View Poll Results: Is the 911 a Sports Car?
Yes
113
91.13%
No
11
8.87%
Voters: 124. You may not vote on this poll
Is a 911 a sports car?
03-13-2018, 11:15 PM
#16
The 997 is a wonderful car but there should be no dispute or hurt feelings when it is pointed out that it is not a sports car. Sports cars, in general, do not have:
- (power) windows
- air conditioning
- power steering
- DVD players
- Blue tooth
- Power seats
- CD changers
- Drink holders
- Heated seats
03-13-2018, 11:33 PM
#17
Sir Thomas Lord of All Mets Fans
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I don't know, but I know that none of my friends that I've offered the keys to has said no, nor had a huge smile on their face driving it. We are blessed to own an iconic car that's a great load of fun to drive, who gives a crap what other people classify it as.
T
T
03-13-2018, 11:49 PM
#18
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
- derived from or participated in a motorsport race
- That would make the Volvo Wagon and VW Jetta TDI's sports cars. Semi's are popular race attraction and what about the new craze of stadium trucks? Ford Taurus in Nascar?
Point is.....racing is often brought up in this discussion & it has nothing to do with it. - can be FR/FF/MR/RR format
- No way. RWD only - manual or at transmission
- Ouch..... no, no, no, no.......Manual only. - significantly tuned suspension
- MG's are sports cars. I don't think anyone sober would call their suspension design significantly tuned - P/W ratio
- Weight, low as possible. Personally anything close to 3,000lbs or over is off the list by default. I know a bit extreme in 2018 but I'm old school.
Which 911? Many vintages and variations to choose from. Since this is the 997 forum I guess we all need to assume the question pertains to a base 997.
Start with this thread:
https://rennlist.com/forums/off-topi...ports-car.html
I'm right here.
Some of my previous posts on this subject:
https://rennlist.com/forums/off-topi...ml#post7958064
Originally Posted by Hacker-Pschorr
The term "sports car" has always been and always should be reserved for a very small crop of cars, not to be dolled out to any 2-door vehicle with good performance numbers. Heck, some of the most classic sports cars of all time are not really all that fast (anything from MG comes to mind).
Another example, cars like the Testarossa (2nd gen), Countach, XJ220 etc... are blistering fast (for their time, 220 still so) but few people would ever consider them "sports cars".
IMO the line blurs with vehicles like the Veyron. Such a brute on all levels, deserves a category of it's own, along with the McLaren F1. What Jeremy Clarkson refers to as a "Hyper Car".
To me, the baseline for all sports cars to be compared to is the Shelby Cobra and Ferrari 250 GTO.
Reminds me of my father, who was dead set on ordering an Aston Martin V8 Vantage a few years ago.....until he drove one. Much to my surprise he said: "I was expecting a sports car" and went on to compare it to my mothers Jaguar XK8. He then switched gears and found a Ferrari 355GTS.
Like his previous vehicle, a Porsche Boxster S which he decided upon after driving various 996's including a twin turbo. He wanted more of a pure sports car.
Originally Posted by Hacker-Pschorr
I struggle with this all the time. IMO a "true" sports car is a very narrow, limited definition. It should be reserved for a car that contains nothing except the bare necessities for driving. No cup holders, A/C, and even power steering should be omitted.
The 'Brits invented the sports car with vehicles like the MG. Some people think that if a car is fast it must be a sports car, which is nonsense. If that were the case, station wagons and a few pickups (GMC Cyclone...) would be "sports cars".
Weight is a huge criteria for me. I have a hard time considering any auto a "sports car" if it's much more than 3,000lbs. Should be closer to 2,000lbs IMO.
It also must be rear wheel drive, no front or all wheel, ever.
The purest sports cars on the market today are the Lotus Elise, Subaru BRZ, Mazda Miata. I struggle with the BRZ being on this list simply because it has back seats...... Yes, I'm a bit overboard when it comes to this topic.
Two of the greatest sports cars of all time are the Ferrari 250 GTO and Shelby Cobra.
I get a lot of flack for calling the current 911 "not a sports car". It's too heavy, too luxurious, etc... I don't car how fast it is.
The 'Brits invented the sports car with vehicles like the MG. Some people think that if a car is fast it must be a sports car, which is nonsense. If that were the case, station wagons and a few pickups (GMC Cyclone...) would be "sports cars".
Weight is a huge criteria for me. I have a hard time considering any auto a "sports car" if it's much more than 3,000lbs. Should be closer to 2,000lbs IMO.
It also must be rear wheel drive, no front or all wheel, ever.
The purest sports cars on the market today are the Lotus Elise, Subaru BRZ, Mazda Miata. I struggle with the BRZ being on this list simply because it has back seats...... Yes, I'm a bit overboard when it comes to this topic.
Two of the greatest sports cars of all time are the Ferrari 250 GTO and Shelby Cobra.
I get a lot of flack for calling the current 911 "not a sports car". It's too heavy, too luxurious, etc... I don't car how fast it is.
03-14-2018, 12:24 AM
#22
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco & parts north
Posts: 1,011
Received 192 Likes
on
86 Posts
Any definition that results in a Boxster being a sports car and a Cayman not, is a self-evidently broken. Those two cars are the same in all respects except one: the roof.
Likewise any definition that hangs on specific specs falls short, I think.
That’s why I suggested looking at the primary design objective (i.e. fun). An Austin Healey 100M was certainly considered a sports car in its day, but not because of it’s specs...rather because it was about the most fun-to-drive road-legal car those particular British engineers could assemble with the materials available to them at the time.
Likewise any definition that hangs on specific specs falls short, I think.
That’s why I suggested looking at the primary design objective (i.e. fun). An Austin Healey 100M was certainly considered a sports car in its day, but not because of it’s specs...rather because it was about the most fun-to-drive road-legal car those particular British engineers could assemble with the materials available to them at the time.
03-14-2018, 01:40 AM
#24
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
3,650 pounds, all wheel drive with an automatic transmission is not a sports car.
I don't care how fast it is or what stretch of a connection it has to some race car.
It's a GT, spiritual successor to the 928.
If every 911 was a true sports car, variations like the GT3 wouldn't exist.
I don't care how fast it is or what stretch of a connection it has to some race car.
It's a GT, spiritual successor to the 928.
If every 911 was a true sports car, variations like the GT3 wouldn't exist.
03-14-2018, 02:47 AM
#25
Rennlist Member
So, serious question then. Since the 991 GT3 RSs are PDK only are they not sports cars? What are they then since they are specifically designed to enjoy the 'sport' of driving on track.
03-14-2018, 04:28 AM
#27
Nordschleife Master
And you can add to that..... are neither Ferraris or Lamborghinis sports cars? You can't get a manual anymore on either one no matter which model you choose. Things do evolve.
03-14-2018, 04:52 AM
#28
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Swedish expat in Latvia
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
33 Posts
To me it's a sports car.
Main reasons is track performance and the fact that it has always been developed with racing in mind. Hell - even my convertible is track worthy and stiff considering it's not a coupe.
Porsche always made sure even the convertibles are stiff, albeit with a little bit more weight due to reinforcements.
2 seats, or mid engine has nothing to with making it a sports car or not IMO. It's only the performance and driving experience that counts
I see five categories:
-Normal car
-Sporty normal car (ex Miata)
-Sports car luxury (AMG, M5 etc)
-Sports car for the road & track (Porsche normal ranges, 912 C2, C4, GTS etc
Sports car for the track (Porsche GT3, RS etc)
Main reasons is track performance and the fact that it has always been developed with racing in mind. Hell - even my convertible is track worthy and stiff considering it's not a coupe.
Porsche always made sure even the convertibles are stiff, albeit with a little bit more weight due to reinforcements.
2 seats, or mid engine has nothing to with making it a sports car or not IMO. It's only the performance and driving experience that counts
I see five categories:
-Normal car
-Sporty normal car (ex Miata)
-Sports car luxury (AMG, M5 etc)
-Sports car for the road & track (Porsche normal ranges, 912 C2, C4, GTS etc
Sports car for the track (Porsche GT3, RS etc)
03-14-2018, 09:03 AM
#29
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I remember when the first "flappy paddle" cars hit the streets, people like Jeremy Clarkson drew the line at how the system shifted.
For example, the Aston Martin at the time was still controlled by a torque converter (was lazy to shift, slower to control) compared to the F355 which was simply a hydraulic system operating the same clutch as the manual.
Or do we stay completely "old school" and you must be doing everything 100% manually in order for it to be considered a manual?
Yes these conversations get a bit silly and nit-picky, but that's where the fun is!! Nothing like being at Siebkens at 10PM on a Friday night of a race event and everyone starts debating what is a Sports Car and what makes a manual transmission........
God help you if you mis-pronounce "Jaguar" near some well lubed British Gentleman: "No son, it's JagYOUare". Very heavy emphasis on the YOU part.
Not trying to offend anyone here, I just have very strong feelings on what makes a pure sports car & sadly generation by generation they are disappearing and even worse, under appreciated (Miata owners are teased and the Subaru BRZ threads are nothing but complaints it needs 400hp).
The modern 911 (same say started with the 996, others the 993) took a great class of car previously occupied by the 928, Ferrari 550 (and Daytona), every Aston Martin etc... and made it its own.
Heck, I remember a magazine article back in the 80's declaring the 930 wasn't a sports car, but more of a luxury rocket. It's wasn't nimble or bare bones enough to be a true sports car like the SC or Carrera. It was a niche car between real sports cars and exotics like the Countach.
I'd argue Lamborghini has never made a sports car since the 400GT and even that was more of a luxury GT in its day compared to cars like the Ferrari GTO. Lamborghini invented the segment "Exotic" which is what all their mid-engine cars are tagged as.
The manual transmission conundrum aside, what makes a sports car hasn't evolved to me and it never should. That is what makes a sports car so special.
Even the 488GTB is borderline IMO. At almost 3,400lbs, only 18" shorter than a GMC Yukon.......
The Ferrari world has the same discussion & many feel the 355 Manual was the last of the pure Ferrari sports cars (to some the 348 since it still had manual steering & brakes).
03-14-2018, 09:42 AM
#30
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 905 Likes
on
532 Posts
Dumb, useless debate. Who cares. Car magazine journalists are typically Camry drivers with little or no car control skill that engage in silly discussions because that is what they do.
Cars have evolved and are constantly evolving. Sports car should be defined by performance in both twisties and acceleration, seating position, sound, layout and driving pleasure. Just because a 458/488, new 911s or Huracan can shred the Ring and do it in comfort does not render any less sports car than a 348, 911 SC or a Countach.
Jump in some of the old "sports cars" and drive them. I do with some frequency and candidly, I find them rather boring due to pitiful performance and somewhat annoying even though I at one time used to own and race many of these older, more spartan editions and like them when they were the cutting edge.
Weight does not matter. Creature comforts doesn't matter. How one shifts does not matter. Never owned a Boxter or Cayman, though raced them both, and have no desire to own either. Raced speec Miata over the years, but would never own one of those for the street either. Typing this make me miss my 458 street (still have my Challenge track car). The 458 street was the MOST enjoyable car to drive I have ever owned and that list includes a CGT purchased new in 2005.
Cars have evolved and are constantly evolving. Sports car should be defined by performance in both twisties and acceleration, seating position, sound, layout and driving pleasure. Just because a 458/488, new 911s or Huracan can shred the Ring and do it in comfort does not render any less sports car than a 348, 911 SC or a Countach.
Jump in some of the old "sports cars" and drive them. I do with some frequency and candidly, I find them rather boring due to pitiful performance and somewhat annoying even though I at one time used to own and race many of these older, more spartan editions and like them when they were the cutting edge.
Weight does not matter. Creature comforts doesn't matter. How one shifts does not matter. Never owned a Boxter or Cayman, though raced them both, and have no desire to own either. Raced speec Miata over the years, but would never own one of those for the street either. Typing this make me miss my 458 street (still have my Challenge track car). The 458 street was the MOST enjoyable car to drive I have ever owned and that list includes a CGT purchased new in 2005.