What, exactly, makes a car a "Supercar"?

Gyvon

Gyvon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
560
Location
Houston, Texas
This has been bugging me for a while. Is it the performance? Price? What
 
Both, I think. Price has to be in well excess of $100,000. Performance is less important as long as it's reasonably fast (e.g. Spyker).

Something like a Corvette ZR1 or Exige has supercar performance but just seems too inexpensive, while obviously something like a loaded S-class or Phantom doesn't really count.
 
Also it has to look the part. A Bentley Conti GT has the performance and the price of a super car but doesn't have the looks.
 
We've had some heated discussions on this topic before, and usually there's not much agreement. Most people bring up a combination of some, if not all, the following points:

Performance: Has to be among the top performers in the market at the time of its release. A supercar from the 60s (say, a Miura) might not be as fast as a V6 Camry of today, but back then it would've been among the fastest cars on the planet.
Styling: Has to stand out; this is a very subjective thing, and the Honda/Acura NSX is a car that some say looks like a supercar, while others say it's too bland.
Engine: Is often mid-engined or an exotic engine of some sort (V-12, V-10, or more). This is an optional criterion, as you have cars like the Mercedes 300SL, which has straight-6 out of a sedan in the front, but is definitely a supercar. I made it an either/or criterion so that cars like the De Tomaso Pantera and BMW M1, which had "ordinary" mid-mounted engines, could get a point towards them
Impact: Often a pioneer of some sort, either among all cars or within the company. Miura was the first mid-engined V-12 road car, Viper was the first huge-engined insane American roadster since the original Cobra, BMW M1 was the first and so far only mid-engined BMW, and so on.
Price: As others have mentioned, has to be high. Again, this is a point against the NSX, which was meant to be the "affordable" supercar and so sorta went against the ethos of the category.

I'd say that a car meeting 3-4 of these would be a supercar, but obviously there are exceptions going both ways (a commonly-accepted supercar that doesn't meet 3-4 of these, or a commonly accepted non-supercar that does meet 3-4 of these), so I'm not going to set down a hard and fast rule. In the end, it's a pretty subjective question. Let me turn it around at you: are there any specific cars that you think are borderline and can be argued one way or another? NSX is usually one of them.
 
a supercar that isn't exclusive isn't a supercar either
 
Labcoatguy said:
We've had some heated discussions on this topic before, and usually there's not much agreement. Most people bring up a combination of some, if not all, the following points:

Performance: Has to be among the top performers in the market at the time of its release. A supercar from the 60s (say, a Miura) might not be as fast as a V6 Camry of today, but back then it would've been among the fastest cars on the planet.

Styling: Has to stand out; this is a very subjective thing, and the Honda/Acura NSX is a car that some say looks like a supercar, while others say it's too bland.

Engine: Is often mid-engined or an exotic engine of some sort (V-12, V-10, or more). This is an optional criterion, as you have cars like the Mercedes 300SL, which has straight-6 out of a sedan in the front, but is definitely a supercar. I made it an either/or criterion so that cars like the De Tomaso Pantera and BMW M1, which had "ordinary" mid-mounted engines, could get a point towards them

Impact: Often a pioneer of some sort, either among all cars or within the company. Miura was the first mid-engined V-12 road car, Viper was the first huge-engined insane American roadster since the original Cobra, BMW M1 was the first and so far only mid-engined BMW, and so on.

Price: As others have mentioned, has to be high. Again, this is a point against the NSX, which was meant to be the "affordable" supercar and so sorta went against the ethos of the category.

I'd say that a car meeting 3-4 of these would be a supercar, but obviously there are exceptions going both ways (a commonly-accepted supercar that doesn't meet 3-4 of these, or a commonly accepted non-supercar that does meet 3-4 of these), so I'm not going to set down a hard and fast rule. In the end, it's a pretty subjective question. Let me turn it around at you: are there any specific cars that you think are borderline and can be argued one way or another? NSX is usually one of them.
Click to expand...

Wow, thank you sir. You even helped settle a bet without me having to ask (whether the Dodge Viper counted as a super car. Friend said it didn't since the engine was in the front).
 
Last edited:
Gyvon said:
Wow, thank you sir. You even helped settle a bet without me having to ask (whether the Dodge Viper counted as a super car. Friend said it wasn't since the engine was in the front).
Click to expand...
Solely going by that criterion, neither the SLR McLaren nor SLS AMG would be supercars. Viper, well, I dunno. That's borderline. Has the performance but not the pricetag. NSX doesn't quite have either.
 
thevictor390 said:
Solely going by that criterion, neither the SLR McLaren nor SLS AMG would be supercars. Viper, well, I dunno. That's borderline. Has the performance but not the pricetag. NSX doesn't quite have either.
Click to expand...
But the Viper has the 'what the fuck?' quality to it, making the lower price more negligible.
 
I would say you can really simplify this. A road car, built for performance that could not or would not be used practically as a daily driver. Basically a road vehicle that serves no practical purpose other than performance.

That pretty much excludes cars like the Bentley and Vette with supercar like performance, but aren't really supercars. I can't think of any supercar that doesn't fit that definition, and I can't think of any non-supercar that does.
 
thevictor390 said:
Solely going by that criterion, neither the SLR McLaren nor SLS AMG would be supercars. Viper, well, I dunno. That's borderline. Has the performance but not the pricetag. NSX doesn't quite have either.
Click to expand...

The Viper, SLS, and SLR have their engines set a good distance behind the front axle, so you can make a shaky case that because they're front mid-engined, their engines are in a nonstandard position.

Regarding the NSX, I might as well evaluate it according to the criteria above.

Performance vs its contemporaries: When it was released in 1990, it was competitive with the contemporary Ferrari 348 (0-60 in the low 5s), which was huge for a Japanese car in 1990. Unfortunately for it, as the F355 and later Ferraris and Porsche 911s came out, the NSX didn't follow suit with enough upgrades to keep up.

Styling: It broke ground for a Japanese car in being low and swoopy, but it doesn't have that special spark for me. Others may disagree.

Impact: An aluminum Japanese car that could hold its own against a Ferrari? That's a pretty big impact right there. Unfortunately, as the NSX stagnated and the market went on, that impact faded away.

Price: Weirdly, this is one aspect where the NSX became more "super" over time rather than less, as Honda kept bumping up the price while doing nothing to keep it competitive. Basically, it became more exclusive in price while at the same time being less exclusive in every other way.

Summary: In 1990, the NSX was definitely a supercar; it had impressive performance, was the first Japanese car that was competitive with the best that Europe had to offer, and had a special (VTEC) engine in the middle. Price was not quite supercar level, and styling was right on the line, but that adds up to 3 out of 5. By the time it was discontinued, the styling was outdated, the performance was nothing impressive, and the idea of the Japanese taking on the Europeans at high levels was nothing new. My verdict: the NSX was a supercar, but thanks to Honda's neglect, it struggles to be remembered as it should be remembered.
 
I find all your definitions a bit too involved. IMO, a modern super car is any high performance focused car that exceeds 190ish mph. The speed seems more a consequence of the performance but a necessary, if blurred, condiditon. The exige is a high performance stripped down sports car, but I don't think it has a high enough top end to receive super car status. And yes, Corvettes and Vipers count.

Another good question is the definition of hypercar. Similar definition, but as I see it, must go well beyond 200mph.

The only car I can think of that has trouble in this definition is the Bugatti Veyron. I have a hard time not calling it a super/hyper car, but it isn't exactly performance focused.

In the end, it is like porn. Hard to define it, but you know it when you see it.
 
The whole point of Supercars is that you can't rationalize, explain or define them. You can't engineer the 'Super' into your car.

A car just is. Or isn't.
 
They're all just sports cars to me.

Supercar, hypercar, these are ideas, not market segments.
 
Sports car and muscle car are just as loose definitions.
I'd probably call the Viper a sports car. Supercar sounds a bit overkill and a muscle car I think should be cheaper and kind of like an ordinary car with a big engine.
In my books a 458 is sort of an entry level supercar and a Murcielago is an honest one.
 
OK, here's the test: Picture a car in your mind. Any car. Perhaps for this first time you should choose a car which is most certainly not a supercar. I can see from my window a Suzuki Vitara so I'm personally going to use that. OK, picture it up, real good. Get a good mental image of the car you've chosen.

Now, picture some kinda sexy lady model. She's wearing a sexy dress or a bikini or whatever floats your boat. It can be a sexy man if that helps you. Picture the model draped over the front of the car, seductively, auto-show style, with a come hither stare.

Does the combo of car and model look ridiculous and laughable? If so, it's not a supercar. If no, then it is a supercar.
 
narf said:
The Carrera GT called, it wants a word.
Click to expand...


Well, that's just Top Gear Logic. But according to last sundays Top Gear Logic, all modern Supercars are made of maths. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top