WHy don't the mustang or Corvette have any real competition?

[styrafoam]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

I concur. How can you not consider classic cars like Triumphs and Alpha Romeo Spiders sportscars?

I, at least, consider those exactly what you called them: classics.

One would hardly take one of those vehicles out to the track today or compare the skid pad, power, braking, etcetera with a new Corvette/Mustang/350z/BMW and so forth.

Again, they are classics and not a sports car that somebody is going to comparison shop with a 'vette.

Apples to oranges, bud.

Not necessarily kiddo.

We are talking about the definition of a sportscar not who is cross shopping a vette. Just because an old car like the MG or Triumph isn't cross shopped now against a modern car :roll: remove it from the sportscar list. Sportscar in my book means 2 door, 2 passenger and RWD.

Torque, HP, skidpad, all that stuff is performance metrics. Just because a car has under 200HP shouldn't exclude it from being a sportscar as much as having 400HP make a car a sportscar. Performance metrics are not a exclusive criteria as to what makes a car a sports car.

Table tennis and rugby are both sports, but they are played a little differently. You're missing the point.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: styrafoam

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

I concur. How can you not consider classic cars like Triumphs and Alpha Romeo Spiders sportscars?

I, at least, consider those exactly what you called them: classics.

One would hardly take one of those vehicles out to the track today or compare the skid pad, power, braking, etcetera with a new Corvette/Mustang/350z/BMW and so forth.

Again, they are classics and not a sports car that somebody is going to comparison shop with a 'vette.

Apples to oranges, bud.

Not necessarily kiddo.

We are talking about the definition of a sportscar not who is cross shopping a vette. Just because an old car like the MG or Triumph isn't cross shopped now against a modern car :roll: remove it from the sportscar list. Sportscar in my book means 2 door, 2 passenger and RWD.

Torque, HP, skidpad, all that stuff is performance metrics. Just because a car has under 200HP shouldn't exclude it from being a sportscar as much as having 400HP make a car a sportscar. Performance metrics are not a exclusive criteria as to what makes a car a sports car.

Table tennis and rugby are both sports, but they are played a little differently. You're missing the point.

Which is?

 

[yhelothar]

EVO RS costs $26k, and it's faster than the mustang.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Not necessarily kiddo.

We are talking about the definition of a sportscar not who is cross shopping a vette. Just because an old car like the MG or Triumph isn't cross shopped now against a modern car :roll: remove it from the sportscar list. Sportscar in my book means 2 door, 2 passenger and RWD.

Torque, HP, skidpad, all that stuff is performance metrics. Just because a car has under 200HP shouldn't exclude it from being a sportscar as much as having 400HP make a car a sportscar. Performance metrics are not a exclusive criteria as to what makes a car a sports car.

You may want to re-read the OP: Why don't the mustang or Corvette have any real competition?

The Triumph et al are not competing with the Mustang or Corvette. Therefore should not be included in a conversation on what sports cars are out on the market today.

Sportscar in my book means 2 door, 2 passenger and RWD.

That's quaint, but the automobile industry has a tendacy to think otherwise. I'll agree that RWD is needed in a 'real' sports car but those people driving RSXs and Eclipses may think otherwise. Two seaters are popular amongst sports cars, but Mustang, 350z, Camero, GTO drivers may think differently.

 

[styrafoam]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: styrafoam

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

I concur. How can you not consider classic cars like Triumphs and Alpha Romeo Spiders sportscars?

I, at least, consider those exactly what you called them: classics.

One would hardly take one of those vehicles out to the track today or compare the skid pad, power, braking, etcetera with a new Corvette/Mustang/350z/BMW and so forth.

Again, they are classics and not a sports car that somebody is going to comparison shop with a 'vette.

Apples to oranges, bud.

Not necessarily kiddo.

We are talking about the definition of a sportscar not who is cross shopping a vette. Just because an old car like the MG or Triumph isn't cross shopped now against a modern car :roll: remove it from the sportscar list. Sportscar in my book means 2 door, 2 passenger and RWD.

Torque, HP, skidpad, all that stuff is performance metrics. Just because a car has under 200HP shouldn't exclude it from being a sportscar as much as having 400HP make a car a sportscar. Performance metrics are not a exclusive criteria as to what makes a car a sports car.

Table tennis and rugby are both sports, but they are played a little differently. You're missing the point.

Which is?

See Babbles post above.

 

[Doggiedog]

You may want to re-read the OP: Why don't the mustang or Corvette have any real competition?

And you might want to re-read some of your posts because I was replying to some of the side threads on your definition of a sportscar.

Go to Ford's website and look up the Mustang. They call the Mustang a coupe not a sportscar. I haven't checked other websites but I believe Nissan calls the 350Z a sports car. Its all semantics. Perhaps 2 door, 2 or 2+2 passenger, RWD = sportscar. RSX and Eclipses are not sportscars, they are coupes in my book.

 

[essasin]

I think nobody is diving into the market because of the established popularity of the Mustang from its 6 banger through its special edition mustangs. Also there are a lot of big named aftermarket companies envovled like steeda, saleen, and rousch which also adds more appeal. The mustags real competition are bascially "muscele cars" which are the firebird, trans-am, camero, and GTO. All have tried to take sales away from the mustang market, but none have been successful, now the they report that their is a surplus of GTO's and have to cut production down the next following years.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

You may want to re-read the OP: Why don't the mustang or Corvette have any real competition?

And you might want to re-read some of your posts because I was replying to some of the side threads on your definition of a sportscar.

That was my half-assed attempt to explain why the S2000 is not a competitor of the Corvette and Mustang. Most people do not consider the S2000 to be a 'real' sports car when compared to the likes of a Corvette and Mustang.

Go to Ford's website and look up the Mustang. They call the Mustang a coupe not a sportscar. I haven't checked other websites but I believe Nissan calls the 350Z a sports car. Its all semantics. Perhaps 2 door, 2
or 2+2 passenger, RWD = sportscar. RSX and Eclipses are not sportscars, they are coupes in my book.

That would be my point, it is semantics. Just because you think a sportscar should be 2 passanger only does not mean that is the only definition out there.

I agree in that I personally don't think the RSX and Eclipse should be considered sportscars, however I can see why some people would argue that they could be. I think compact sports coupe would be a better definition, but when you have people that can put out some crazy power in a SI or RSX then it is kind of hard to ignore it.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

You may want to re-read the OP: Why don't the mustang or Corvette have any real competition?

And you might want to re-read some of your posts because I was replying to some of the side threads on your definition of a sportscar.

That was my half-assed attempt to explain why the S2000 is not a competitor of the Corvette and Mustang. Most people do not consider the S2000 to be a 'real' sports car when compared to the likes of a Corvette and Mustang.

Go to Ford's website and look up the Mustang. They call the Mustang a coupe not a sportscar. I haven't checked other websites but I believe Nissan calls the 350Z a sports car. Its all semantics. Perhaps 2 door, 2
or 2+2 passenger, RWD = sportscar. RSX and Eclipses are not sportscars, they are coupes in my book.

That would be my point, it is semantics. Just because you think a sportscar should be 2 passanger only does not mean that is the only definition out there.

I agree in that I personally don't think the RSX and Eclipse should be considered sportscars, however I can see why some people would argue that they could be. I think compact sports coupe would be a better definition, but when you have people that can put out some crazy power in a SI or RSX then it is kind of hard to ignore it.

The S2000 is a sportscar but it in no may compares with the Corvette IMO. Its like saying a Cayenne Turbo is an SUV just like a Hummer H1. 2 completely different vehicles that fit the definition of sportscar but are executed differently.

Regardless of power, I still would not classify those FWD cars as sportscars. The handling characteristics (understeer, torque steering) of those cars would be very different than any RWD sportscar to put them in that category.

But again, its all semantics. If someone wants to call something a sportscar to sell more of them, there's no rule against it. You may want to copyright the phrase "compact sports coupe" though. Who knows? Maybe it'll be the next craze like the "cross-over vehicle" 😉

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
EVO RS costs $26k, and it's faster than the mustang.

get off the crack...
EVO stock cannot touch the stock 2005 GT
maybe in previous years but this year the GT is putting out cobra like HP

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
EVO RS costs $26k, and it's faster than the mustang.

get off the crack...
EVO stock cannot touch the stock 2005 GT
maybe in previous years but this year the GT is putting out cobra like HP

The RS is more than that, and...

Mustang: 4.6L V8, 300hp, 320ftlbs torque
RS: Turbocharged 2.0L I4, 276hp, 286ftlbs torque

(Used compartively priced Mustang.)

 

[Tylanner]

The Vette is the king and always will be.

World Class looks, untouchable road racing pedigree, and deep, throaty American power.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: Tylanner
The Vette is the king and always will be.

World Class looks, untouchable road racing pedigree, and deep, throaty American power.

I wouldn't say untouchable... but sure.

 

[Crappopotamus]

sports cars dont make money. there are more boring people in this world than interesting. why doesnt toyota have a proper sports car anymore? they even got rid of the celica now. why bother when you can sell a gajillion camrys and corollas.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
EVO RS costs $26k, and it's faster than the mustang.

get off the crack...
EVO stock cannot touch the stock 2005 GT
maybe in previous years but this year the GT is putting out cobra like HP

The RS is more than that, and...

Mustang: 4.6L V8, 300hp, 320ftlbs torque
RS: Turbocharged 2.0L I4, 276hp, 286ftlbs torque

(Used compartively priced Mustang.)

Motortrend recently dynoed both the EVO and the STI and the EVO makes the same WHP as the 300 HP STI. Paper spec these days often doesn't tell the whole story.

Either way, all the stuff I've seen points to a stock 05 GT being a high 13s car, which is about the same as an EVO.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
EVO RS costs $26k, and it's faster than the mustang.

get off the crack...
EVO stock cannot touch the stock 2005 GT
maybe in previous years but this year the GT is putting out cobra like HP

The RS is more than that, and...

Mustang: 4.6L V8, 300hp, 320ftlbs torque
RS: Turbocharged 2.0L I4, 276hp, 286ftlbs torque

(Used compartively priced Mustang.)

Motortrend recently dynoed both the EVO and the STI and the EVO makes the same WHP as the 300 HP STI. Paper spec these days often doesn't tell the whole story.

Either way, all the stuff I've seen points to a stock 05 GT being a high 13s car, which is about the same as an EVO.

Hmm, Ok, well, I'd still prefer the Mustang. 🙂

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: Rallispec
Seems like it could be a very profitable market - yet ford is the only company I can think of that really has a cheap sports car. (300hp / rwd / 25k )


(on a wierd note - edmunds.com lists the competitors as the Stratus, 350z, grand am, Tc, and Solara - the only one I think is even close is the 350- which will cost several thousand more than the ford)


The same thing goes for the Corvette - the closest I can think of is the M3 and the viper. I dont see the M3 and vette directly competeting though, as they target totally different customers. And the viper cost nearly double. Seems like another market waiting for some competition.





Am I missing something here?

Well you could take the RSX, Celica... GTI vr6.. and because they are cheaper.. upgrade it and get a very competitive car.

Summarily.. Fords look cheap.. Drive Cheaper.. but they have the power. I guess thats why they're cheaper.

I think the new stangs look sexy though.

 

[thomsbrain]

they don't have any competetion because the people who buy those cars want THOSE cars. they want a mustang because it's a MUSTANG. if they were just in the market for a sports car in that price range, they wouldn't buy a mustang. witness the death of the F-bodies.

 

[xenocyd3]

id take a evo over a stang any day... do a few upgrades..... evo would own on the turns