What is a Supercar?
10-29-2003, 06:49 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mansfield, TX
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSX vs 928, my view....
Interesting topic.....
I have an Acura NSX-T, turns heads everywhere I go. By most any definition it's considered a "supercar". It has the status, performance, etc.
The 928 on the other hand doesn't receive near the attention the NSX does. Usually ignored except for the occasional knowledgeable person.
People that know me are constantly asking why I drive the 928 on long trips and only drive the NSX when the weather is nice. I just smile knowingly and tell them of the 100mph qtr mile, top speed just under the NSX's, and the comfy ride, good A/C (compared to the NSX the 928 has wonderful air and sound system) and all of the other things we know makes it such a fabulous Grand Touring car. They just look at me funny and walk away....
I think that, for me, that kind of makes the "supercar" name not appropriate for the 928. It's the finest GT auto ever made, ultra reliable with the proper care, and made to cruise down the interstate better than anything I've driven.
Supercars should not be useful, practical, or all around good cars. They should be cantankerous, annoying, less than reliable, and so damned expensive only a crazy person would want one. Along that vein, I would not consider the Vette or Viper a supercar either. The NSX barely makes it, only because it's pretty reliable, but the expense and scarcity keeps it on the edge of "supercarness"
I am lucky in that my budget allows me to have pretty much anything on the road, up to the low 6 figure price tag even. And at one point or another I've tried them all on for size. The keepers are the NSX, BMW 850, and the 928. The losers were a Ferrari 348, the 930, and Lotus Esprit (V8). All supercars, and in truth not worth owning, at least for what I want to do, which is have the darned thing start every time I put the key in.
So the truth is, the 928 isn't a "supercar", and I am grateful for that every time I drive her......
I have an Acura NSX-T, turns heads everywhere I go. By most any definition it's considered a "supercar". It has the status, performance, etc.
The 928 on the other hand doesn't receive near the attention the NSX does. Usually ignored except for the occasional knowledgeable person.
People that know me are constantly asking why I drive the 928 on long trips and only drive the NSX when the weather is nice. I just smile knowingly and tell them of the 100mph qtr mile, top speed just under the NSX's, and the comfy ride, good A/C (compared to the NSX the 928 has wonderful air and sound system) and all of the other things we know makes it such a fabulous Grand Touring car. They just look at me funny and walk away....
I think that, for me, that kind of makes the "supercar" name not appropriate for the 928. It's the finest GT auto ever made, ultra reliable with the proper care, and made to cruise down the interstate better than anything I've driven.
Supercars should not be useful, practical, or all around good cars. They should be cantankerous, annoying, less than reliable, and so damned expensive only a crazy person would want one. Along that vein, I would not consider the Vette or Viper a supercar either. The NSX barely makes it, only because it's pretty reliable, but the expense and scarcity keeps it on the edge of "supercarness"
I am lucky in that my budget allows me to have pretty much anything on the road, up to the low 6 figure price tag even. And at one point or another I've tried them all on for size. The keepers are the NSX, BMW 850, and the 928. The losers were a Ferrari 348, the 930, and Lotus Esprit (V8). All supercars, and in truth not worth owning, at least for what I want to do, which is have the darned thing start every time I put the key in.
So the truth is, the 928 isn't a "supercar", and I am grateful for that every time I drive her......
10-29-2003, 07:43 PM
#17
Nordschleife Master
Originally posted by Chris
So car in front of me at the dyno yesterday was a Mustang SVT with aftermarket 'Wipple' (sp?) supercharger and was pulling 530hp ....
I do not consider this car to be a supercar, its more than just power.
I have a book I bought as a kid 'Supercars of the 70's', the Porsche 928 as well as the Uraco are in there.
Chris
So car in front of me at the dyno yesterday was a Mustang SVT with aftermarket 'Wipple' (sp?) supercharger and was pulling 530hp ....
I do not consider this car to be a supercar, its more than just power.
I have a book I bought as a kid 'Supercars of the 70's', the Porsche 928 as well as the Uraco are in there.
Chris
10-29-2003, 07:46 PM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Prior to the introduction Porsche originally was testing a 5 liter engine . It was in response to the "oil Embargo" that Porsche flinched and downsized to 4.5 liters with lower compression ..............the rest is history .
10-29-2003, 07:53 PM
#19
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
definitions
Jayc67:
I respectfully must disagree with your criteria. I see no reason whatsoever why a supercar must be cantankerous, fussy, unreliable. The fact that the 928 is not that way makes it that much more attractive as a supercar. I remember the days of the 356 Porsches, when most people thought they were a bit odd and their drivers were also a bit odd; they were not rough riding like a Triumph or MG, they were reliable and had finesse, they were fun to drive, and with the exception of the Speedster, were weathertight.
But were they "sportscars"? Some would have argued that a Morgan Plus 4 is a sports car, but, for all the reasons above, the Porsche was just an "oddity", and people hated them. Well, they won, you see. And people then drove them home and to work the next day, and for many years after that. Lotus' were fast at the track, but broke down constantly. Porsches didn't break as often, so I guess they weren't "sporty" enough.
The 928 has it all, including the understated elegance that comes from honest design concepts. It is devoid of trite and fashionable "devices, like scoops, bulges, badges, etc that probably work to lessen the efficiency of the car but catch the eye of buyers and their teenage children. (No offense but I was a teenager too once and know I had less informed reasons for thinking certain things were "cool" than I do now.) The NSX is argueably one of the most beautiful "things" ever produced in my opinion; it is honest and functional and fit for its purpose, and a triumph of industrial design. I have tried to con a dealer into letting me drive one to determine if it is as good a performer as it is aesthetically. Haven't been successful yet. The 904 is also in my opinion one of the most beautiful GT cars ever produced. And so is the 993 which, in my opinion, is the pinnacle of 911 development.
And they are all supercars compared to lesser wannabes full of media hype and gadgets.
One guy said it well and succintly while looking at a Porsche 908 on display in a dealership not long ago: "This is a serious car". That about sums up Porsche's intent as succintly as I can imagine. That seemed to be the first Porsche race car he had encountered.
I respectfully must disagree with your criteria. I see no reason whatsoever why a supercar must be cantankerous, fussy, unreliable. The fact that the 928 is not that way makes it that much more attractive as a supercar. I remember the days of the 356 Porsches, when most people thought they were a bit odd and their drivers were also a bit odd; they were not rough riding like a Triumph or MG, they were reliable and had finesse, they were fun to drive, and with the exception of the Speedster, were weathertight.
But were they "sportscars"? Some would have argued that a Morgan Plus 4 is a sports car, but, for all the reasons above, the Porsche was just an "oddity", and people hated them. Well, they won, you see. And people then drove them home and to work the next day, and for many years after that. Lotus' were fast at the track, but broke down constantly. Porsches didn't break as often, so I guess they weren't "sporty" enough.
The 928 has it all, including the understated elegance that comes from honest design concepts. It is devoid of trite and fashionable "devices, like scoops, bulges, badges, etc that probably work to lessen the efficiency of the car but catch the eye of buyers and their teenage children. (No offense but I was a teenager too once and know I had less informed reasons for thinking certain things were "cool" than I do now.) The NSX is argueably one of the most beautiful "things" ever produced in my opinion; it is honest and functional and fit for its purpose, and a triumph of industrial design. I have tried to con a dealer into letting me drive one to determine if it is as good a performer as it is aesthetically. Haven't been successful yet. The 904 is also in my opinion one of the most beautiful GT cars ever produced. And so is the 993 which, in my opinion, is the pinnacle of 911 development.
And they are all supercars compared to lesser wannabes full of media hype and gadgets.
One guy said it well and succintly while looking at a Porsche 908 on display in a dealership not long ago: "This is a serious car". That about sums up Porsche's intent as succintly as I can imagine. That seemed to be the first Porsche race car he had encountered.
10-29-2003, 08:09 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Waterford, Ct
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make it quick
Today, 0-60 in the 4's, top end 200
In the 80's (928 days)
IN THE 5's top end 170's
STOCK!!!
My old 455 gs would go 0-60 in the 5's
top end 112-120
425 hp-475 fp
That to me WAS a super car
Today, 0-60 in the 4's, top end 200
In the 80's (928 days)
IN THE 5's top end 170's
STOCK!!!
My old 455 gs would go 0-60 in the 5's
top end 112-120
425 hp-475 fp
That to me WAS a super car
10-29-2003, 08:25 PM
#21
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 928 has all the qualifications of being a "super" car.
But it is not in the same category as "supercars".
Supercars are defined by their performance (over 200mph),
as well as looking the part, and also the price, which is
usually astronomical. To the layman, and to most people
on the street, supercars are Ferarri F-50, Lamborghini Diablo,
Vector, Jaguar XJ220, McClaren, etc... Those are supercars,
as "supercar" is defined by the man on the street...
Vettes, 911s, and things like that are not seen as "supercars".
Nor the 928.
Even if the performance, value, and comfort is far better than the
Ferarris or Lamborghinis...
But it is not in the same category as "supercars".
Supercars are defined by their performance (over 200mph),
as well as looking the part, and also the price, which is
usually astronomical. To the layman, and to most people
on the street, supercars are Ferarri F-50, Lamborghini Diablo,
Vector, Jaguar XJ220, McClaren, etc... Those are supercars,
as "supercar" is defined by the man on the street...
Vettes, 911s, and things like that are not seen as "supercars".
Nor the 928.
Even if the performance, value, and comfort is far better than the
Ferarris or Lamborghinis...
10-29-2003, 08:43 PM
#23
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Clearwater Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by heinrich
Show me a 1987 Mercedes that can do 0-60mph in 5.7sec, and 0-60-0 in 9 sec. Also, show me a Mercedes that can do 1G around a corner; or that looks as elegant and burly as a Porsche 928, with a drag coefficient of .32. .
Show me a 1987 Mercedes that can do 0-60mph in 5.7sec, and 0-60-0 in 9 sec. Also, show me a Mercedes that can do 1G around a corner; or that looks as elegant and burly as a Porsche 928, with a drag coefficient of .32. .
I agree with just everyone on everything here, but let's not get carried away with the bashing of other marques
10-29-2003, 09:21 PM
#24
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I have a friend with one which he bought in 1983. Struth. And I really don't think stating a car's performance statistics can be called "bashing".
Here are the specs (source: http://www.cms.daimlerchrysler.com/e...-0-0-0,00.html)
The 190 E 2.3-16.
185 hp at 6200RPM
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in 7.5 seconds and a top speed of 235 km/h.
This is a very very quick car, and might I say, a supercar. But I exceeded 235km/h just Sunday in my 16yo S4 :-)
Here are the specs (source: http://www.cms.daimlerchrysler.com/e...-0-0-0,00.html)
The 190 E 2.3-16.
185 hp at 6200RPM
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in 7.5 seconds and a top speed of 235 km/h.
This is a very very quick car, and might I say, a supercar. But I exceeded 235km/h just Sunday in my 16yo S4 :-)
10-29-2003, 09:43 PM
#25
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did I know this thread was gonna pop up soon?...
OK, it's my fault, I'm one of those who said it’s not a super-car. Why? Because it is not worshiped by the general public as anything special. Hence the $13000 asking price for an 87 S4 that does all mentioned above.
Yes in 1986 is was a super-car and it costed like it, but there were also Lambo's Ferraris and Lotuses that actually LOOK the part of a super-car. Hell, I (and the MN State Police...) realize what 928s do, that's why I have one, and especially for the money I paid. It is the least expensive car I've ever owned, (but most costly to keep running)
In reality I think they are a great high performance car by today’s standards. They were super in the 80’s but now almost everything nice has 240+ HP and 0-60 in 6 sec, and is 40K or less. A really nice GTS is about 30K, so that is why 928s aren’t super-cars anymore. They are something else,..Maybe “prodigies” is a better word. I’ll keep driving them as long as they can be had for the price of a used Honda.
The Carerra GT IS a super-car, and it costs like it. - Ruf
OK, it's my fault, I'm one of those who said it’s not a super-car. Why? Because it is not worshiped by the general public as anything special. Hence the $13000 asking price for an 87 S4 that does all mentioned above.
Yes in 1986 is was a super-car and it costed like it, but there were also Lambo's Ferraris and Lotuses that actually LOOK the part of a super-car. Hell, I (and the MN State Police...) realize what 928s do, that's why I have one, and especially for the money I paid. It is the least expensive car I've ever owned, (but most costly to keep running)
In reality I think they are a great high performance car by today’s standards. They were super in the 80’s but now almost everything nice has 240+ HP and 0-60 in 6 sec, and is 40K or less. A really nice GTS is about 30K, so that is why 928s aren’t super-cars anymore. They are something else,..Maybe “prodigies” is a better word. I’ll keep driving them as long as they can be had for the price of a used Honda.
The Carerra GT IS a super-car, and it costs like it. - Ruf
10-29-2003, 10:04 PM
#28
Nordschleife Master
How about this, you've got a great frame on which to start your modifications...
The car is strong, and the suspension is dang near perfect. Not like your trying to get a Camaro to go around a conor. The engine is strong, and readly upgradeable. 500 hp on a stock bottem end, wow, that kinda neat if you ask me! Just need a few more supercharged speed freeks running around.
Add it together with a car that you is litterly built like a tank, you've got a pretty good combo.
The car is strong, and the suspension is dang near perfect. Not like your trying to get a Camaro to go around a conor. The engine is strong, and readly upgradeable. 500 hp on a stock bottem end, wow, that kinda neat if you ask me! Just need a few more supercharged speed freeks running around.
Add it together with a car that you is litterly built like a tank, you've got a pretty good combo.
