Originally Posted by MaysEffect

This is not my cup of tea when it comes to debates. But i don't believe this list is accurately depicting what you consider "true" sports car. Most of the cars listed under this imaginary umbrella are not even categorized as "sports cars" but touring cars, muscle cars, GT's (grand touring) or sports touring cars. None of which is defined by weight and size, but power and luxury. Your frustration by what is on the market is not the markets problem. Most cars do not fall under this definition of "sports car" because it's an unreasonably expensive and useless sales category most people do not care for or can not accurately afford with its relation to actual race cars. In reality the affordable "sports car" still accurately reflects what most drivers consider a true sports car in relation to the era in which the term was coined. The 60's to early 80's before the advancement in computer control and F/I.

Most people can not handle the physics of a modern day race car, and even if we could handle it, you're asking for amount of power and suspension geometry that exceeds the laws of the road 99% of the time. The amount of reliable power and suspension features available is an expensive assembly of parts. Back in the 60's, a reliable 250hp was expensive! 250hp is about what you'd expect out of a "affordable" sports car nowadays weighing in under 3000ibs. Anything above that back then was considered muscle cars or exotics, and both filled a niche with massive trade-off's. It's exactly the same now, and to be honest the pricing accurately depicts this. An Audi R8 would absolutely wipe the floor of a BRZ, stock for stock and regardless of the weight difference. The trade off is about 80 thousand dollars and 25% more in maintenance. A 370z may get dragged hard by a Hellcat. The trade off is the Hellcat will burn in hell trying to get around a corner like a Z can.

Race cars today are producing upwards of 600hp easily restricted by performance caps. Getting 600hp out of any engine nowadays (reliably) cost about 25-75k alone not including the chassis. Trying to squeeze that into 2500-3000ibs only further compounds cost figures. No one will ever continue backing a car manufacturer if they put out crappy unreliable cars, certainly expensive ones.
One reason you never here the masses complaining too much about unreliable ecoboxes is because they are boring and CHEAP! Cheap to fix, cheap to replace and cheap to warrant. You here about one Huracan engine exploding and everyone will lose there mind and hang the designers by their neck ties.
We also have to consider the amount of materials need to be split over a significantly larger population, in 1960's there was an estimated 180million people in the US, today there are over 305million. So building 80%+ more v8 supercar engines is never going to be easy or cheap. But 100k boring 2liter engines is significantly more feasible. If the Alfa 4c had the same engine as the 8c with a similar weight, the cost would probably be (at minimum) double what it currently is.



A modded car vs a stock car? How is this a reasonable bases for capabilities?

What exactly are you trying to quantify as reasonable performance per dollar? Do you just want the look and features of a sporty car? or the actual performance prowess its actually capable of on a race track?

65-90k is a massive price gap. 25k dollars can buy you just about any mod that will make a dirt box faster than a stock 911 in a straight line or around corners.