Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

Time and space won't allow me to post all my criteria for "sports car." RWD and IRS, or course. Probably either a two seater or two plus two. Two doors. A low belt line (not one of those so called sports cars built on a sedan platform with a high cowl.) Near 50/50 weight distribution. At least decent acceleration and "gs". Good feedback to the driver. I could go on and bore everybody -- especially because I'm not an expert -- in anything!

But here's an example. In the early 90's I owned an Eagle Talon turbo with FWD. To me, it was not a sports car. It missed at least criteria 1, 3, 4, and 6 above.

I DO consider my SLK a sports car. It meets all criteria (listed and unlisted). All sports cars needn't be alike. My Honda S 2000 is surely a sports car too, but the SLK mixes a little more "grand touring" in. An SL 63 AMG is sure as heck a sports car, but it mixes a lot of luxury in the mix.

Again, just one person's opinion.

Ikarus

Posts: 596

Country:

Thanks: 18

Thanked 40 Times in 20 Posts

I know it's hard to find a concise definition of the term "sports car", but I must say I find any definition that does not include all professional race cars a bit narrow. Anyway, I see your point and I would definitely not object to the notion that it is harder to make an FWD car be capable contender on the race track - harder for sure, but not impossible, at least as long as power stays below the 400hp mark.

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

Ikarus:

My personal definition of "sports car" would not include all "track capable" cars. It would not, for example, include NASCAR cars -- even though they are certainly track capable. The three principle problems with performance on FWD cars (IMO) are torque steer, under steer, and nose heaviness. Were these problems solved, it would then be possible to make what I would call a sports car FWD.

Please remember that I am only stating a personal opinion of one with no particular expertise. But when I look to buy a new car (be it sports car, sedan, or truck), I REFUSE to buy anything with FWD. So at least I put my money where my mouth is!

Duo-Art

And there are some people (not me) who believe that a true sports car must have a manual transmission.

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

Duo-Art:

I used to feel that a true sports car should have an MT. But car makers have added gears, tightened up slippage, added paddle shifters, and made so many improvements to their ATs that I no longer feel that way. Now, you've got to drive both the MT and AT versions and decide which is best for you.

Driller

Posts: 88

Country:

Thanks: 2

Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

No, no, I think that you misunderstand. My car is stock with 7.5" wheels up front c/w 225-40-18 tires and 8.5" wheels in the rear c/w 245-35-18 tires. For summer driving, I've changed the rear tires to 255-35-18. In winter, I keep the same wheels and put on 4 225-40-18 snow tires (still on 8.5" wheels in the rear). Hope this clarifies.

cyberdrakon

Posts: 1,406

Country:

Thanks: 26

Thanked 63 Times in 42 Posts

i don't normally include 'race cars' as 'sports cars'.

mtiede

Posts: 1,645

Thanks: 102

Thanked 55 Times in 45 Posts

When I bought winter tires and wheels from TireRack the guy made a convincing argument about having the same wheels and tires on front and back. He said that having the same wheels and tires would allow the rear to track in the same groove through snow cut by the front tires. Otherwise, with wider tires and offset wheels in the rear the car would be pushing more snow. Sort of made sense to me...

shahedC

Posts: 85

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

I didn't even realize that we had the option of un-staggering the tires.

I actually like them the way they are!