Sports Car or GT
10-02-2012, 03:30 PM
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Sports Car or GT
After reading the threads on this forum, along with the 997, 993tt and 993 forums, I have come to two conclusions. One, I am probably spending way too much time reading these forums, and two, it seems we don't agree on the what differentiates a sports car from a GT. The answer is certainly a moving target in that what was true in 1920, or even 1950 would not be true now.
I've read where some owner's of pre-991 911's feel the new car is a GT and not a sports car. I agree that the 991 is a wonderful car to go touring in. Great weather protection, plenty of space for luggage, fast, comfortable, fun to drive and dependable. These characteristics define a grand touring car, and have been present in every 911 ever built. So are 911's GT's or sports cars? If you had just driven cross country in a 1956 Austin Healey you might consider any 911 of any vintage to be a two seat limousine.
I think we can all agree that a Jaguar XK120 roadster is a sports car. It was at the fore front of the sports car phenomenom in post war America. A performance oriented two seater, side curtains, non-power brakes,
non-power steering, marginal weather protection, precious little luggage space, low to the ground with firm suspension. It would be hard to imagine this car with power windows, power steering, cruise control, anti-lock brakes, air conditioning and many of the other
items we have come to expect in all cars. But would those items, if added to the Jaguar option list, preclude it from being a sports car?
My own take on this "sports car" classification is that it is relative. How's that for conviction!
What I mean is relative to other cars from the same period. Compare a 1952 Jaguar to a 1952 Ford, or other sedans of that era, and it is easy to see which is the sports car. Move up to 1956 and the lines
start to blur. Was the Corvette a sports car? It only seated two, didn't hold much luggage, performance oriented (floor shift even) and handled better than all American made sedans. What about the two seater Thunderbird? It was everything the Corvette was, but much
less so. Even though it was a two seater, the performance difference between it and a sedan of the period was too slim and as a result it was not considered a sports car even then.
Fast forward to 2012 and the lines aren't so much blurred as non existent. Porsche sells a four door sedan that can get around a race course faster than 95% of the "sports cars" in the world. It can do it
with 4 people aboard and three of them can be sipping their latte's.
They'll need to keep the lids on though. Is the Panamera a sports car, a sports sedan or a GT? And if the 991 is a GT (because it has so many creature comforts) what is a sports car?
If sacrificing all for the sake of performance is the criteria, then the Atom and Caterham 7 come to mind, but little else. It also can't just
be absolute performance or my friend's 100/4 Healey LeMans wouldn't make the cut. It has tires with the friction coefficient of a pencil eraser and can't keep up with a Dodge Neon, but it is most definitely a sports car.
As cars have become more capable in all categories, as a result of advances in brakes, chassis, suspension, engines and tires the line between sports car and GT may no longer exist, except to say that a
sports car can only seat 2 adults.
Fire away, I'd love to hear how you guys make the distinction. If it's all just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin so be it.
I've read where some owner's of pre-991 911's feel the new car is a GT and not a sports car. I agree that the 991 is a wonderful car to go touring in. Great weather protection, plenty of space for luggage, fast, comfortable, fun to drive and dependable. These characteristics define a grand touring car, and have been present in every 911 ever built. So are 911's GT's or sports cars? If you had just driven cross country in a 1956 Austin Healey you might consider any 911 of any vintage to be a two seat limousine.
I think we can all agree that a Jaguar XK120 roadster is a sports car. It was at the fore front of the sports car phenomenom in post war America. A performance oriented two seater, side curtains, non-power brakes,
non-power steering, marginal weather protection, precious little luggage space, low to the ground with firm suspension. It would be hard to imagine this car with power windows, power steering, cruise control, anti-lock brakes, air conditioning and many of the other
items we have come to expect in all cars. But would those items, if added to the Jaguar option list, preclude it from being a sports car?
My own take on this "sports car" classification is that it is relative. How's that for conviction!
What I mean is relative to other cars from the same period. Compare a 1952 Jaguar to a 1952 Ford, or other sedans of that era, and it is easy to see which is the sports car. Move up to 1956 and the lines
start to blur. Was the Corvette a sports car? It only seated two, didn't hold much luggage, performance oriented (floor shift even) and handled better than all American made sedans. What about the two seater Thunderbird? It was everything the Corvette was, but much
less so. Even though it was a two seater, the performance difference between it and a sedan of the period was too slim and as a result it was not considered a sports car even then.
Fast forward to 2012 and the lines aren't so much blurred as non existent. Porsche sells a four door sedan that can get around a race course faster than 95% of the "sports cars" in the world. It can do it
with 4 people aboard and three of them can be sipping their latte's.
They'll need to keep the lids on though. Is the Panamera a sports car, a sports sedan or a GT? And if the 991 is a GT (because it has so many creature comforts) what is a sports car?
If sacrificing all for the sake of performance is the criteria, then the Atom and Caterham 7 come to mind, but little else. It also can't just
be absolute performance or my friend's 100/4 Healey LeMans wouldn't make the cut. It has tires with the friction coefficient of a pencil eraser and can't keep up with a Dodge Neon, but it is most definitely a sports car.
As cars have become more capable in all categories, as a result of advances in brakes, chassis, suspension, engines and tires the line between sports car and GT may no longer exist, except to say that a
sports car can only seat 2 adults.
Fire away, I'd love to hear how you guys make the distinction. If it's all just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin so be it.
10-02-2012, 03:51 PM
#2
Well said. The issue of resistance to new technology is larger and older than the 911 for sure: http://www.bus.emory.edu/jSheth/docs...Resistance.pdf
10-02-2012, 04:14 PM
#3
Racer
Would you mind giving your opinion on what is a "supercar" and what is an "exotic" ?
I am one of the many who has inadvertently used the term "sports car" incorrectly to refer to anything with a "sporty" design, regardless of the number of seats (or even number of doors). Now that I am learning so much about Porsche (and I also own an Audi R8 Spyder) I would like to be more correct and not sound like a "country bumpkin" although I am one, unashamedly!
I am one of the many who has inadvertently used the term "sports car" incorrectly to refer to anything with a "sporty" design, regardless of the number of seats (or even number of doors). Now that I am learning so much about Porsche (and I also own an Audi R8 Spyder) I would like to be more correct and not sound like a "country bumpkin" although I am one, unashamedly!
10-02-2012, 10:39 PM
#4
I look at it this way,.....I don't think anyone has the term "sports car" trademarked so the actual meaning of it is anyone's interpretation.
If the car was meant to be driven in a sporting manner and adheres to "certain" ideas in my mind, then it's a sports car,....some others may be GTs depending on weight, size, other general abilities and qualities.
Porsches in general have always blurred the line a bit. IMO the 911 makes an excellent sports car, but can double as a GT also. Same can also be said about the Cayman & Boxster that most people think are pure sports cars,....but I could drive for hours in either and be comfortable and relaxed like I just drove a "GT". Funny, my other Porsche is a 928 "GT" and this is considered one of the hardest edged 928s made. So the 928 GT is more of a sports car compared to the 928S4 and even 928GTS variants.
The Panamera in my mind is a GT due to size and weight,....no matter what its performance is. Just not quite as tossable as something smaller.
I put the Corvette as being a sports car, but other high horsepower domestics as "muscle cars",....Camaro, Mustang and anything larger. Just too big and weighty to be a sports car even though their performance may come close or match.
Nissan GT-R?.....tough one IMO, but I guess I have to label it a sports car due to its all around performance, but given its size and weight, more of GT to me.
If the car was meant to be driven in a sporting manner and adheres to "certain" ideas in my mind, then it's a sports car,....some others may be GTs depending on weight, size, other general abilities and qualities.
Porsches in general have always blurred the line a bit. IMO the 911 makes an excellent sports car, but can double as a GT also. Same can also be said about the Cayman & Boxster that most people think are pure sports cars,....but I could drive for hours in either and be comfortable and relaxed like I just drove a "GT". Funny, my other Porsche is a 928 "GT" and this is considered one of the hardest edged 928s made. So the 928 GT is more of a sports car compared to the 928S4 and even 928GTS variants.
The Panamera in my mind is a GT due to size and weight,....no matter what its performance is. Just not quite as tossable as something smaller.
I put the Corvette as being a sports car, but other high horsepower domestics as "muscle cars",....Camaro, Mustang and anything larger. Just too big and weighty to be a sports car even though their performance may come close or match.
Nissan GT-R?.....tough one IMO, but I guess I have to label it a sports car due to its all around performance, but given its size and weight, more of GT to me.
10-03-2012, 03:50 AM
#6
Each iteration of the 911 has more successfully the characteristics of sports and GT cars, though the balance has shifted towards GT with each new model. The 991 exhibits a remarkable dual personality, where, below 4000 revs it is very much a GT. Above that mark, holy cow, tell me it isn't a sports car!!
10-03-2012, 04:04 AM
#7
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calif
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, my definition is different - sports car - small, handles well, impossible for long distances. Touring car - larger, handles well, comfortable for long distances. Sedan - larger still, may have 4 doors, seats more than 2 people comfortably, handling not primary consideration.
Examples - sports car - my morgan +4, Touring car, my (now stolen) 993 cab, Sedan - my 1959 cadillac.
possible sports car - my 356, possible sedan - my 51 dodge.
Examples - sports car - my morgan +4, Touring car, my (now stolen) 993 cab, Sedan - my 1959 cadillac.
possible sports car - my 356, possible sedan - my 51 dodge.
Trending Topics
10-03-2012, 08:15 AM
#8
Rennlist Member
As solomonschris said, a lot of the discussion has to do with personal reference points/age. I have always associated the term "sports car" to a vehicle that might not be the fastest or the best handling (as stated with prior examples) but requires some level of physical input and/or challenge to get the most out of it. Some might succeed in maxing out the capabilities and move on, others, like me, are entertained by the dangling carrot. I might get there, I might not but the tease and occasional discovery with most driving occasions keeps you going. So I regard the level of activity/interaction as the "sport" required to drive a sports car. Other secondary descriptors: "compact", "recreational/occasional use", "user servicable" and "novel" come to my mind. As far as the resisting/embracing technology argument is concerned, I greatly appreciate the technology in my other vehicles. They already do enough for me. Having that one vehicle as an change of pace is great. Plus, its nice to be reminded that I still can use my arms and legs to drive a car.
So to answer the original question, for me, the 991 is far into GT territory.
So to answer the original question, for me, the 991 is far into GT territory.
10-03-2012, 09:07 AM
#10
Rennlist Member
10-03-2012, 09:26 AM
#11
10-03-2012, 09:40 AM
#12
Rennlist Member
If you are simply admiring socially, maybe. If you are a consumer with skin in the game, I disagree-its all about personal preference.
10-03-2012, 06:30 PM
#14
10-03-2012, 08:02 PM
#15
Race Car
991s are sports cars, like Vettes, Boxters and Caymans. Compare them to by-design GTs- Astons, Jags, Mercs and Masers, Pony cars like Camaros or Mustangs, hot sedans like Panamera GTSs, certain AMGs and Bimmers, or Cads. Many of these can be driven hard or gently to perform as well as others. Its the performance that crosses the type designations.