when did it become commonplace to call the most boring cars on earth 'sporty'?

[SophalotJack]

Do you know how huge a 15 second time diff is on that track?

Seriously a dilusional fanboi

 

[Dritnul]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Sporty Toyota Corolla? hahahahahahahahahahahha

I've driven a Corolla in the rain before (the owner was too wussy), and to be honest, I understand WHY he was so wussy about it. The thing flopped around like a fish during low speed city cornering, had NO traction whatsoever (thanks to the 12" coin-thick tires), and generally made itself the most terrifying thing I've ever fvcking driven.

The old model Focuses have a way of being "sporty", but it's different than the conventional sense. More quirky and fun than anything, really. The real fun bit is when the left rear tire decides it doesn't want to stay in contact with the ground during some intense freeway ramp manuever, and suddenly, you're driving a Tripod. This would, according to conventional wisdom, scare the piss out of you, as half your rear-end grip suddenly dissapears. But it's actually really fun (so long as you keep your boot in the floor, otherwise, you're going to slide WAY wide and end up in some damned guardrail)

Amusingly, the only time I've ever seen those characteristics advertised have been the numerous Top Gear appearances of the Focus line. Probably because the target market for the Focus in this country doesn't have anything to do with young people looking for performance, but instead has everything to do with Crown Vic owners looking to spend less on gas.

just to throw it out there the Corola S type is considered a sports car for insurance

i think its fvcking horse sh1t if its got 4 doors it has a 1% chance of still being sporty and the corola S doesnt it just has a body kit

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
Do you know how huge a 15 second time diff is on that track?

Do you know how much difference there is between the stock Euro Elise and the new Exige that set that time? A lot.

If you want to argue with me go get some numbers.

I am not a Honda 'fanboy'. I have never owned a Honda.

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: Dritnul

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Sporty Toyota Corolla? hahahahahahahahahahahha

I've driven a Corolla in the rain before (the owner was too wussy), and to be honest, I understand WHY he was so wussy about it. The thing flopped around like a fish during low speed city cornering, had NO traction whatsoever (thanks to the 12" coin-thick tires), and generally made itself the most terrifying thing I've ever fvcking driven.

The old model Focuses have a way of being "sporty", but it's different than the conventional sense. More quirky and fun than anything, really. The real fun bit is when the left rear tire decides it doesn't want to stay in contact with the ground during some intense freeway ramp manuever, and suddenly, you're driving a Tripod. This would, according to conventional wisdom, scare the piss out of you, as half your rear-end grip suddenly dissapears. But it's actually really fun (so long as you keep your boot in the floor, otherwise, you're going to slide WAY wide and end up in some damned guardrail)

Amusingly, the only time I've ever seen those characteristics advertised have been the numerous Top Gear appearances of the Focus line. Probably because the target market for the Focus in this country doesn't have anything to do with young people looking for performance, but instead has everything to do with Crown Vic owners looking to spend less on gas.

just to throw it out there the Corola S type is considered a sports car for insurance

i think its fvcking horse sh1t if its got 4 doors it has a 1% chance of still being sporty and the corola S doesnt it just has a body kit

insurance companies consider your car a sports car even though it not, for they can just jack up your rates for no reason. My insurance company did that to me when I had my old pontiac 6000LE. They consider it a sports car even though it wasnt. My rates went up because of that.

 

[sao123]

No car with anything under 6cyl 325HP should ever be called sporty.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Sorry, had to revive this thread...

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor

Originally posted by: Atheus
Civic type-R is more sporty than most. May not have a lot of power, but nor does a Lotus Elise, and don't tell me that's not a sports car.

Wow are you fvcking kidding me???? ~~~~~Honda fanboy alert~~~~~

Woah, psycho. I've never owned a Honda and am definately not a fanboy. I always preferred Toyotas for my jap goodness in fact.

Do you even understand how a car works and what goes into making it "fast"? Obviously you don't because you can't compare a Lotus to a Honda Civic, type R or not, just because something like a Lotus Exige has a 4 cylinder doesn't mean it makes it the same as a Honda, not even close, that 4 cylinder is highly tuned and superchared, I'm not even going to go into the things like power/weight, or suspension, etc.

Well I sure as hell am. The EP Civic type-R produces 212 bhp @ 8000rpm and weighs 1190kg giving 178hp/t. The European Elise with the k-series engine (the most common one) makes 120 bhp @ 5000rpm and weighs 756kg for 158hp/t. The American model Elise (and now also the the Euro one since the demise of Rover) makes 189 bhp @ 6200rpm and weighs 860kg = 219hp/t. So it seems to me the power to weight is very comparable, even if you get the more powerful Lotus.

As for other things, both cars have close ratio manual transmitions and hard track-tuned suspension, although I would concede the Lotus is better tuned, and of course it has the advantage of being RWD mid engine.

I also happen to have a list of Nurburgring lap times here. Unfortunately it does not include a standard Elise of any kind, but, it does include the faster and more expensive Exige and an older Civic type-R.

8:32 --- 144.844 km/h -- Lotus Exige, 192hp (sport auto 08/04)

8:47 --- 140.721 km/h -- Honda Civic Type-R, 200 PS/1246 kg (sport auto 11/01)

Surprised? Even I was. From this I can only conclude that the newest type-r might be equal to, or even beat the stock Elise on a track.

Wow, I thought Honda fanboys are bad, but not this bad.

My statement that the type-r is more sporty than most is not 'bad' or even slightly controversial. So suck on that.

The time it took to read your convulted logic (you're comparing a civic to an Exige, HAHAHAHAHHA gasp AHAHAHAHA), is the time it took for the Civic to get to the finnish line after the Exige.

 

[SophalotJack]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
Do you know how huge a 15 second time diff is on that track?

Do you know how much difference there is between the stock Euro Elise and the new Exige that set that time? A lot.

If you want to argue with me go get some numbers.

I am not a Honda 'fanboy'. I have never owned a Honda.

YOU go get the numbers. YOU are the one assuming that the elise will be sooo much slower on the track than an exige and that is why a civic is as good as a lotus elise (stock).

I know what is fact. It is up to YOU to change my mind with solid arguments... not assumptions.

The only sports car that honda ever made that is worthy of a sports title is the NSX... and they went overkill with it.

 

[Ryan]

In case you haven't noticed - these cars have always been advertised with those kinds of catch phrases, along with every other entry level vehicle ever sold. It's always been commonplace.

 

[tweakmm]

Too Fast Too Furious.

 

[Mark R]

It's not just the marketeers. I've seen reviewers do it too.

I saw a reviewer comment on the Impala's 'quick and agile handling'. My brother took his friends out driving and hired an Impala, and he damn nearly wiped out at the first corner, because the car simply can't go around corners. He even took it back the the rental agency because he thought it was defective - but his replacement was the same.

 

[Red Dawn]

when did it become commonplace to call the most boring cars on earth 'sporty'?
When Japanese Cars became popular.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
insurance companies consider your car a sports car even though it not, for they can just jack up your rates for no reason. My insurance company did that to me when I had my old pontiac 6000LE. They consider it a sports car even though it wasnt. My rates went up because of that.

that would be the point where i drag my insurance agent out of his cushy little office between the subway and the dry cleaner, throw him behind the wheel of my car, and tell him to start driving.

 

[Zenmervolt]

When modern "boring" cars began to post handling numbers that would have embarassed the "exotic" cars of the past.

In the late 1980s, my 951 was among the 4 fastest production cars in the world (all with "only" 247 hp stock). Now it's a modestly quick car. The regular, non-turbo, 944 did 0-60 in barely under 8 seconds.

An Accord V6, with the automatic, will run to 60 in 6.9 seconds and run the quarter in 14.5 at 98 mph. Not blistering by any means, but absolutely shocking compared to family sedans of previous eras. And it'll embarass the regular 944, a definite "sports car". As far as absolute handling limits, the Accord can give a good showing of itself too. It doesn't feel confidence-inspiring, but it has a lot more grip than cars used to.

ZV

 

[dawheat]

Originally posted by: SophalotJack

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
Do you know how huge a 15 second time diff is on that track?

Do you know how much difference there is between the stock Euro Elise and the new Exige that set that time? A lot.

If you want to argue with me go get some numbers.

I am not a Honda 'fanboy'. I have never owned a Honda.

YOU go get the numbers. YOU are the one assuming that the elise will be sooo much slower on the track than an exige and that is why a civic is as good as a lotus elise (stock).

I know what is fact. It is up to YOU to change my mind with solid arguments... not assumptions.

The only sports car that honda ever made that is worthy of a sports title is the NSX... and they went overkill with it.

I don't think the OP really meant to compare the CTR and the Elise - obviously they're completely different cars, never mind the fact that the Elise is the most focused sports car around today excluding pure track cars like the Atom.

The CTR surely deserves a "sporty" moniker as it is a very competent car on the track and will keep up with many higher hp cars. But a "sports car" it is not.

Don't forget the S2000 - it's absolutely a sports car and is very surprising on the track with a decent driver. IMO vehicle dynamics and handling are far more important in determining what is a sports car than hp - e.g. I'd consider a Miata more of the sports car than a Dodge Charger.

 

[Suture]

Here we go again! Haven't seen one of these posts in... two months!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
When modern "boring" cars began to post handling numbers that would have embarassed the "exotic" cars of the past.

In the late 1980s, my 951 was among the 4 fastest production cars in the world (all with "only" 247 hp stock). Now it's a modestly quick car. The regular, non-turbo, 944 did 0-60 in barely under 8 seconds.

An Accord V6, with the automatic, will run to 60 in 6.9 seconds and run the quarter in 14.5 at 98 mph. Not blistering by any means, but absolutely shocking compared to family sedans of previous eras. And it'll embarass the regular 944, a definite "sports car". As far as absolute handling limits, the Accord can give a good showing of itself too. It doesn't feel confidence-inspiring, but it has a lot more grip than cars used to.

ZV

that's like comparing boxers across eras. it just doesn't work.


anyway, i'm talking about corollas and anemic 1.8 liter sentras here.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
When modern "boring" cars began to post handling numbers that would have embarassed the "exotic" cars of the past.

In the late 1980s, my 951 was among the 4 fastest production cars in the world (all with "only" 247 hp stock). Now it's a modestly quick car. The regular, non-turbo, 944 did 0-60 in barely under 8 seconds.

An Accord V6, with the automatic, will run to 60 in 6.9 seconds and run the quarter in 14.5 at 98 mph. Not blistering by any means, but absolutely shocking compared to family sedans of previous eras. And it'll embarass the regular 944, a definite "sports car". As far as absolute handling limits, the Accord can give a good showing of itself too. It doesn't feel confidence-inspiring, but it has a lot more grip than cars used to.

ZV

No doubt. I think many people are spoiled and ungreatful of the performance that even modest family sedans provide any more. V6 equipped Accords, Camry's and Altimas would humble most of the production "sports" vehicles of the 80's and early 90's. The I4's are probably comparible in performance numbers to many of the chunky V8's that once were common place in the family sedan.

I do somewhat agree with the OP though concerning certain economy cars with the "sporty" moniker. A red "S", a spoiler, and some plastic trim under the doors doesn't make the car sporty. There are some gems in the econobox world though. The Mazda 3s, some trim levels on Neons, and the Ford Focus's are very spunky and fun to drive little cars. They have great manual gearboxes and a very well done suspension making for some fun around the corners. These little econoboxes will out handle heavier cars that wear the "sports car" badge.

 

[buzzsaw13]

Originally posted by: sao123
No car with anything under 6cyl 325HP should ever be called sporty.

The Ariel Atom has 4cyl and 300bhp and is almost as fast as an Enzo, and faster than a Carrera GT. Not sporty?

Doesn't really count, but there are plenty of sports cars that have 4 cylinders and less than 325bhp.

 

[Bateluer]

Every vehicle is called 'sporty' these days. For some reason, calling it 'sporty' makes people want to buy it. My old roommate loved to tote the sportiness of his Dodge Stratus over my Toyota Corolla. Funny thing was, his Stratus was in for repairs at least once a month. The Corolla usually needed just an oil change.

 

[Christobevii3]

Crappy cars today handle better than sports cars of old.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: dawheat

Originally posted by: SophalotJack

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
Do you know how huge a 15 second time diff is on that track?

Do you know how much difference there is between the stock Euro Elise and the new Exige that set that time? A lot.

If you want to argue with me go get some numbers.

I am not a Honda 'fanboy'. I have never owned a Honda.

YOU go get the numbers. YOU are the one assuming that the elise will be sooo much slower on the track than an exige and that is why a civic is as good as a lotus elise (stock).

I know what is fact. It is up to YOU to change my mind with solid arguments... not assumptions.

The only sports car that honda ever made that is worthy of a sports title is the NSX... and they went overkill with it.

I don't think the OP really meant to compare the CTR and the Elise - obviously they're completely different cars, never mind the fact that the Elise is the most focused sports car around today excluding pure track cars like the Atom.

The CTR surely deserves a "sporty" moniker as it is a very competent car on the track and will keep up with many higher hp cars. But a "sports car" it is not.

Don't forget the S2000 - it's absolutely a sports car and is very surprising on the track with a decent driver. IMO vehicle dynamics and handling are far more important in determining what is a sports car than hp - e.g. I'd consider a Miata more of the sports car than a Dodge Charger.

Thanks dawheat, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'd have an Elise over a Type-R any day, but the Honda _is_ sporty, it's a 'hot hatch'.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
The time it took to read your convulted logic (you're comparing a civic to an Exige, HAHAHAHAHHA gasp AHAHAHAHA), is the time it took for the Civic to get to the finnish line after the Exige.

HAHA gasp? Does this mean you've given up? Do have any actual points to make on why you believe the civic is not sporty?

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
The time it took to read your convulted logic (you're comparing a civic to an Exige, HAHAHAHAHHA gasp AHAHAHAHA), is the time it took for the Civic to get to the finnish line after the Exige.

HAHA gasp? Does this mean you've given up? Do have any actual points to make on why you believe the civic is not sporty?

Yeah your funny, no I am laughing at you.

I never said it wasn't sporty, you tried to put it in the same class as a Lotus. Sorry you prove to me it is (you showed those numbers and only confirmed my arguement), you obviously don't know how a discussion works.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Those aren't the most boring cars on the Earth.

I'd say most SUVs and pickup trucks are far more boring. Certainly a Buick Rendevous is more boring. Hell, any current production Buick is more boring.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: buzzsaw13

Originally posted by: sao123
No car with anything under 6cyl 325HP should ever be called sporty.

The Ariel Atom has 4cyl and 300bhp and is almost as fast as an Enzo, and faster than a Carrera GT. Not sporty?

Doesn't really count, but there are plenty of sports cars that have 4 cylinders and less than 325bhp.

Anyone who calls a Carrera GT (or an Enzo or Atom for that matter) "sporty" should be punched in the mouth. It's not a "sporty" car, it's a sports car. Sporty is a made up catagory of vehicle that doesn't place performance as a top priority, but is more fun than driving a dump truck.