There is no such thing as a 'hypercar'...

SkylineObsession

Expert daydreamer
Premium
4,185
New Zealand
Dunedin
SkylineObsession
Mangosaurus
Okay, this is something that has bugged me for a while, and there is plenty of evidence to show that i'm right in making that statement.

Firstly, i have done a search and there was no definition of hypercars, hence the creation of this topic.

As LoudMusic said in one of the topics i linked to above, supercars are on a sliding scale. Theres no set borders (HP, top speed, design, price etc) between becoming a sports car or a nonexistant 'hypercar'.

This graph shows exactly what i mean (source):
1894 | Benz Velo | 12 mph (19 km/h)
1949 | Jaguar XK120 | 124.6 mph (201 km/h)
1955 | Mercedes-Benz 300SL | 140 mph (225 km/h)
1958 | Aston Martin DB4 | 141 mph (227 km/h)
1959 | Aston Martin DB4 GT | 152 mph (245 km/h)
1963 | Iso Rivolta Grifo A3/L 327 | 161 mph (259 km/h)
1967 | Lamborghini Miura P400 | 171 mph (275 km/h)
1968 | Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona | 174 mph (280 km/h)
1984 | Ferrari 288 GTO | 188 mph (303 km/h)
1986 | Porsche 959 | 195 mph (314 km/h)
1987 | Ferrari F40 | 202.687 mph (326.193 km/h)
1991 | Bugatti EB110 GT | 209 mph (336 km/h)
1992 | Jaguar XJ220 | 213 mph (343 km/h)
1993 | McLaren F1 | 231 mph (372 km/h)
2005 | Bugatti Veyron 16.4 | 253.81 mph (408.47 km/h)
2010 | Bugatti Veyron Super Sport | 257.87 mph (415.00 km/h)

I'd fathom a guess that in the day, all of these cars would have been classed as supercars (maybe not using that word in the earlier days since cars were quite new).
Look at how much the top speed has changed over the past 100+ years.

But obviously its not just top speed that defines a supercar, nor does it mean it has to have the fastest speed (just look at all the supercars that came out between the McLaren F1 and Veyron that didn't get higher speeds).

I have three main performance car classes, and hyper car isn't one of them.

SPORTS CARS (anything on a reasonably high production run/common)
MX-5, RX8, RX-7, GTO, EVO, WRX, non GT-R Skylines, GT-R Skylines, NSX?, S2000, lesser Mustang/Corvette/Camaro/Firebird/Challenger/Chargers (mainly class them as muscle cars though), BMW M sports, Lotus Esprit/Elise and so on

SUPER SPORTS CARS (generally more expensive and not as many models produced)
Corvette ZR-1 (etc), Shelby Mustang GT500s, Viper, Nissan GT-R, All Aston Martins (excluding One-77), All Porsches (excluding 959, Carrera GT etc), BMW M3/5/6 etc, Most Ferraris (excluding GTO, F40, F50, Enzo etc), Lamborghini Gallardo, Audi R8/RS4/RS6 etc, Most TVRs (excluding Speed 12s), McLaren MP4-12C and so on

SUPERCARS (usually very expensive, limited production runs, usually low/wide/visually different etc)
Ferrari 288 GTO F40, F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc, Lamborghini Miura, Countach, Diablo, Murcielago, Aventador etc, Porsche 959, Carrera GT etc, Aston Martin One-77, Vector M12/W8, All Pagani, All Koenigsegg, SSC, Bugatti EB110, Veyron, McLaren F1/P1 and so on.

It's hard for me to try describe all this but it basically boils down to this. Supercars have always been the ultimate car, and over time they haven't really changed their pattern much. They are still very eye catching, still very fast, still sound great and still basically are distinguishable from other cars. You can usually tell that you're looking at something quite different.

Introducing the hypercar category makes no sense. All that has done has put a 'barrier' on the supercar category, which it has never had before. What this means is that when a car does a certain speed, costs a ridiculous amount and so on, its instantly pushed into the hypercar category.

Why wasn't the McLaren F1 deemed a hypercar back in the day? It was so much more faster than anything else at the time. Or the 288 GTO?

Look at the games industry for a comparison. Yes, they do do a lot more things than just gaming these days, but gaming is still the main purpose.
- The 1980's Ataris etc don't perform as well as the 1990s PlayStations/Saturns.
- The 1990s PS1s etc aren't as great as the 2000's PS2s/Xboxs.
- Ditto for the latter 2000s PS3s/360s.
- And again with the PS4 and One.
Should the PS4/Xbox One be classed as super consoles? Or still game consoles/home entertainment systems.

This is a very long winded post i know, but i'm trying to get you all to REALLY think about the hypercar category actually being irrelevant, and merely just another generation of supercars. They didn't die off after the McLaren F1 and before the Veyron. The Enzo, Murci, Zonda and heaps more are all supercars. The F1 just set a really high top speed which no-one probably saw any need to challenge, at least for a while.

If i was better with words i might have done more convincing argument about this, but hopefully i've at least got you to think about it.

Apart from the Hypercars bit at the bottom (unless i misinterpreted it), this Jalopnik article sums it up well.

Hypercars (in my strong opinion) are just a myth. The end. ;)
 

Slash

POWER BY FORD
Premium
34,944
United States
Indian Falls, NY
slashfan7964
Even the phrase "sports car" is a completely subjective concept. Nevermind "supercar" or the pretty much made up "hypercar."

Here we go again with the sporty car vs sports car argument.
 

Brend

Premium
11,736
Scotland
Scotland
UB3R-BR3NDAGE
ClassicBrend
Hyper-car is just a word to make headlines seem more sassy and in your face.
 

SkylineObsession

Expert daydreamer
Premium
4,185
New Zealand
Dunedin
SkylineObsession
Mangosaurus
I consider sports car another sort of difficult one, but basically i boil it down to a few things. The car handles great (and doesn't weigh too much), sounds great and looks great.

Supercars/sports cars etc are almost defined by their generation. Something that was really fast back in the day can now be beaten by a lot of 'normal' cars. Theres a heck of a lot of cars that could beat 1980s cars these days.

All this is personal opinion of course, but you really have to look deep and combine the facts to really class a car. And always put yourself in the time frame when it came out, which people don't do these days.
 
Last edited:

homeforsummer

Bonbonbonbons!
Premium
26,907
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
The reason the hypercar line is blurred is because the supercar one is too. Most of what you've classed as "super sports cars" I'd have considered supercars for most of my life.

For example: Regardless of the presence of the top echelon of Ferrari's vehicles, take something like the 458. It develops over 600 horsepower, it's low, wide, has striking looks, has a Ferrari badge on the hood... is it any less a supercar than an F40 or F50, simply down to the passage of time?

To spin it another way, your premise is that "super sports cars" are "generally more expensive and not as many produced". Does that not take into consideration performance at all? For example, you say "all Porsches" are considered - does this, like Ferrari, apply retrospectively? Does a <100 hp Porsche 914 remain a "super sports car" in light of its relative rarity and price when it was sold? Does a ~200 hp Mk1 Boxster, even though you can get a Ford Fiesta today which outperforms it?

I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment, but I don't explicitly agree with it either as the concept is far too fuzzy to give cars particular definitions.

I can fully understand why people use the hypercar term, because the latest generation of ultra-high performance supercars - Veyron, McLaren P1, LaFerrari, Porsche 918 etc - are so unbelievably powerful and exquisitely engineered that the term "supercar" doesn't really do them justice. The LaFerrari has getting on for double the power of an F40 and even considering inflation is many times the price - does it not warrant a new category? And sports cars like the Corvette and Viper are having to be detuned to compete in GT racing series. Are they not supercars, now, when they're more powerful than their full racing equivalents?

TL;DR - Pigeonholing doesn't really work, even when backed-up by supposed "facts".
 

Ibonibo

Premium
5,440
Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Already paying my Isp 4 Access
Sporty car : Slightly more power than the average car, a bit stiffer suspension setup

(Ford Fiesta ST, Golf GTI, GT86,...)

Sportcar : High HP output / is quick, lightweight to a certain extend

(boxster, caymen, M3, RS4,....)

Supercar : Higher HP output / trimmed to be really quick, lightweight and costs under hypercar but generally over 100000

(R8, 458, 911T,...)

Hypercar : those cost 500000 upwards

(Maclaren Stirling Moss, Laferrari, Koenigsegg,....)


That's how I see it along the big lines
 

TheCracker

Nothing to see here...
Premium
22,027
South Korea
North Korea
GTP_TheCracker
The term 'hypercar' or even 'supercar' is just hyperbole. It doesn't describe a vehicle, it just adds levels of exageration to what is just essentially a 'sports car' ie a car designed primarily with sporting intent.
 

MatskiMonk

Inebriated member
Premium
13,571
United Kingdom
Not so Great Britain
It works well enough to indicate how far above the norm a cars performance and vital statistics are, simple as that for me...
 
7,197
Exorcet
OE Exorcet
Even the phrase "sports car" is a completely subjective concept. Nevermind "supercar" or the pretty much made up "hypercar."


Pretty much.

I look at it like this

Sports cars < Corvette Z06 =< Supercar

And then hypercars would be top 5% or something, Koenigsegg, McLaren P1, Radical SR8, etc
 
8,100
Canada
Guelph, Ontario
I would classify hypercars as ones that I dislike for the reason that they just try to break records. Being a hybrid doesn't help it either.

Veyron, SSC, Venom, all hypercars with no use.
 
8,218
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Classifying cars seems pretty futile in my opinion. Reminds me of a TopGear magazine article a few years ago where they fought the cause for the GT-R being a muscle car - it being big, comfy, overpowered and overweight.

But then it's a brutally effective sports car which uses technology to spit out fast laps.

Give up!
 
7,197
Exorcet
OE Exorcet
Classifying cars seems pretty futile in my opinion.

It depends. If you're doing it subjectively, yes.

If you're doing it objectively, no.

Example, if supercar = top 25% of 0-60 times, then it becomes a lot easier to define a supercar. All you need is some numbers.

The problem is, the terms for cars have no official definition.
 

Conza

Sports Caraholic
Premium
1,497
Australia
Melbourne
Conza_No1
Okay, this is something that has bugged me for a while, and there is plenty of evidence to show that i'm right in making that statement.

Firstly, i have done a search and there was no definition of hypercars, hence the creation of this topic.

As LoudMusic said in one of the topics i linked to above, supercars are on a sliding scale. Theres no set borders (HP, top speed, design, price etc) between becoming a sports car or a nonexistant 'hypercar'.

This graph shows exactly what i mean (source):
1894 | Benz Velo | 12 mph (19 km/h)
1949 | Jaguar XK120 | 124.6 mph (201 km/h)
1955 | Mercedes-Benz 300SL | 140 mph (225 km/h)
1958 | Aston Martin DB4 | 141 mph (227 km/h)
1959 | Aston Martin DB4 GT | 152 mph (245 km/h)
1963 | Iso Rivolta Grifo A3/L 327 | 161 mph (259 km/h)
1967 | Lamborghini Miura P400 | 171 mph (275 km/h)
1968 | Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona | 174 mph (280 km/h)
1984 | Ferrari 288 GTO | 188 mph (303 km/h)
1986 | Porsche 959 | 195 mph (314 km/h)
1987 | Ferrari F40 | 202.687 mph (326.193 km/h)
1991 | Bugatti EB110 GT | 209 mph (336 km/h)
1992 | Jaguar XJ220 | 213 mph (343 km/h)
1993 | McLaren F1 | 231 mph (372 km/h)
2005 | Bugatti Veyron 16.4 | 253.81 mph (408.47 km/h)
2010 | Bugatti Veyron Super Sport | 257.87 mph (415.00 km/h)

I'd fathom a guess that in the day, all of these cars would have been classed as supercars (maybe not using that word in the earlier days since cars were quite new).
Look at how much the top speed has changed over the past 100+ years.

But obviously its not just top speed that defines a supercar, nor does it mean it has to have the fastest speed (just look at all the supercars that came out between the McLaren F1 and Veyron that didn't get higher speeds).

I have three main performance car classes, and hyper car isn't one of them.

SPORTS CARS (anything on a reasonably high production run/common)
MX-5, RX8, RX-7, GTO, EVO, WRX, non GT-R Skylines, GT-R Skylines, NSX?, S2000, lesser Mustang/Corvette/Camaro/Firebird/Challenger/Chargers (mainly class them as muscle cars though), BMW M sports, Lotus Esprit/Elise and so on

SUPER SPORTS CARS (generally more expensive and not as many models produced)
Corvette ZR-1 (etc), Shelby Mustang GT500s, Viper, Nissan GT-R, All Aston Martins (excluding One-77), All Porsches (excluding 959, Carrera GT etc), BMW M3/5/6 etc, Most Ferraris (excluding GTO, F40, F50, Enzo etc), Lamborghini Gallardo, Audi R8/RS4/RS6 etc, Most TVRs (excluding Speed 12s), McLaren MP4-12C and so on

SUPERCARS (usually very expensive, limited production runs, usually low/wide/visually different etc)
Ferrari 288 GTO F40, F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc, Lamborghini Miura, Countach, Diablo, Murcielago, Aventador etc, Porsche 959, Carrera GT etc, Aston Martin One-77, Vector M12/W8, All Pagani, All Koenigsegg, SSC, Bugatti EB110, Veyron, McLaren F1/P1 and so on.

It's hard for me to try describe all this but it basically boils down to this. Supercars have always been the ultimate car, and over time they haven't really changed their pattern much. They are still very eye catching, still very fast, still sound great and still basically are distinguishable from other cars. You can usually tell that you're looking at something quite different.

Introducing the hypercar category makes no sense. All that has done has put a 'barrier' on the supercar category, which it has never had before. What this means is that when a car does a certain speed, costs a ridiculous amount and so on, its instantly pushed into the hypercar category.

Why wasn't the McLaren F1 deemed a hypercar back in the day? It was so much more faster than anything else at the time. Or the 288 GTO?

Look at the games industry for a comparison. Yes, they do do a lot more things than just gaming these days, but gaming is still the main purpose.
- The 1980's Ataris etc don't perform as well as the 1990s PlayStations/Saturns.
- The 1990s PS1s etc aren't as great as the 2000's PS2s/Xboxs.
- Ditto for the latter 2000s PS3s/360s.
- And again with the PS4 and One.
Should the PS4/Xbox One be classed as super consoles? Or still game consoles/home entertainment systems.

This is a very long winded post i know, but i'm trying to get you all to REALLY think about the hypercar category actually being irrelevant, and merely just another generation of supercars. They didn't die off after the McLaren F1 and before the Veyron. The Enzo, Murci, Zonda and heaps more are all supercars. The F1 just set a really high top speed which no-one probably saw any need to challenge, at least for a while.

If i was better with words i might have done more convincing argument about this, but hopefully i've at least got you to think about it.

Apart from the Hypercars bit at the bottom (unless i misinterpreted it), this Jalopnik article sums it up well.

Hypercars (in my strong opinion) are just a myth. The end. ;)

First of all, this needs a poll.

Secondly, Hyper cars have been discussed to some length on Top Gear, they're not about being super super cars, they can be super cars 'as well' but usually aren't about going really fast around a track, they're more about being crazy cars, like the Countach and the Diablo, or the early Zondas, to name a few.

I think they do exist, and while they might not fit into your scale, I think your middle scale is wrong, its just shades of grey, but most of those 'super sports cars' are just either super cars or sports cars, imo.
 
8,818
United States
Marin County
I agree with the OP's categorization mostly. I get tired of hearing standard production Ferraris being called supercars because the aren't special enough for that, in my mind. They are exotic sports cars, not supercars.

However, the semantics are all made up and the points don't matter, so to speak. I won't be surprised when the term megacar, or in our technologically-fetishized culture, gigacar, enters the vernacular.

The reason the hypercar line is blurred is because the supercar one is too. Most of what you've classed as "super sports cars" I'd have considered supercars for most of my life.

For example: Regardless of the presence of the top echelon of Ferrari's vehicles, take something like the 458. It develops over 600 horsepower, it's low, wide, has striking looks, has a Ferrari badge on the hood... is it any less a supercar than an F40 or F50, simply down to the passage of time?

To spin it another way, your premise is that "super sports cars" are "generally more expensive and not as many produced". Does that not take into consideration performance at all? For example, you say "all Porsches" are considered - does this, like Ferrari, apply retrospectively? Does a <100 hp Porsche 914 remain a "super sports car" in light of its relative rarity and price when it was sold? Does a ~200 hp Mk1 Boxster, even though you can get a Ford Fiesta today which outperforms it?

I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment, but I don't explicitly agree with it either as the concept is far too fuzzy to give cars particular definitions.

I can fully understand why people use the hypercar term, because the latest generation of ultra-high performance supercars - Veyron, McLaren P1, LaFerrari, Porsche 918 etc - are so unbelievably powerful and exquisitely engineered that the term "supercar" doesn't really do them justice. The LaFerrari has getting on for double the power of an F40 and even considering inflation is many times the price - does it not warrant a new category? And sports cars like the Corvette and Viper are having to be detuned to compete in GT racing series. Are they not supercars, now, when they're more powerful than their full racing equivalents?

TL;DR - Pigeonholing doesn't really work, even when backed-up by supposed "facts".

I'd like to make special mention of HFS's post here. While in complete disagreement (seemingly) with the OP he doesn't attempt to argue with sarcasm or malice. And it's not atypical of HFS either. I wish everyone could conduct themselves so maturely around here.
 
Last edited:
1,101
Eight6er
First time I heard the term hypercar was in a Jeremy Clarkson video. So obviously it's just made up.
I think his definition was any car that goes over 200 MPH.
 
5,551
Antarctica
Controls set for heart of sun
GTP_RogerTheHors
When I see the term "hypercar" used it is usually used to refer to a car (which isn't a Rolls Royce) which costs an absurd amount of money and is only produced in very limited numbers. All in all, however, terms like "hypercar" or "supercar" are all simply reflective of the seemingly natural human desire to classify things in specific descriptive categories.

Fundamentally, an Autozam AZ-1, a Toyota MR2, and a Ferrari Enzo are all the same type of car. Namely a midship engined, rear wheel drive, two door, two seater coupé. But people view them as completely different things because their size, performance, and many other such features are so fundamentally different.
 
1,200
Supercars have changed. There seems to be no concrete definition anymore either. Nowadays it just seems to be based on how fast you can go in it, because thousands of people consider the GTR and ZR1 supercars based on track times.

Cars that would follow the classic definition of a supercar(exotic, expensive, exclusive, beautiful and fast)like the Aventador and F12Berlinetta still seem to keep the flame going while changing things up a bit. Due to huge innovations in car productions, compared to their forefathers theyre being rushed out of the factory, which slightly lowers exclusivity.

Cars that are now considered hypercars, such as the Agera, Huayra, LaFerrari and Mclaren P1 are nothing more than the highest end supercars.

I would like to say that the closest anything has ever been to the hypothetical hypercar is the Bugatti Veyron when it first came out, due to the extreme numbers and instant celebrity status.
 

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
73,756
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
There's really no such thing as an anythingcar, since manufacturers delight in blurring as many lines as they can.

Many of our car body classification names originate in carriages, an 18th Century gent wouldn't recognise our use of many of the same terms - I could show you three pictures of cars called coupes and there'd be eight different answers as to which ones actually were coupes. And that's a term that has a broadly defining meaning - the catastrophe that ensues when sportscars and supercars enter into the mix defies description.
 
2,012
All these are marketing terms, not factual. They solely serve for selling cars better.

On that note the miata is probably the best example, as its selling point is to be on the same group as Lotuses when they truly aren't comparable:

 
Last edited:

homeforsummer

Bonbonbonbons!
Premium
26,907
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
On that note the miata is probably the best example, as its selling point is to be on the same group as Lotuses when they truly aren't comparable:

That's not quite true - when the Miata debuted, it didn't really have any rivals. The Elan M100 was launched the same year which was more coincidence than anything else (and one of these cars has endured better than the other...), and the other cars around were eclectic at best.

In the U.S. the Fiero had just gone out of production and Toyota was mid-way between dropping the first-gen MR2 and coming out with the heavier 2nd-gen; in the UK the Miata's rivals were as diverse as the Caterham 7 and TVR S2.

If people consider the Miata in the "same group as Lotuses" (whatever that refers to) then they're misunderstanding the market somewhat. Its true rivals - Toyota MR-S, BMW Z3, MGF, Fiat Barchetta, Smart Roadster - have come and gone.

Though if you're specifically referring to the "it's not a sports car" thing, then Chris Harris and Peter Griffin are a bit of a narrow sample. And both wrong, I'd argue.
 

Azuremen

Wizard of Sky Diamonds
Premium
17,827
United States
509
Azuremen
SC2: gtAzire.359
Though if you're specifically referring to the "it's not a sports car" thing, then Chris Harris and Peter Griffin are a bit of a narrow sample. And both wrong, I'd argue.

The fact he felt the need to explain a convertible isn't a sports car, then put a bag on his head and talked about feeling ashamed, tells us more than enough about Chris Harris.

Which is he is a bit of a tool.
 
12,615
Antarctica
Antarctica
A hyper car would be a modern day "super car", but the term is commonly used to refer to high performance exotics rather than the record breaking best of the best cars, so these are called "hyper cars" because they are supposed to be above a so-called "super car".
 

Wolfe

Physics Critic
Premium
13,408
United States
Wisconsin
Wolfe2x7
I rarely use the term, but to me "hypercar" implies a track-ready supercar/exotic with a seven digit price tag. A supercar, then, is a sportscar that pushes the limits of performance/engineering for its time, without being overtly track-oriented; something you could valet park at a fancy restaurant, even if it's still a bit crude to live with.

As for sportscars, I don't understand the people who draw a line based on performance; you just can't do it without tossing out most of the historical icons of the 20th century. I tend to think of a sportscar as a bespoke model built primarily for the joy of driving, with two doors and RWD (optional AWD is okay). So cars like the Miata and Toyobaru are totally sportscars, even if they don't tickle the fancy of stoplight dragracers. The original Porsche 911 can't keep up with a 2014 Camry V6 either. :rolleyes:
 

SkylineObsession

Expert daydreamer
Premium
4,185
New Zealand
Dunedin
SkylineObsession
Mangosaurus
The reason the hypercar line is blurred is because the supercar one is too. Most of what you've classed as "super sports cars" I'd have considered supercars for most of my life.

For example: Regardless of the presence of the top echelon of Ferrari's vehicles, take something like the 458. It develops over 600 horsepower, it's low, wide, has striking looks, has a Ferrari badge on the hood... is it any less a supercar than an F40 or F50, simply down to the passage of time?

To spin it another way, your premise is that "super sports cars" are "generally more expensive and not as many produced". Does that not take into consideration performance at all? For example, you say "all Porsches" are considered - does this, like Ferrari, apply retrospectively? Does a <100 hp Porsche 914 remain a "super sports car" in light of its relative rarity and price when it was sold? Does a ~200 hp Mk1 Boxster, even though you can get a Ford Fiesta today which outperforms it?
Yes, because like the Jalopnik article says, it isn't a supercar because it has a much more expensive, more wild looking, faster and better performing big brother, the LaFerrari. The 360 has the Enzo. The 355 has the F50 (and so on). The whole car classification does apply retrospectively, otherwise it wouldn't be a sliding scale. :)

As i mentioned in my post, you can't automatically call something a supercar just because it can beat a 20 year old Ferrari. Supercars/sports cars etc are a sliding scale, you need to put yourself in the time frame of when the particular car came out, not how it performs/costs etc today.

Everything in the world is continuing to get faster, look different to anything else/perform better. Thats the sort of viewpoint you need to consider.

The angle it sounds like you're taking is that since a Nissan GT-R can annihilate a Ferrari F40 around a track today, that the GT-R is a supercar but the F40 isn't anymore. :scared: This may not be your intention, but it looks like it is leaning that way.

And sports cars like the Corvette and Viper are having to be detuned to compete in GT racing series. Are they not supercars, now, when they're more powerful than their full racing equivalents?
Cars have been getting detuned for racing for decades i'd say. ;)

The power of a car doesn't automatically give it supercar designation, thats where a lot of people get mistaken. Power, price (?), rarity (?), performance, appearance, wind tunnel effectiveness and yadda yadda are what makes a supercar. Yes, cars like the 458 etc likely approach all those checkpoints, but even Ferrari themselves wouldn't put it in the same league as its big brother at the time.

Hypercar is just someones 'neat' word for a very fast supercar that has been adopted by every man and his dog, to make a supercar sound much more than a supercar, when in reality it still is a supercar and always will be.
 

homeforsummer

Bonbonbonbons!
Premium
26,907
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Yes, because like the Jalopnik article says, it isn't a supercar because it has a much more expensive, more wild looking, faster and better performing big brother, the LaFerrari. The 360 has the Enzo. The 355 has the F50 (and so on). The whole car classification does apply retrospectively, otherwise it wouldn't be a sliding scale. :)

You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick, at least for the passage you quoted.

You said "all Porsches" are "super sports cars". That then includes the 914, which was available in 1.5-litre versions with around 80 hp. It was rarer and more expensive than the average car though, at the time. But it's just one example of why your rigid categorisation doesn't really work.

As i mentioned in my post, you can't automatically call something a supercar just because it can beat a 20 year old Ferrari. Supercars/sports cars etc are a sliding scale, you need to put yourself in the time frame of when the particular car came out, not how it performs/costs etc today.

In its day, a Ferrari 348 was still a very fast, very exotic car. A Testarossa more so. Regardless of whether a 288 GTO or an F40 was even faster and even more exotic, it seems like splitting hairs to consider a 348 or a Testarossa as less than a supercar simply because the maker offered something that was "more super", as it were.

Same applies today. Since there was a big gap between Enzo and LaFerrari - for a while, with no guarantee the latter would see the light of day - would that make the 458 Ferrari's supercar - or even something like the F12 - given nothing sat above it in the range? Do they simply get demoted when something faster comes along?

Everything in the world is continuing to get faster, look different to anything else/perform better. Thats the sort of viewpoint you need to consider.

The angle it sounds like you're taking is that since a Nissan GT-R can annihilate a Ferrari F40 around a track today, that the GT-R is a supercar but the F40 isn't anymore. :scared: This may not be your intention, but it looks like it is leaning that way.

It isn't my intention - you've misunderstood.

My point is more that demoting something in the modern world to a lesser status seems unfair on certain cars that by any other metric would be considered supercars. Again, the 458.

A Jaguar XKR-S has a good 50 bhp more than a Ferrari F40, but I wouldn't automatically consider it a supercar because it's more powerful, just like I wouldn't consider a big AMG saloon a supercar because it's more powerful. One is just a breathed-on GT, the other a breathed-on saloon.

I'd say the structured way you're trying to define certain classes (out of nothing more than disliking the term "hypercar" it seems - setting definitions simply to exclude such a term) is too inorganic. Supercars are a "know it when you see it" sort of thing.

Cars have been getting detuned for racing for decades i'd say. ;)

Can you provide any examples? Because for a large part of the history of the automobile, cars have had significant tuning before they were raced. It's only quite recently that road-going sports cars have become so powerful that they actually surpass the power limits required in some series.

The power of a car doesn't automatically give it supercar designation, thats where a lot of people get mistaken.

Lucky I'm not falling into that trap then, huh? ;)

Power, price (?), rarity (?), performance, appearance, wind tunnel effectiveness and yadda yadda are what makes a supercar. Yes, cars like the 458 etc likely approach all those checkpoints, but even Ferrari themselves wouldn't put it in the same league as its big brother at the time.

Who says they have to put it in the same league as a LaFerrari for them to consider it a supercar? In fact, why should it even be up to Ferrari to make such a definition anyway? Ultimately it's the buyers of the car who matter. And I suspect you'd find very few 458 buyers saying, "nah, my 458 isn't a supercar - just a super sports car"...

Hypercar is just someones 'neat' word for a very fast supercar that has been adopted by every man and his dog, to make a supercar sound much more than a supercar, when in reality it still is a supercar and always will be.

By your definition... which is the main point here. Just as avens did with the MX-5, which supposedly isn't a sports car because of stereotypes and seemingly the one motoring journalist in Christendom who doesn't really like them.

"An MX-5 isn't a sports car because it isn't as fast and hardcore as other sports cars"

"A 458 isn't a supercar because it isn't as fast and hardcore as other supercars"

That you've already said this:

Power, price (?), rarity (?), performance, appearance, wind tunnel effectiveness and yadda yadda are what makes a supercar. Yes, cars like the 458 etc likely approach all those checkpoints

...suggests that you're largely talking semantics. "The 458 is basically a supercar, except it isn't because there's a faster Ferrari available". It's a bit hair-splitting, don't you think?
 
Sporty car : Slightly more power than the average car, a bit stiffer suspension setup

(Ford Fiesta ST, Golf GTI, GT86,...)

Sportcar : High HP output / is quick, lightweight to a certain extend

(boxster, caymen, M3, RS4,....)
The RS4 is a sports car, but the 86 is just a "sporty car"? What? How? I don't even...
 

niky

Karma Chameleon
Moderator
23,800
Philippines
Philippines
Though if you're specifically referring to the "it's not a sports car" thing, then Chris Harris and Peter Griffin are a bit of a narrow sample. And both wrong, I'd argue.

I like Harris, but his video review just felt so wrong. Like he was struggling to come up with justifications for his view.

Not that the Miata doesn't have its foibles (of which, admittedly, there are many), but the real trick is that it's good in spite of them.


...suggests that you're largely talking semantics. "The 458 is basically a supercar, except it isn't because there's a faster Ferrari available". It's a bit hair-splitting, don't you think?

You could go even further and declare NO Ferraris aside from the track-only FXX are supercars.

Supercars have changed. There seems to be no concrete definition anymore either. Nowadays it just seems to be based on how fast you can go in it, because thousands of people consider the GTR and ZR1 supercars based on track times.

There never was a concrete definition.

The ZR1 and GT-R are basically supercars. They're expensive, they're incredibly fast, they handle well, and they use exotic materials and construction in their manufacture.

Any line in the sand you try to draw that excludes cars like that (and cars like the Porsche 911 GT2 and Turbo) from the "Supercar" class will be pretty kinky. There's no straight-cut definition that will be satisfactory to anybody.

This is why people felt the need to come up with terms like "hypercar" and "exotic", because if makers like Ford (with the Ford GT), Nissan and Chevrolet could produce cars that were objectively better than the stuff from Ferarri and Lamborghini, there had to be a way to justify the high price premiums and badge snobbery.
 
Last edited:

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
73,756
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
There never was a concrete definition.

The ZR1 and GT-R are basically supercars. They're expensive, they're incredibly fast, they handle well, and they use exotic materials and construction in their manufacture.

Any line in the sand you try to draw that excludes cars like that (and cars like the Porsche 911 GT2 and Turbo) from the "Supercar" class will be pretty kinky.
I can do it...

... just:
There's no straight-cut definition that will be satisfactory to anybody.
... it'll upset people whose favourite lottery car gets excluded.

Luckily definitions - like science - aren't dependent on whether people like them :D