My Probe

  • Thread starter Thread starter kennythebomb
  • 64 comments
  • 3,147 views
Troux
So what flagship sports car was the Probe intended to replace again? I don't recall Ford making a sports car at all except for the GT.
Click to expand...

I think they made a Mustang too.

Anyways, a Probe is a sport compact. It's still a sports car and I'm pretty sure the insurance agency classifies it as one.
 
Mustang isn't a sports car. The $140K+ GT is the only sports car I can think of that Ford has ever made. Insurance companies do whatever makes them the most money. They use the symbol system, in which actuaries put together a number of factors (theft rate, hp rating, rarity, expense, accident claim rate, safety features, etc.) to give a car a numerical ranking for how much to charge you for insurance. If they want to say a 2-door car is more often thought to be a sports car, and will likely be driven more dangerously, they'll do it. Guess what, though: a Lancer or a 3 series are going to have higher insurance rates than your Probe, and they are far from sports cars.

By the way, the '94 Probe GT has identical 0-60 and 1/4 mile E/T compared to the '99 Civic Si (7.5 and 15.7, respectively) Trounce? No. You're up to par with a Civic...great. Here's some cars with a similar power:weight ratio (16.4 LB/HP) as the Probe GT: '99 Jetta, '07 Impala, '05 Pathfinder, '02 Wrangler. As Joey said, it IS a Sport Compact. That's different from a sports car, by far. An intake and an exhaust on a Probe is still ricey, by the way. It's not fast, and neither are Neons.
 
A Mustang isn't a sports car? That confuses me to no end. If the Mustang isn't a sports car then what is it? And if you say it's a pony car I'm going to laugh till I fall off my chair. What would you classify the F-body as? Or the GTO?
 
Come on, Blazin. Anybody with half a brain would tell you that Mustang is the best luxury stationwagon Ford has ever made. :rolleyes:
 
Troux
Mustang isn't a sports car. The $140K+ GT is the only sports car I can think of that Ford has ever made. Insurance companies do whatever makes them the most money. They use the symbol system, in which actuaries put together a number of factors (theft rate, hp rating, rarity, expense, accident claim rate, safety features, etc.) to give a car a numerical ranking for how much to charge you for insurance. If they want to say a 2-door car is more often thought to be a sports car, and will likely be driven more dangerously, they'll do it. Guess what, though: a Lancer or a 3 series are going to have higher insurance rates than your Probe, and they are far from sports cars.

By the way, the '94 Probe GT has identical 0-60 and 1/4 mile E/T compared to the '99 Civic Si (7.5 and 15.7, respectively) Trounce? No. You're up to par with a Civic...great. Here's some cars with a similar power:weight ratio (16.4 LB/HP) as the Probe GT: '99 Jetta, '07 Impala, '05 Pathfinder, '02 Wrangler. As Joey said, it IS a Sport Compact. That's different from a sports car, by far. An intake and an exhaust on a Probe is still ricey, by the way. It's not fast, and neither are Neons.
Click to expand...

Of course all of this is relative. But the Mustang is a sports car. The only way you can discount it as one is to point out the lack of an independent rear suspension on the regular models. But that's hardly a 'rigid' criteria of determining the status of a sports car.

I never said my car is fast. Please refer to my earlier posts.

And how is a Lancer Evolution not a sports car?!?!?! A regular 3-series Bimmer might be a stretch but the M3 is the definition of sports car driving.
 
a6m5
Come on, Blazin. Anybody with half a brain would tell you that Mustang is the best luxury stationwagon Ford has ever made. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:ouch: I knew that.
 
I don't think we need a full-blown "Definition of a sports car" argument here.

Since I distrust anything on Wikipedia that doesn't include a proper reference, here's the Merriam Webster definition:

Sports car: noun -
a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

http://www.m-w.com

Whatever your personal definition of "sports car" is, the classic definition of sports cars does not require the car to be rear-wheel drive, powerful or expensive.

Rear-wheel drive?... back in the days before increasing engine power made it impractical to use front-wheel drive, Miller was racing front-wheel drive cars on the banked ovals in the US. (Have one issue of Auto Afficionado dedicated solely to these strange cars... great book sale find!) Their compact and light design made them very successful racing machines, and they're prized by collectors today.

Powerful? Expensive?... almost every motoring journalist or afficionado agrees that the Miata is a terrific sports car, yet it can't even outdrag a Corolla... and it's cheap.

The Probe GT is, by today's standards, relatively light, decently quick and certainly easily maneuverable. Doesn't matter if it's based on a pedestrian car.

And yes, it can do high-speed driving... for quibbles about this, note that many old sports cars had trouble exceeding 100 mph... while the Probe can do 130-140 mph. High-speed in this case would mean mountain carving and not straight-line speed.

The Mustang? I guess that would depend on which one. Certainly some Mustangs weren't quite up to the handling of other cars of their day, but I suppose most would still count as sports cars.

-----

RE: Probe versus Si: While Mazda/Ford make somewhat inefficient transmissions, the older Civics didn't have much in terms of torque. I've only got about 150 hp, and I don't have trouble walking them from stoplights. It's actually pretty easy to walk them in a drag race, as optimal launch rpms on B16s are so high that you will almost always bog or boil off the line.

M5Power
By 'trashy' all I meant was slow - I give no opinions on its reliability, except to say that it was used in a lot of products so it's got to hold up pretty well.
Click to expand...

Hahah... was just ribbing you man... not really offended. I mean, my opinion of the motor itself is the same as you, because I've owned one version or another of it for the past five or six years, and yeah, it is trashy and horribly underpowered compared to the competition and takes to modification about as eagerly as a cat to water. I'm throwing everything in but the kitchen sink, and those K20 boys are still laughing at me... :lol:

Yes, I've got an intake and an exhaust... pure rice... :lol: ...but boy does it feel wonderful on the racetrack.
 
First of all, I never mentioned the Evo, which is also NOT a sports car. The BASE Lancer has a higher symbol than a Probe GT. Does that make the base Lancer a sports car? For the record, it has the same insurance symbol as my Supra TT, which is also NOT a sports car.

The M3 is not the definition of sports car driving. It's the definition of a well-balanced GT. The Mustang is also a GT, or as most like to call it, a muscle car. Same as a Chevelle or an M3 or a Civic Si, or a GT-R, basically. It's a 2dr (except in the Evo/Sti/M5, etc. cases), higher performance variant of a cheap, inferior base model.

Sports cars are 2-seaters that are purpose built for high-performance or fun factor. S2000, Corvette, 350Z, NSX, Boxster, Triumph, Miata, F430, Viper, MR2, etc.

Off the top of my head, two cars that draw the line the closest are the Carrera (offered as a 2+2 because a great deal of the clientel want something flashy and $$$ while still being able to transport their own business partners/family, etc.), and the Supra (in MKIV form, it stuck to its long-standing GT roots, as Toyota has never been one to change the complete layout of a car). Both of these have very performance-oriented builds, and tiny backseats. The Carrera itself is a base model!


Edit: In response to the above post, a sports car certainly doesn't have to be powerful or expensive, but if it's FWD, it wasn't designed with performance in mind. That, and I'm having trouble thinking of any FWD 2-seaters aside from the CRX. I don't suppose a stripped down Civic is a sports car?
 
You think a Civic Si or a GT-R is a muscle car? What the hell?

Muscle cars, GT cars, pony cars, whatever, if it's fast, nimble, or both it's a sports car. Really there aren't that many classifications of cars.
 
Troux
First of all, I never mentioned the Evo, which is also NOT a sports car. The BASE Lancer has a higher symbol than a Probe GT. Does that make the base Lancer a sports car? For the record, it has the same insurance symbol as my Supra TT, which is also NOT a sports car.

The M3 is not the definition of sports car driving. It's the definition of a well-balanced GT. The Mustang is also a GT, or as most like to call it, a muscle car. Same as a Chevelle or an M3 or a Civic Si, or a GT-R, basically. It's a 2dr (except in the Evo/Sti/M5, etc. cases), higher performance variant of a cheap, inferior base model.

Sports cars are 2-seaters that are purpose built for high-performance or fun factor. S2000, Corvette, 350Z, NSX, Boxster, Triumph, Miata, F430, Viper, MR2, etc.

Off the top of my head, two cars that draw the line the closest are the Carrera (offered as a 2+2 because a great deal of the clientel want something flashy and $$$ while still being able to transport their own business partners/family, etc.), and the Supra (in MKIV form, it stuck to its long-standing GT roots, as Toyota has never been one to change the complete layout of a car). Both of these have very performance-oriented builds, and tiny backseats. The Carrera itself is a base model!


Edit: In response to the above post, a sports car certainly doesn't have to be powerful or expensive, but if it's FWD, it wasn't designed with performance in mind. That, and I'm having trouble thinking of any FWD 2-seaters aside from the CRX. I don't suppose a stripped down Civic is a sports car?
Click to expand...

Well I can rest assured tonight knowing that the guy going after my car's status as a sports car has a purist/elitist unrealistic view of what a sports car is. Now if only my car was fast - I suppose it would have to be purpose-built to be that, hrmmm.

I've had mine so far up to 127, and consistently run it for miles straight at 115 with absolutely no problems. It handles exceptionally well at those speeds and is the safest car I have driven over 100, in terms of feeling secure. Granted I have not taken too many cars up to 100.. but enough to give my opinion on it.
 
The problem with the definitions is the arbitrary way the lines are drawn. Simply put, what is too heavy? What is too light? What does purpose built mean?

Is the front-wheel drive Lotus Elan a sports car simply because it's built to be a sports car while the Integra Type R isn't because it's merely a tarted up Integra? (Despite the fact that performance is quite similar)

Divisions like Sports GT, Sport Compact, Sports Sedan and the like were drawn up simply because of the wide variety of sporty vehicles.

In my definition, if it steers great, goes quick, and puts a smile on your face, who cares?

But you'll need to cite references that say sports cars are required to be high-performance and purpose built. Most say that they are usually two seaters, but not always. The only true requirements are that they be fast, low (and/or light, but this definition is based on the standards of the time) and maneuverable.
 
Well you guys just aren't paying attention. Especially since the dictionary itself has proven you wrong and you still think "a sports car is what i want it to be," and a Probe is a sports car because it can go over 100 MPH without falling apart. I guess my '74 Chevelle was a sports car, too. Had it at about 135. The Supra must be a supercar, too, as it's been past 150 and was more stable at that speed than an RX-7 is parked. Actually, I can do a one-wheel burnout in my Corolla, and I raced a Huffy and won, it's probably a sports car, too. The speedometer in my sister's Altima goes over 100, it must be a sports car. Better put an intake an an exhaust on it! Actually, it'd be a better idea to buy a 2.3L '85 Mustang, since those are sports cars. I bet I can get it around the Nurburgring in seven and a half minutes, since it's a true sports car.

Tell me, guys: is ignorance bliss?
 
Troux
Well you guys just aren't paying attention. Especially since the dictionary itself has proven you wrong and you still think "a sports car is what i want it to be," and a Probe is a sports car because it can go over 100 MPH without falling apart. I guess my '74 Chevelle was a sports car, too. Had it at about 135. The Supra must be a supercar, too, as it's been past 150 and was more stable at that speed than an RX-7 is parked. Actually, I can do a one-wheel burnout in my Corolla, and I raced a Huffy and won, it's probably a sports car, too. The speedometer in my sister's Altima goes over 100, it must be a sports car. Better put an intake an an exhaust on it! Actually, it'd be a better idea to buy a 2.3L '85 Mustang, since those are sports cars. I bet I can get it around the Nurburgring in seven and a half minutes, since it's a true sports car.

Tell me, guys: is ignorance bliss?
Click to expand...

Muscle cars can be sports cars, but not all of them. They generally are not very low or good handling.

Your Supra is a sports car by any definition. Not a supercar by most.

Smart of you to pick out about the worst example of a Mustang for your post.

No one said anything about lap time being the basis for a sports car. Perhaps you just don't understand riding on your high horse definition and all.
 
I cited a physical dictionary reference that didn't discount the Probe as a "sports car". The references I can find that do are mostly online-only references that usually plagiarize from each other... and the Wikipedia entry that does match your definition is under contention simply because it's a subjective and opinionated piece.

Simply put, the formula is quick, low, maneuverable and light. None of which exclude the Probe, depending on your subjective view of what light and low are.

The contentions in definition are usually made by purists who either:

a. Frown upon anything that wasn't built in Britain, isn't lighter than a sack of potatoes, and doesn't catch fire every few thousand miles

or

b. Frown upon anything that doesn't come with a big engine, a big price tag or a Nurb lap under 8 minutes.

And note, by either group's definition, the other group's cars don't count.
 
It's not my definition, it's the dictionary's. Has been for years. I'll remember to start asking the self-proclaimed "enlightened" teenagers at GTPlanet next time I need a definition. The Supra is a GT. The Mustang is a GT. I'm not making this up.
 
Troux is right you know. Hence why I said "Shame you don't have one" when you mentioned sports car, Kenny.(I said "I kid I kid" because I didn't want to bother getting technical about it.) Go to dictionary.com and put Grand touring car, then look up sports car.
 
Well then the Probe is a sporty car. :)
 
Cite me a reference from a print dictionary, please. No two online-only dictionaries agree on the reference. And,

Here's Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: sports car
Function: noun
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

Here's Newbury House:

sports car n. an automobile that is similar to a race car, with a powerful engine and good handling on curvy roads

Here's Cambridge:

sports car noun [C]
a fast low car, often for two people only

-----

The dictionary.com reference itself merely says "a small, high-powered automobile with long, low lines, usually seating two persons." No mention of definitives.

There is no definition that states how much power it has to have, how low it has to be, or how light it has to be, or even how many doors. Just that it be built for speed and handling. In other words, it should be built to handle better and go faster than similar non-sports cars. The limitation to two doors is merely a convention, not an absolute. And the definition of power is flexible (again, ref: old Brit sports cars, which had barely enough power to outrun a Corolla).

The need for handling is not. A Corolla, again, can outrun a Miata, but it's crap on track (sorry, Kent). A Probe actually isn't half-bad on track. A BMW 760 will outrun the Probe on the highway, but down a twisty mountain pass, it's quite a different story.

A Gran Turismo is built to go at high speeds over long distances. BUT: If the car can actually handle decently, it's also a sports car... which necessitated the creation of the Sports Tourer. Nowadays, though, most Gran Turismos are sports cars, with the exception of certain extremely heavy and luxurious GTs.

-----

Like I said, this isn't the proper place for this discussion, and it should be continued in a separate thread. I hate semantic arguments over points that don't really bear any meaning in the real world except to make people either feel better or worse about their taste in cars.

And what the hell is the beef with intakes and exhausts? Rice is Bomex, five-foot tall aluminum wings and dubs. Not exhaust systems (or total lack thereof). A lot of autocrossers, slalomers, track-day afficionados and such actually use "ricey" exhausts... heck, the riciest of all I've ever heard was on a fiberglass track-car that went like stink.
 
niky
The dictionary.com reference itself merely says "a small, high-powered automobile with long, low lines, usually seating two persons." No mention of definitives.


A Gran Turismo is built to go at high speeds over long distances.
Click to expand...
Dictionary.com has definitions for 3 different dictionaries, and although it fits some of the definitions, the term GT car suits it much better, as it describes what the car is a lot more accuratly.

And it's Grand Touring car, not Gran Turismo. Gran Turismo is something else.
 
Troux
It's not my definition, it's the dictionary's. Has been for years. I'll remember to start asking the self-proclaimed "enlightened" teenagers at GTPlanet next time I need a definition. The Supra is a GT. The Mustang is a GT. I'm not making this up.
Click to expand...
If the 99.9% of the population considers Supra, Probe, etc., as sports cars, why shouldn't gtplanet members also call them sports cars? I don't know what planet you guys are from, but in Japan or the U.S. where I've lived, if you go around referring to those cars as "GTs", people will think that you are mentally challenged.

-"Do you like my new GT?"
-"That's a Supra, dude"

It must be really hard for you guys to communicate with real people.
 
a6m5
If the 99.9% of the population considers Supra, Probe, etc., as sports cars, why shouldn't gtplanet members also call them sports cars? I don't know what planet you guys are from, but in Japan or the U.S. where I've lived, if you go around referring to those cars as "GTs", people will think that you are mentally challenged.

-"Do you like my new GT?"
-"That's a Supra, dude"

It must be really hard for you guys to communicate with real people.
Click to expand...
99.9% of the population think turbo lag is the couple thousand low rpms before the turbo starts producing power.

99.9% of the population calls wheels "rims"

They aren't always correct.

EDIT: I just thought of something that no one bothered to point out before. Ford Probe GT = Ford Probe Grand Touring.
 
Perfect Balance
99.9% of the population think turbo lag is the couple thousand low rpms before the turbo starts producing power.
Click to expand...
First of all, I disagree. Secondly, this is a really bad comparison that does not have much in common, except for the "99%" part.
Perfect Balance
99.9% of the population calls wheels "rims"
Click to expand...
Again, I disagree. If you had said 50/50, 60%, then maybe. But just like the sports car thing, I would never correct somebody for going, "nice rims".
Perfect Balance
They aren't always correct.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point, I wonder if you are doing this knowingly?
Perfect Balance
EDIT: I just thought of something that no one bothered to point out before. Ford Probe GT = Ford Probe Grand Touring.
Click to expand...
Mustang GT, Probe GT, they are all considered sports cars. I'm sorry, but if you go around correcting people for calling them, "sports cars", you are just being dorky. "But, but, the dictionary....." I understand. Unfortunately, that's just not what they are being called in the real world. I don't know about Europe.
 
Like I've said: the line between Gran Turismo (which is merely Italian for Grand Touring, actually) and Sports Car isn't that definite, and it's possible to be both, hence the idea of Sports Grand Touring cars.

If you fit both definitions, what's the problem?

The two definitions there it doesn't fit are one, a multilingual dictionary, which is necessarily terse and possibly not very accurate, and an online-only resource, which, again, I don't trust.

The American Heritage definition is quite strange. It says "especially" in regards to aerodynamic and one- or two- seater. Thus, it's not a pre-requisite. Thus, any car prepared for racing qualifies as a sports car. Which would mean, according to SCCA rules... either almost anything, or nothing without a roll-cage? :lol:
 
Those of you who think the Probe is a sports car scare me.
Those of you who think the Mustang is not are just out of it.

"GT"? Give me a BREAK. :rolleyes: I can make up classifications based on my own argument's shortcomings too.
 
I try very hard not to make things up, but fact of the matter is: It's a sports car. Sports Coupe, Sport Compact, Grand Tourer... they all fall partially or wholly under the general classification of "Sports Car".

According to the classic definition of "Sports Car", the Mustang doesn't count, because it's not lightweight. It counts to me because it handles relatively well and goes relatively quickly. Same with the Ford Probe GT...

I guess this article sums it up best:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-11-2006-88657.asp

Buzzle.com
Definition of a Sports Cars

The term sports car has varying perceptions. Road and Track said it best "Ask five people the exact definition of a sports car, and you’ll likely get five different answers".

A simple definition of a sports car is "a small low car with a high-powered engine, and generally seats two people". This is more or less a "textbook" definition but gives us an idea of what the public perceives to be a sports car.

The Houghton Mifflin dictionary defines a sports car as: "An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds". This dictionary definition does not seem to capture the general perception of what the public sees as a sports car.

The Houghton Mifflin definition of the "two seat rule" seems out-of-date. Many sports cars today offer small back seats (sometimes referred to as 2+2 seating) and there is a current movement underway to increase the seating room in models long considered sports cars by most automotive experts.

Insurance companies use their own formula in classifying automobiles and often the presence of two doors automatically makes any car a "sports car" in their eyes. This perspective, of course, is as overly simplistic as the standard dictionary approach to defining a sports car. One can certainly think of any number of two door vehicles that fall far short of being an actual sports car. Economy cars and even larger two-door vehicles that are not built with power and performance in mind should not qualify as true sports cars.

Some car buffs will refer to high-performance muscle cars and other larger vehicles as sports cars. Others, however, draw a distinction between these vehicles and "true" sports cars. These individuals will claim that a car can be a "sporting car" or simply "sporty" but still fall short of being a true sports car. Thus, "regular" cars may be outfitted with a "sports package" and/or accessories to make the car sportier, but may not fit a strict definition of a sports car.

Not all automotive enthusiasts, however, embrace this restrictive view of sports cars. In many circles, a sports car is any car offering greater performance or power than more standard offerings. This school of thought will consider muscle cars and other larger vehicles designed with performance in mind as sports cars.

Others will maintain that the distinction between a sports car and any other type of car lies in how the car's suspension and handling are addressed. Technical debates rage over whether various suspension packages qualify as belonging to true "sports cars".

Some will argue that a sports car can be defined by its intentions. If the car is designed for performance more so than for utility, they say, it is a sports car. This intent-based definition, however, provides little guidance in determining whether a car is a sports car or not. Particularly in the modern era, the notion of designing a car of any sort without significant consideration of its feasibility and utility seems unlikely. Any commercially viable vehicle, regardless of its performance, must retain significant utility.

Road and Track, a leading automotive publication, summarizes the sports card definition debate with a simple observation: "Ask five people the exact definition of a sports car, and you'll likely get five different answers".

There is no clear-cut definition of what really is a sports car. The restrictive definitions of the past seem ill suited to categorize today's' diverse automotive offerings and common usage of the term runs contrary to most long-held definitions.*

There is, however, a common thought that seems to run through almost all of the outlooks on the meaning of "sports car". If a car is designed with high performance or race-like capabilities in mind, it can probably be safely termed a sports car. Some purists may balk at such a liberal perspective, but alternative definitions fall far short of accurately distinguishing sports cars form regular production models.

By David Chandler
Published: 2/16/2006
Click to expand...

*such common usage being the big and heavy high-powered "sports cars" of today.

And, @Troux: Teenagers? I wish. Last time I had acne was at least fifteen years ago, sonny. No need to git uppity... :lol:
 
Keef
I have a buddy that used to have a couple Probes. Both were junkers, but the first had an intake and one of the sweetest sounding exhausts I've ever heard. It was super smooth and pretty high-pitched, and it was just amazing.

His second car was spray painted, but hey, it had the Mazda 2.5, not the Ford. I guess the Mazda engine had a different tune and more power. Said Mazda right there on the cam cover.
Click to expand...

The engines have whatever model they're destined for stamped on them - Mazda for Mazda, Ford for Ford. In either case, the KL-DE (Mazda K-series V6, 2.5) ran at about 165hp.

However, a common transplant for cars running K-series V6s (notably MY K-series V6 - the K8) is to replace the engine with the KL-ZE (Mazda K-series V6, 2.5, high output) which is physically identical until you start taking it apart, and shoves ~210hp instead.


Troux - you were doing okay until the point you decided to insult our members as part of your argument. Play the ball, dude, not the man.

niky
a. Frown upon anything that wasn't built in Britain, isn't lighter than a sack of potatoes, and doesn't catch fire every few thousand miles.
Click to expand...

Quite right too.
 
M5Power
Those of you who think the Probe is a sports car scare me.
Those of you who think the Mustang is not are just out of it.

"GT"? Give me a BREAK. :rolleyes: I can make up classifications based on my own argument's shortcomings too.
Click to expand...

Oh, are you wearing your rude hat again today?
 
a6m5
Unfortunately, that's just not what they are being called in the real world. I don't know about Europe.
Click to expand...
I'd rather be correct than saying something else so people can understand me. When someone says "nice rims" I always ask, "What about the rest of the wheel?"

You can buy just the rims on a lot of 2 or more peice wheels, so I never refer to wheels as rims.
 
Back