True Sports Cars. Who makes the cut?

UNKNOWN_370

Car magazines in the 1990's standards stated, the best sports cars met these criteria.

Perfect sports car ride height
48.0" to 51" with the ideal height of 49.5"

GT performer cars ideal ride height was considered between 52" to 54"

Perfect sports car weight was considered 2,200 to 2,900

Perfect GT weight was somewhere between 2,9,00 to 3,500lbs. Let's see how today's cars stack up?

From my research, only 3 cars stack up as true sports cars by description.

Toyota 86

Mazda MX5

Alfa Romeo 4c.

But only one of them actually gets 100% sports car performance #'s.

Alfa Romeo 4c

Here. Are the top 5 that come closer to being a real sports car.

Porsche Cayman

Porsche 911 GTS

Lotus Evora 400

Audi TTS

Nissan 370z




_list of weights n heights__________________
MB c43amg------- 56.3"/3,741

BMW M2------------- 55.5"/3,450lb

Lexus F350/RCF-- 55.0"/3,748lb RCF 3,958lbs


Cadillac ATS-V----- 55.0"/3803lb

BMW M4------------- 54.5"/3,553lb

Infiniti Q60---------- 54.5"/3,862

Mustang GT350-- 54.4"/3,781

Mustang GT--------- 54.0"/3,701

Nissan GT-R--------- 53.9"/3,933

Lexus LC 500------ 53.0"/ 4,280

Audi TT-S------------- 53.0"/ 3,164

Camaro SS ---------- 53.0"/3,883

Camaro SS 1LE---- 52.0"/ 3,820

Nissan 370z"-------- 52.0"/ 3,292

370z Nismo---------- 51.6"/ 3,379

Jaguar F-Type------ 51.5"/ 3,455 to 3,847

*Toyota 86------------- 51.0/" 2,800

MB AMG GT-S------- 51.0"/3,627

Porsche 911 GTS--.50.6"/3,197

Porsche 911 GT3-- 50.4"/3,505

Porsche Cayman-- 50.0"/2,976

Audi R8-v8------------ 49.0"/3,627

Corvette GS---------- 49.0"/3,450

*Mazda MX5---------- 48"/ 2,340

Lotus Evora 400--- 48.0"/3,153

Acura NSX------------ 48.0"/3,803

*Alfa Romeo 4c----- 47.0"/2,450

I'm not discrediting any cars performance value. This is really just a measurement of how far car companies have strayed from dimensional boundaries within the definition of a sports car.

Though I feel a true sports car is RWD only. I had to give respect to the Audi TT for making such a light technically advanced performance car.

__________________
Favorite Quote.
"I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna Bash Your Face In" Jack Nicholson-"The Shining". 1980

SouthArk370Z

Interesting info.

There are several reasons cars (all cars, not just sports cars) have gotten heavier over the years, mainly comfort and safety. The 370Z is much more comfortable than the 280Z and a lot more crash-worthy - both of which add weight.

The only reason cars don't weigh a lot more is modern, lightweight materials. Just think how much more a 370 would weigh if made with 1960s materials.

I miss chrome.

__________________
Steering Lock Links - Search The370Z Bookmarklet - FSM @ NICOclub
Mankind has progressed past the need for war but we haven't evolved that far. - NachoMahma

Tick64

Interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to record all those stats. I had no idea Lexus' were so heavy!

Nixin

Don't forget that the average human, especially in Japan, North America and Western Europe are getting bigger/wider and heavier as well. Hence, the vehicles need to accommodate their drivers and passengers overall outer dimensions. Can I have two Big Macs, large fries and a extra large Diet Coke to go please?

axmea?

Interesting. The premise is by 1990 standards. That's when I was fat at 230 lbs. I'm leaner now. Granted I was 27 years younger. Should the standard change as well? Everything on the list are sports cars. Just a thought. As for the weight, with the amount of regulations and market driven accessories, safety, and convenience features it's just harder to get to the ideal weight without spending on lightweight materials.

__________________

axmea?

Forgot something....LOL I miss chrome.

__________________

Tick64

A friend of mine in the Ford business told me the GT40 got it's name by being 40 inches in height

UNKNOWN_370

Wow, the sounds first rolling performance bed. Lol.

__________________
Favorite Quote.
"I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna Bash Your Face In" Jack Nicholson-"The Shining". 1980

eZg

A sports car IMO has to have a manual tranny. I know.....F1 cars are all auto yada, yada, yada...... but just saying rowing thru the gears is a good chunk of the fun for me!

UNKNOWN_370

The 370z is on the bottom of a list of 8 cars that are either true sports cars or close to being true sports cars by definition. There's a lot to be said about that. The 370z does get a bad rap. A few cars I realize are missing here including the soon to be cancelled BMW z4 and Fiat 124 both of which may possibly put the Z down to #9 or #10? I would have to research the specs. But the Z in reality is in the top 10 of 29 cars by definition. Weight and size constraints are often overlooked. The Z is right at the cusp of GT and sports car in size, with a GT weight. For what you get. It's a great buy.

I think the corvette is in a different league as an affordable hypercar. I don't see the Z and vette as competitors.
They do not offer the same driving dynamics.

__________________
Favorite Quote.
"I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna Bash Your Face In" Jack Nicholson-"The Shining". 1980

ZCanadian

Wow, good stats! Thanks for compiling that.

Most "sports cars" don't know what they want to be when they grow up, anymore.
I'm torn between chiding Nissan for not upgrading the 370Z, and lauding it for keeping a winning formula. Dollar for dollar, I think it really is one of the best sports cars available these days. Even if you have to lower it a few inches to fit the 1990's definition. ;-)

Don't forget, in the 1990's we had 15" wheels (height), minimal SRS and crash test requirements (weight), and efficiency/environmental requirements were far less stringent. We also had a lot lower horsepower in most cars, so top speeds (and therefore braking and cornering forces and suspension complexity were lower/lighter). Finally, nobody had more than a 12V battery in their sports car (talking to you, NSX).

In the end, when somebody tells me that they own or want a sports car, I always reply "what sport?". Because usually, they are a dentist who's real goal is to be seen shimmying golf clubs or attractive women out of their poser-mobiles!!!

A "sports car", today, to my mind has to be suited to purpose. Ideally, as close as possible from the factory. So, Auto-Cross is a totally different animal from 1/4 mile and different again from a road course car. But there's no market for that, so cars have to be more things to more people, and let the outliers mod for their car's specific role. Almost everything has grown over the years to accomplish at least a bit of the role of GT as well. With that have come bigger dimensions. To me the "new" line is if it has enough storage to take more than an overnight bag, driving shoes and a helmet, it's a grand tourer in sports car clothing. Nothing wrong with that, but call it what it is.

UNKNOWN_370

Agreed.... and this is why the 4C deserves HUGE respect. They accomplished a great feat for the price.

__________________
Favorite Quote.
"I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna Bash Your Face In" Jack Nicholson-"The Shining". 1980

BlackZeda

For my purposes, the Z has been a good daily-driven sports car (meaning I drive it in the winter as well). My next car purchase will be a bit more practical as I am looking for something that has some paddles and AWD and possibly a hybrid. After that, who knows how the Z will be transformed? I can shed a bit of weight and height so eventually it could be an "ideal" sports car for the track on the twisty mountain roads.

UNKNOWN_370

Doing that research on real sports cars kind of nauseated with me with the corporate automotive structure and realize there's little to no balance in the car culture. The industry has no respect or integrity in the way of traditionalism. It's disheartening to know the only true AFFORDABLE sports cars are flimsy and underpowered. I've been debating going severely upmarket for a better driving experience but Porsche is a fancy computer and the lotus, well I saw a video where everything beat it, down to a modded elantra. I'm VERY dissatisfied with the car market. In 2 years I been pondering this moment. Which is fall of 2018. When I estimated my next car purchase. Nothing has satisfied my need. My Z has been the best balance between power handling and feedback.

As the tech junkies ogle over disconnected steering, braking and little to no feedback. I ponder and hope for a car that's a mix of several cars.

A Cayman sized car designed more like a 4c with an engine like either the 4c, Cayman or even a q60rs if possible. Hydraulic or no power steering that can weight about as much as a Cayman with at least 7cu.ft. of trunk.

Keep the car around $65k-90k. I'd be all over it...

Well since I can't really find what I want. I decided to just take one final look out in the world. N visually, the Q60 is the most striking to me. It's not my type of car. I'm usually about the DSC(dedicated sports car) but that Q60 stirred my soul in real life. If I were to go that route there would be some things I'd have to accomplish.

BBS wheels
Michelín or Pirelli tires

Brake upgrade.

Intake, downpipes, exhaust, tune.


Sound system enhancement.

And the big one, suspension-lowering... what happens when the Q has that dynamic suspension? Can you still put swifts and Koni in a Q RS?

At this juncture no car is really worth irs weight in performance so I'm thinking. Just buy what I like?!

A Q60RS without PS4 steering costs about $57,000. Not terrible. Almost half of what I intended to spend at first.

Any thoughts on going this route?

__________________
Favorite Quote.
"I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna Bash Your Face In" Jack Nicholson-"The Shining". 1980

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.