Quote:
Originally Posted by UNKNOWN_370
Honestly... I think you messed up a perfectly good opportunity because of your highly limited Fanboy thinking. You had the chance to drive 4 excellent platforms and compare differences between cars objectively and blew to be a fanboy????? Seriously????? 
RWD is the defined form of sports car. Being that they had varying drivetrains. They needed an evo n wrx there... You could have tested all cars and given your objective preference in the end and draw an educated conclusion going from car to car.
Just because a Drivetrain is different does not discount it a real sports car. The only reason why RWD is considered first in sports is because in the beginning of auto history. The first cars were RWD. In laws of physics, RWD does carry more advantages overall. But put it on certain tracks against an AWD car and RWD is rendered useless as a sports car.
Your thinking is narrow.
As far as the genesis coupe being soulless? Have you ever driven one? I have. I can say this much. It drives better than a G37s (which I owned before) and not as well as a Z. Transmission responsiveness is questionable under certain sport driving conditions. Getting a tune takes most of that out.
Wow...  |
Eh, I don't think he's wrong. The GTi is most definitely not a sports car. It is a sporty compact, and actually is marketed to that end. It does not have much going for it as a sports car, primarily because it's a hatch. Rarely are hatches considered sports cars. EVO would probably fit in there, if it were merely a focus group for sports cars only. The WRX would not fit there, but an STi would. But I feel as if the EVO and STi fit in different categories rather than sports car.
That also said, drivetrain ultimately does not matter whatsoever; a properly tuned AWD car can hold its own versus a RWD car, and vice versa. To say either has an advantage on tarmac is a bit ignorant, I think. I suppose if you wanted to go offroad...
The Genesis has become more of a competitor in recent years (now that their 3.8 V6 makes 35x horse, instead of the ridiculously anemic < 320 hp of previous generation). It is around the same weight and delivers similar power and torque. Unfortunately, I have never been a fan of Hyundais as they are always prone to breaking down and they often steal styling cues from other manufacturers (although not so much anymore). They're still ugly IMO, and especially their newest model, where the facelift looked more like a botched plastic surgery job. I really don't know how it compares to Samsung, who makes appliances and electronics... and fine ones at that, lol. That Galaxy S3, bro! Beats the piss out of Apple's stupid iPhone anyday.
BRZ would be considered a sports car, although it fits in a class more so with the Miata instead of the 370Z. The power difference is too massive. I'm sure it can handle just as well, but the lack of power is something too much. I suppose on that note that the Cayman also is pretty much the same class (wasn't the Z supposed to fight the Cayman while the GT-R fights the 911?). It's still pretty heavy IIRC and I suppose they're fine cars. At least they don't depreciate like Boxsters do.
Also, a tC and a Cooper? LOL. I think the focus group was just for sporty cars in general; there's no way a tC could EVER be called a sports car. The only one of notable mention is Rado's tC, but that's just a shell now. Indeed, the Coupe-rs (sorry, lol, it's what I do) are simply ugly. The boxy look worked fine... just extending the doors would have been a fine path. Instead they do some weird mix between a box car and a coupe. Gross.
Sports cars must have two seats. Drivetrain is irrelevant in my opinion (although you'll find I agree more that a car is a sports car if it is RWD), but two seats and two doors. Completely agree with you on that point.