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

I think it comes down to purpose and engineering. You can't pin it down to just one or two criteria, you can make a Phaeton go 200mph if you take the limiter off, but it plainly isn't a supercar. A supercar must be a combination of many things, track-bred engineering, exciting styling, etc. I think it should have an exclusivity to it, in order to separate it from sports cars.
 
For me, it's the cape...

2qbyosx.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWF
Vette Boss said:
I think it comes down to purpose and engineering. You can't pin it down to just one or two criteria, you can make a Phaeton go 200mph if you take the limiter off, but it plainly isn't a supercar. A supercar must be a combination of many things, track-bred engineering, exciting styling, etc. I think it should have an exclusivity to it, in order to separate it from sports cars.
Click to expand...
200 mph is quite a lot.
A Continental GT won't do 200 mph according to the specs.
 
I think a lot of people make up the definition as they go along... I guess the most important criteria is where you put the borderline cases.

In some magazine reviews of the Mitsubishi evo 1 or 2 people referred to it as a supercar, but it just isn't, not even close. I think a minimum criteria is that it needs to be bespoke or at least based on an uncompromized sports car chassis and body, so it can't just be a big-engined special version of a normal non-sports car; I'd say it can be based off a racing car as long as that was bespoke too.

So for example an M3 or C63 AMG cannot be supercars. On the other hand I'd say a Nissan GTR IS a supercar, despite being front-engined and cheap (relatively), it's got the performance and impact. The Corvette and Viper are a difficult case I think. I'd say the ZR1 definitely is, as for the Viper and Z06...I guess it depends who you're talking to, but only the Viper really had the performace to qualify when it came out.

As for Porsche...I really can't make up mind about whether any of their cars apart from say the Carrera GT or 959 really qualify as supercars. I suppose the Turbo and GT2 could qualify...
 
Pry said:
200 mph is quite a lot.
A Continental GT won't do 200 mph according to the specs.
Click to expand...

Both the Continental GT Speed and Continental GT Supersports will. The regular one falls short by 2.4mph indeed.
 
narf said:
Both the Continental GT Speed and Continental GT Supersports will. The regular one falls short by 2.4mph indeed.
Click to expand...
Even the regular one is over 100 hp more powerful than the most powerful Phaeton.
 
IMO a Supercar is a car that isn't fantastic in any particular way but costs and fortune, is exclusive and had a certain degree of insanity.

A super car is fast, but probably not the fastest. It drives well, but you could buy better. It looks great, but there are prettier. It is cramped inside, but takes up a lane and a half of road. Its powerful, but you could get more out of it. You spent a fortune on it, and everyone looks when you drive around, granted they all think you are a massive tosser. But that's alright, you have a supercar.
It also has weird eccentric features that the manufacturer added because they wanted to, not needed to.





Oh, and it sets on fire randomly, most important part. ;)
 
Some say that the Mercedes 300SL was the first true supercar in its day, and I'm inclined to agree. It set the standards for a supercar: It should be focused on performance above most other things, It should be faster than most other cars available, it should be more expensive than most other cars available, and it should have at least one feature that most other cars don't have. In the 300SL's case, it was the gullwing doors. That feature could be something like the engine in the miiddle, or over-the-top styling, but only if it also meets the other three criteria.
 
I would say you can no more define a supercar than you can define love. Somehow you just know.

It either gives you the fizz or it doesn't, and everyone gets the fizz for different reasons.
 
MWF said:
I would say you can no more define a supercar than you can define love. Somehow you just know.

It either gives you the fizz or it doesn't, and everyone gets the fizz for different reasons.
Click to expand...

You're of course referring to the penile fizziticism that James May always talks about
 
When it's extremely fast and looks like it's been designed by this guy:
drawing.jpg


;)
 
I think what defines a super car is the absence of things like comfort/luxury in order to enhace performance. I count cars like the Exige S and Z06 as super cars because they were designed to get around a track quickly but remain road legal.
However I don't count cars that have to be modified by the after-market as a super car. So even though there are Supras and Skylines that are stupid fast, I just can't think of them on a comparable level as a Ferrari 360.
Then again the Veyron breaks my first rule, so i could be wrong.
 
mpicco said:
You're of course referring to the penile fizziticism that James May always talks about
Click to expand...

Well actually it's behind his penis according to him, but that is the fizz I meant yet.
 
Gyvon said:
This has been bugging me for a while. Is it the performance? Price? What
Click to expand...

It has to have the talent and automotive equivalent of 'red underwear and flappy cap' or a subtle look accompanied by the automotive equivalent of 'superpowers'.

You can have supercars that are the equivlent of Superman, quite colorful and flashy, or more the automotive equivalent of modern costume Wolverine, still has super abilities but in a low key, functional leather outfit.

Either powers that sets it above most other cars in its class with outrageous flair....or super capabilities is a slick but more subtle package.

To actually define 'supercar' with quantifiable measureable cutoff values like hp, price, etc...doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top