Author
Topic: You are the sports car
(Read 28778 times)

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #70 on:** July 30, 2019, 03:40:03 PM »

Quote from: CWSooner on July 30, 2019, 03:17:13 PM

Yeah.

Or it would if pony cars were sports cars.

I guess the general consensus has arrived at a definition that has nothing to do with the original one. Sports cars were 2-seat open cars that were fun to drive, and were faster and handled better than the sedans from which they took a lot of their parts, like engines, transmissions, suspensions, steering gear, etc.
By that definition, a sports car is compared to its contemporaries, not to supercars of today.
I stick to that definition, so, for me, an 80-mph MG-TC of 1947, the car that caused the "sports car craze" in America, is a sports car, while the 301-mph Hennesy Venom F5 is not.

[img width=273.429 height=333]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/MG_TC_%281947%29_-_19816029560.jpg/1280px-MG_TC_%281947%29_-_19816029560.jpg[/img]

[img width=273.429 height=221]https://themysteriousworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Hennessey-Venom-F5.webp[/img]

By the same criteria, my Cobra qualified while your Daytona Coupe does not

CWSooner · « **Reply #71 on:** July 30, 2019, 03:40:33 PM »

Absolutely!

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #72 on:** July 30, 2019, 07:58:25 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on July 29, 2019, 11:18:37 PM

I also like this..........

One of my favorites, but in blue.

My very favorite, but not "who I am":

A lot about this car is closer to who I am:

Current "super car?"

Like the idea:

mcwterps1 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 30, 2019, 10:13:39 PM »

Don't know how anyone could say an automatic is better.

I drive a manual, and in the snow, it's much better to have a manual, instead of an automatic, because pulling power away from the engine is better than braking.

No automatic I've driven can shift at the appropriate time either. My truck takes forever to shift with the slightest slope, which surely wastes gas, and if I need power, I can control that.

Perhaps things have changed but it used to be cheaper to have a manual, plus it saved gas better.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #74 on:** July 30, 2019, 10:15:44 PM »

You don't desire to drive a stick because it's more efficient than the automatic, you want it so YOU decide WHEN it shifts. Catching it jut right just FEELS right.

CWSooner · « **Reply #75 on:** July 30, 2019, 11:12:01 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on July 30, 2019, 07:58:25 PM

My very favorite, but not "who I am":

A lot about this car is closer to who I am:

Current "super car?"

Like the idea:

Gotta love the original 300SL! Were they all silver with a red interior? That's all I've ever seen.
What is the 2nd one? Looks sort of like a Mazda Miata, but I don't think it is one.
I love the new Ford GT. ANd I love that it won Le Mans in the 50th-anniversary year of the last of the four-straight GT40 wins.
Not familiar with the last one.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #76 on:** July 31, 2019, 07:20:28 AM »

Quote from: mcwterps1 on July 30, 2019, 10:13:39 PM

Don't know how anyone could say an automatic is better.

I drive a manual, and in the snow, it's much better to have a manual, instead of an automatic, because pulling power away from the engine is better than braking.

No automatic I've driven can shift at the appropriate time either. My truck takes forever to shift with the slightest slope, which surely wastes gas, and if I need power, I can control that.

Perhaps things have changed but it used to be cheaper to have a manual, plus it saved gas better.

These things have changed majorly. Nearly all autos get better fuel economy than manuals in the cycle and they have better acceleration as well, with a few exceptions.

You obviously can use engine braking with an automatic, many cars today have shift paddles to make it very easy to do. I thought they were gimmicky until I drove in the mountains with them. You also can upshift most current automatics when you want.

The dual clutch types also shift faster than any human by quite a bit of time and keep torque applied to the drive wheels the entire time. The CVTs which I hate also have no "shift points" obviously and are efficient in smaller cars and some bigger cars.

And of course in the snow, braking challenges traction whether done with brakes or the engine, and brakes have the antilock feature, the engine does not.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #77 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:43:40 AM »

Quote from: CWSooner on July 30, 2019, 11:12:01 PM

Gotta love the original 300SL! Were they all silver with a red interior? That's all I've ever seen.
What is the 2nd one? Looks sort of like a Mazda Miata, but I don't think it is one.
I love the new Ford GT. ANd I love that it won Le Mans in the 50th-anniversary year of the last of the four-straight GT40 wins.
Not familiar with the last one.

To your questions: Honda S2000 and the Tesla Roadster (in production allegedly for 2020). When Honda first released the S2000 (1999) with a 4 cylinder engine that produced in excess of 240 hp, that caught my attention.

The Gullwing had color options as an upgrade from the metallic silver, and the upholstery could be upgraded to leather and also had different colors. But I think the metallic silver with red is the classic combination.

utee94 · « **Reply #78 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:51:18 AM »

My i s c & a aggie wife and I almost bought her an S2000 in 2004, after I'd finished graduate school and we both had good jobs, but before kids. But it drove like a... sportscar... and she didn't like it.

We ended up getting her a Toyota Solara convertible, it had 4 seats and drove more like a sports sedan. It's a really nice looking car but has ended up being one of the biggest POS cars I've ever owned, way worse than the 80s Chrysler products I had and that's saying something.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #79 on:** July 31, 2019, 01:08:03 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on July 31, 2019, 11:43:40 AM

To your questions: Honda S2000 and the Tesla Roadster (in production allegedly for 2020). When Honda first released the S2000 (1999) with a 4 cylinder engine that produced in excess of 240 hp, that caught my attention.

Quote from: utee94 on July 31, 2019, 11:51:18 AM

My i s c & a aggie wife and I almost bought her an S2000 in 2004, after I'd finished graduate school and we both had good jobs, but before kids. But it drove like a... sportscar... and she didn't like it.

I've never driven an S2000. However the knock on it at the time was that yes, it made 240HP, but the motor had no low-end torque. It revved to 9000 RPM, and it made it's power up there too.

Which is fine if you want to take it to a racetrack. Not so fine around town.

For example, this review says it's basically a Civic under 6200 RPM. Gutless. Above that, it screams. But below that, it's boring. That's much like my first ride on an a Honda CBR600F4i (15K redline). At the time, I rode a Suzuki SV650 (torquey V-twin, ~9K redline). The Honda made over 90 hp to my Suzuki's 65. But the Suzuki was fun from 3000 RPM on, whereas the Honda didn't get remotely interesting until up around 8-9K.

The old knock on the S2000 was that it was only fun if you "drive it like you stole it". I'd highly consider one as primarily a track car, but for the road I'd need something with more low-end torque.

utee94 · « **Reply #80 on:** July 31, 2019, 01:51:17 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on July 31, 2019, 01:08:03 PM

I've never driven an S2000. However the knock on it at the time was that yes, it made 240HP, but the motor had no low-end torque. It revved to 9000 RPM, and it made it's power up there too.

Which is fine if you want to take it to a racetrack. Not so fine around town.

For example, this review says it's basically a Civic under 6200 RPM. Gutless. Above that, it screams. But below that, it's boring. That's much like my first ride on an a Honda CBR600F4i (15K redline). At the time, I rode a Suzuki SV650 (torquey V-twin, ~9K redline). The Honda made over 90 hp to my Suzuki's 65. But the Suzuki was fun from 3000 RPM on, whereas the Honda didn't get remotely interesting until up around 8-9K.

The old knock on the S2000 was that it was only fun if you "drive it like you stole it". I'd highly consider one as primarily a track car, but for the road I'd need something with more low-end torque.

I think she was satisfied with the power, she loves to drive fast but isn't particularly interested in quickness. We were moving on from her 92 Accord (which is the best car I've ever owned and I'm sorry we sold it), so the low-end lack of quicks didn't bother her and she liked the high end. The real problem was that the ride was just way more stiff than she liked, and it was also fairly bare-bones compared to the amenities she wanted. As you say-- a good track car, but not a great city daily driver.

Nowadays she thinks she wants a BMW M3, and I keep telling her she's not going to like the way it rides. But she's going to have to test drive one to determine that for herself, she'll never listen to me.

Badger1969 · « **Reply #81 on:** July 31, 2019, 02:02:21 PM »

1969 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II Boss 429 NASCAR.

Cale Yarborough 13 career wins, A J Foyt 4 career wins and David Pearson 43 career wins driving old number 21 for the Wood Brothers.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #82 on:** July 31, 2019, 05:13:38 PM »

The M3 is more car than is prudent on public roads IMHO. You can get a decked out 340i with a great engine that would be more than ample.

If she wants something a bit sportier, look at a 240i, they come as a convertible also if desired.

I had a buddy with a Toyota Solara. He would have me drive it so he could take in the sights, and it drove like a minivan more than a car, really bad body integrity.

Torque is more important than horsepower for most of us.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #83 on:** July 31, 2019, 05:22:56 PM »

So more electrics!

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: You are the sports car

betarhoalphadelta

Re: You are the sports car

CWSooner

Re: You are the sports car

SFBadger96

Re: You are the sports car

mcwterps1

Re: You are the sports car

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You are the sports car

CWSooner

Re: You are the sports car

Cincydawg

Re: You are the sports car

SFBadger96

Re: You are the sports car

utee94

Re: You are the sports car

betarhoalphadelta

Re: You are the sports car

utee94

Re: You are the sports car

Badger1969

Re: You are the sports car

Cincydawg

Re: You are the sports car

SFBadger96

Re: You are the sports car