonstrate that numbers for 0-60mph and top speed are irrelevant?

Your opinion of "slow" is based solely on those two numbers. Given this, it's wholly relevant to a discussion of what is and isn't "slow". But then you've already completely dismissed two examples of where 0-60mph and top speed don't generate a car with any kind of performance in the real world. It's little surprise you're so resistant to it since it's the entire foundation of what you think "slow" is.

Slow is as slow does.

Absolutely. Since the SportKa would spank the GTP over Buttertubs, the GTP "does" slow and, therefore, is slow.

Exactly, it lacks speed, i.e. slow.

Slow acceleration and low top speed don't make for a slow car?

Nope. They are merely one aspect of what makes a car's speed.

I've said this several times. I'm sure you've read it several times. I'm not quite sure why you're still completely refusing to understand this - unless you're doing it on purpose.

If it moves fast it wouldn't be slow.

And it does. So it isn't.

Umm, no.

Really? So how would you like this statement interpreting?

it doesn't matter if its cornering speed is a little higher

On the face of it, you're open to the possibility that the SportKa can corner faster (and, by the way, it certainly can). But if that's not what you mean, you might like to explain it a bit better.

Why don't you give your definition of slow, clearly it's not the same as mine, or any dictionary I could find.

It has been done. Several times. As above, you're still refusing to understand.

His track in fantasy land.

And so you've reverted to being completely obnoxious again.

 

[Adamgp]

Ah, you mean the imaginary 3 way race which would demonstrate that numbers for 0-60mph and top speed are irrelevant?

They aren't irrelevant in a race. Your mention of the imaginary race is whats irrelevant to this thread.

Your opinion of "slow" is based solely on those two numbers. Given this, it's wholly relevant to a discussion of what is and isn't "slow". But then you've already completely dismissed two examples of where 0-60mph and top speed don't generate a car with any kind of performance in the real world. It's little surprise you're so resistant to it since it's the entire foundation of what you think "slow" is.

My "opinion" is the definition of the word slow. Slowness = lack of speed, not fast, etc.

Absolutely. Since the SportKa would spank the GTP over Buttertubs, the GTP "does" slow and, therefore, is slow.

My car is irrelevant in this thread. Also "buttertubs" here in the US is slang for fat people. My car can mow down pedestrians just fine.

Nope. They are merely one aspect of what makes a car's speed.

They define speed. If a car has poor acceleration and low top speed, it is slow.

And it does. So it isn't.

But it's not, so it doesn't.

On the face of it, you're open to the possibility that the SportKa can corner faster (and, by the way, it certainly can). But if that's not what you mean, you might like to explain it a bit better.

I'll explain it further for you. If a car is so far behind going into the corner, it doesn't matter if it can take the corner slightly faster, it will still be behind at corner exit.

It has been done. Several times. As above, you're still refusing to understand.

You still don't understand what the textbook definition of slow is.

And so you've reverted to being completely obnoxious again.

Your pretty obnoxious yourself.

 

[Lucas]

The roads for which it was designed.

That's good, but I'm still doubting the car woud beat a superior car (in terms of acceleration) on the roads "for which it was designed", as you say. The SportKa hasn't a great acceleration, we know that. Though it is good compared to other cars, we also know that. But for a car to corner fast it also has to reach the speed which it corners in (before cornering at 100km/h, it has to reach those 100km/h, which is obvious). What guarantees that the car will reach that speed to beat the other car before the other car reaches 100km/h and corners before the SportKa? The SportKa it's a FF car, I doubt it has that great of a cornering abillity to beat a superior car in terms of acceleration.

If it wasn't for the looks, which I like, I would deem it an uncool car for that reason: even though it's fast in corners, it isn't that fast to balance it's lack of speed in straights, as opposed to a Lotus Elise. I know I'm comparing two completely different types of cars, but it's a reason why I wouldn't consider it a cool car.

I know my logic is likely to be completely flawed, and since you are the Indigo one, I'm sure you will find where. That's why after your next reply, I won't even reply, because I truly won't care about it.




EDIT: I noticed that I missed something. The car may corner fast, that's good. If it can't balance it's lack of speed in straights with speed in corners, then it's slow. At least that's what I think. Just wanted to give my opinion. 👍

 

[Danny]

The SportKa it's a FF car, I doubt it has that great of a cornering abillity to beat a superior car in terms of acceleration.

That's where you're wrong.

The SportKa's chassis allows almost full-throttle pace through all but the sharpest of bends. A car with much greater acceleration (In this case, a Pontiac GTP) would get to the corner quicker, but would almost certainly have to slow down to well below the SportKa's speed.

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Such a little otherwise almost un noticable car stirs up such emotion.

 

[Lucas]

That's where you're wrong.

The SportKa's chassis allows almost full-throttle pace through all but the sharpest of bends. A car with much greater acceleration (In this case, a Pontiac GTP) would get to the corner quicker, but would almost certainly have to slow down to well below the SportKa's speed.

I knew I forgot something!

You are right. It must also be due to the fact the car hasn't much power to provoke wheelspin, right?

 

[Famine]

They aren't irrelevant in a race. Your mention of the imaginary race is whats irrelevant to this thread.

They are wholly irrelevant in a race. Ever see F1 teams say what their 0-60mph time is? Or their top speed?

You're only at 0 once in a race - unless you have a rolling start, and then you're never at 0. I don't recall ever reaching my top speed on a track of any variety ever.

My "opinion" is the definition of the word slow. Slowness = lack of speed, not fast, etc.

And that still has nothing to do with 0-60mph time or top speed.

Your opinion is based on a very narrow set of criteria which have nothing to do with what "slow" is.

My car is irrelevant in this thread.

Except that it demonstrates how you can have a reasonable 0-60mph time, top speed and power, but still have a slow car. Just as the SportKa demonstrates that you can have a less reasonable 0-60mph time, top speed and power and still have a car that isn't slow.

They define speed. If a car has poor acceleration and low top speed, it is slow.

They define one aspect of speed.

But it's not, so it doesn't.

There's only one time a Pontiac GTP will be favoured against a SportKa. Accelerating in straight line.

That's very, very specific. If that single occasion is enough to give you comfort and believe you have bought a car which is quicker than a SportKa, you go right ahead and believe it. Reality doesn't agree with you, but I'm sensing that this isn't a problem.

I'll explain it further for you. If a car is so far behind going into the corner, it doesn't matter if it can take the corner slightly faster, it will still be behind at corner exit.

And how is it relevant if the SportKa can't take the corner slightly faster?

Of course it can and I've given the reasons why it can several times in the thread.

You still don't understand what the textbook definition of slow is.

Quite the contrary. Your definition includes two factors - the two least relevant - and excludes all others.

Your pretty obnoxious yourself.

You keep attempting to belittle my intelligence because you can't stick to discussing the points - points which demonstrate how narrow your view is. If I saw you conducting a discussion this way with another member, I wouldn't hesistate to give you at least a Warning.

The SportKa it's a FF car, I doubt it has that great of a cornering abillity to beat a superior car in terms of acceleration.

Lest we forget, the Pontiac GTP is also a FWD car. It's also giving away 10% of its footprint and well over a thousand pounds of weight (which combine to massively increase sway). The centre of mass is appalling... It has almost as much weight over the front axle as the SportKa has in total, promoting understeer (as does that ridiculous rear track - narrower than the front!). It's also down a clutch pedal and an entire gear ratio - though it does have a "performance shift" button which leaves the changes later. It actually has a slight height advantage, lowering the centre of gravity by a couple mm, but that's destroyed by the sway.

Put them on a drag strip and the GTP would win by about 4-5 seconds. Put them round the Evo Triangle and the SportKa would win by about 4-5 minutes.

Incidentally, I believe the SportKa set a lap of Anglesey (Fifth Gear's preferred test track) two seconds quicker than the current Ford Focus ST (225hp, 6.4s to 60mph, 150mph top speed).