It may have been implied, but I don't believe anyone mentioned that a GT is, as I have always understood it, a coupe, and frequently a coupe version of a roadster sportscar, hence the MG-B GT, etc...

In my memory, one of the ulimate GTs was the Mercedes 300SL.

 

I don't think there is an official definition of what "GT" means, and that term is way overused in marketing and advertising. I humbly submit these simple guidelines:

A "sports car" is optimized for cornering ability, power, light weight, and quick lap times. Must have only two seats. Little attention is paid to driver/passenger comfort. Examples: early 911s, MG, Cobra, Ferrari 430, Lotus, Jaguar XK series.

A "GT" is similar to a sports car, but optimized for long distance, high speed travel. 2 seats, with maybe two small extra seats, and a small luggage space. Some attention is paid to comfort, but not so much that weight/performance is compromised. Examples: 928, Aston Martins, Ferrari 612, Bentley Continental

There are many cars that could fit either definition. Many GTs are simply successful sports cars that have been made bigger. Has any successful car ever been made smaller?

BMWs and Mercedes Benzes are designed as four-seaters and are not GTs.

 

You might want to look at a MB SL.

 

I could not agree more. The MB 280SL was a great GT car. A joy to drive, though not a Porsche. I haven't driven any SL model since that one, but suspect they all reflect the original 300SL concept. The 280SL was sophistication on wheels, elegant and functional with lots of luggage capacity, and abundantly drivable.
It was heavy, but agile. The only flaw I noticed was the awkward position of the huge steering wheel in relation to the driver.

I have sat in the latest SL model and am NOT impressed in comparison to my 928. It is like a loosely fitting glove two sizes to large when compared to the 928. Give me my 928 any day, because for any car to qualify as a GT, driver effectiveness and ergonomics must be a factor, given the sustained high speed intent of the vehicle.

 

My optometrist had one about 20 years ago. It was the Paris Auto Show car. He wishes he had it back!!

 

This is more in line with my driving impression of the SL ...."Overseas version of the 280 SL got 190 horsepower from the new 2,778 cubic centimeter in-line six, but newly instituted American emissions regulations limited U.S.-spec cars to just 180 horsepower and 193 pound-feet of torque.

By this time the demeanor of the SL was set in stone as a solidly built, comfortable open car with great touring credentials. Its zero-to-60 miles per hour time of just a hair under 10 seconds with the automatic transmission was mundane even for a sedan, a second-and-a-half slower than a comparable automatic-equipped Corvette. But in terms of ride comfort and assembly quality, the 280 SL was true to its roots. Certainly, the 280 SL set a new standard for sports cars from Daimler-Benz,....." Another site referred to it as being like the 1955 T-bird , a sedan in sports car clothes. It had the look the style but lacked performance.

 

Well, I certainly liked that 280SL. Acceleration wasn't neck snapping but adequate and it wasn't about acceleration to 60 mph, but more about sustained high speed. For some strange reason, we in this wonderful country of ours seem to ignore anything without dragster-like acceleration off a line. What's with that? Give me my 1600S Speedster back anyday. I'd drive it all day every day rain or shine in the mountains, on the freeway, on back roads or along Hwy 1 to Carmel. Keep your dragsters, I'll take the SL or the Speedster anyday. And it didn't have the power to beat a Chebbie off the line but I remember one chasing me once and he lost it in a corner and ended up in someone's yard as I just scooted through it without a care in the world. Ha! Ha! Ha! F*** him. A goon in a Chebbie with a big V-8 against a little bitty 1.6 liter four. I wasn't impressed by that monster chebbie and neither was the guy into whose yard this idiot slid. The SL would have done it more comfortably though. Either would have outlasted and out driven that Chebbie hunk of junk many years over. But of course, for those of us that live on this side of the pond, we can drive 928s with V-8s and have the best of both worlds, right? We can imagine ourselves as drag racers if that's our fantasy. It certainly isn't mine.

 

Oh Ron , one of the longest least enjoyable days of my life was driving a concours 356 Cab from San Rafael to Newport Beach about 20 years ago ! There was nothing about that car that I liked ! I failed to see the magic. Early 911s are fun , quick.

 

Don't forget that fabulous V12. And yes, I'm sure Porsche designers were influenced by it. And it may be heresy here, but I like the looks of the 365 gtb4 better than any of the other cars mentioned. In fact, other than maybe a Baldwin/Motion Mako Shark, I still think that Ferrari's the most gorgeous automotive design I've ever seen. But I still love my shark. It would be a dream to drive them back to back, somewhere with no speed limits. Ahhhhh, to dream.

 

Your examples show that the "not add so much weight" theory has been thrown out the window. The corollary being that most of what people would consider "sports cars" today aren't that light either, as people still want a/c, airbagss traction control, etc, as well as a boat load of horsepower - which is what you need when you have all that cruft.

In the true sense of the word, a sports car is a car you really couldn't live with as an everyday car. A GT is that same car larded and softened up so that you can.

 

I think the original definition of a Grand Tourer was a car that would take two people, and enough luggage for a weekend, from Paris to Rome, which is just about 1,000 miles, in time for dinner.

 

Chris,

I like your definition. Yes, car weights have really gone up. I guess due to safety requirements, and people expecting more luxury items as standard.

The Bentley Continental GT weighs about 5,000 lb. But it also has 550 hp, and 195 mph top speed. I'm amazed how fast these heavy cars can accelerate.

 

We'd talked about this before but Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car magazine in their June 07 issue that gave a pretty good listing of what their of idea of a GT was when they listed their "Top 10 GT's" – I’m guessing that they’re saying in the whole world.

In order but to be PC they didn't say what was best from one to ten.
Lamborghini Expada 68-78
Aston-Martin DBS 67-72
Porsche 928 78-95
Citrone SM 70-74
Toyota Supra 94-98
Maserati Khamsin
Jensen Interceptor/FF 66-76
ISO Grifo 65-74
Ferrari 365GTC/4 71-72
Alfa Romero Montreal 71-75

But as the author of the article points out according to the FIA almost anything with two doors (include his mom's 85" Pontiac Grand Prix) can be made into a GT with a set of racing tires.

But I tend to agree that a proper Grand Touring car should have performance (sports car) with a focus on comfort (Luxury if you will) for at least the driver an passenger and as has been already stated here had enough room for luggage for a weekend getaway for two.

 

There aren't many cars like this made anymore. Jaguar XKR and Aston Martins are really only ones as Bentley and Ferrari 612 are more like two door sedans with their large rear seats. 997 is just slightly too small and sportcar like to work properly.

 

Chris, I like that definition too. Most of the performance comments here on the 928 board are about the sports car nature of the car. Thus, building a definition off of those attributes makes sense.

Brett - thanks for the top ten list. I am curious to do some Googling and see some pix of those cars.