View Full Version : Sports Cars

Bruce Bowker
04-26-2004, 07:45 PM
This more or less started in another thread and it won't be scientific but just curious what various generations consider a real "sports car".

I remember when Mustangs, Cameros and the like came out and they were being promoted a sports cars which I thought rediculous at the time (still do I suppose).


Anyone 20 years old or under name 5 sports cars

Anyone 20 to 35 years name 5 sports cars

Anyone 35 to 50 years old name 5 sports cars

Anyone 50 or older name 5 sports cars
2)Lotus Super Seven
3)Austin Healey 3000 Mk 1
4)Triumph TR3

04-26-2004, 08:29 PM
Anyone 20 years old or under name 5 sports cars
1) BMW 328
2) Jaguar XK120 Alloy body
3) Alfa TZ
4) Lotus Elan
5) MGA Twin Cam

graemlins/driving.gif graemlins/hammer.gif graemlins/patriot.gif

04-26-2004, 09:37 PM
I'll up the ante by naming five sports cars made during my lifetime:

Anyone 20 to 35 years name 5 sports cars
1)Lamborghini Miura
2)Triumph TR6
3)Lotus Europa
4)Porsche 911
5)Mazda Miata -- for a modern sports car

04-26-2004, 09:42 PM
This is a recent story from my weekly syndicated column...plays well in your thread!

The confusing world of classic vehicle semantics

Volkswagen's new Phaeton is currently a big topic of conversation. Many of my fellow automotive journalists question if anyone will buy a $70,000 large sedan from a manufacturer associated with economical transportation. I actually am more concerned with the new VW model's name.

Derived from the sun god Helios' son's name, Phaeton is a French term traditionally used to identify four-plus seat convertibles. Certainly it's an inappropriate name for a hardtop sedan.

I don't want to sound like Andy Rooney, but at some point automotive semantics went haywire. Traditional terms are so misused, blurred, and just plain ignored, that the lack of standardization makes buying, selling and discussing cars extremely difficult.

Confusion abounds, because caveats have been created for even basic terms. A sedan has four doors, and a coupe usually has two doors -- although some modern coupes feature two extra smaller doors. Large two-door vehicles have in the past been marketed as two-door sedans, or sedanettes. At least coupes with small fold-down back seats are always called 2+2s.

The world of ragtops is more confusing than Parliamentary Procedure. Convertibles have roll-up windows and a permanent frame for a soft top, and are what British call dropheads. Convertibles can be coupes or sedans -- the last being the 1967 Lincoln Continental.

The most valuable classic open body-style is a dual cowl phaeton, which is a convertible with separate compartments for rear-seat occupants. Some European sedan or coupe-based convertibles were called cabriolets. Lincoln wins the all-time model name redundancy award with its 1940-1948 Lincoln Continental Cabriolet Convertible.

An open-top car with removable weather equipment is a roadster. Since there's no modern market for topless, side curtain-adorned cars, roadster now means a two-seat sporty convertible. Spiders (or spyder) are roadsters built on a platform not shared with a sedan. Oddly enough, the highest production spyder, the Fiat 124 Spyder, shared suspension and running gear with the 124 Sedan.

Enzo Ferrari was notorious for being hit or miss with coachwork terms. While his barchettas were indeed streamlined racers, and his berlinettas definitely coupes, his Dino 246GTS and 308GTS Spider models weren't Spiders at all, rather coupes with small removable roof panels usually known as targas. Most people assume Porsche invented the targa, but the removable center section on the Triumph TR4's surrey top preceded the 911 Targa . Incidentally, too many people think GM's t-top name was derived from the bracings supporting the two-piece panel. T-top is simply short for "targa top."

It's not just manufacturers abusing terms, as enthusiasts fling lingo around incorrectly. For instance, now people call everything a "Classic." Classic (capital "C") means the car was an expensive, important sports or luxury car made in the 1925-1948 Classic Era. I've always felt it's acceptable to call any early and truly significant vehicle in its genre a classic (lower-case "c") - such as "Shelby's Cobra is a classic American sports car." Combining "Pontiac Fiero" and "classic," however, should result in jail time.

Muscle car is probably the most abused term these days. By definition, muscle cars were economical offerings built on mid-sized American passenger car platforms with large V8 engines. Pontiac GTO, Chevy Chevelle, Olds 442 and Plymouth Road Runner are all true muscle cars. Impala, Galaxie 500 and Dodge Charger are not muscle cars, because they were full-sized platform vehicles - which is why they were the basis for NASCAR showroom stock cars. Even with a powerful engine, a four-door sedan is not a muscle car. Mustang, Camaro/Firebird and 'Cuda/Challenger were not muscle cars either, as their compact coupe platforms, base low-performance V6 engines, long option lists, and emphasis on handling classify them as pony cars.

None of the just mentioned vehicles classify as sports cars either. Some high-performance pony cars, like a Camaro Z-28 or Shelby GT350 can destroy many pure sports cars, but this isn't the litmus test. Sports cars are two seat or 2+2 vehicles utilizing light, purpose-built compact platforms for all-around performance. If comfortable and tall-geared, sports, muscle and pony cars can all be considered gran turismos or GTs.

Mechanical lingo is also used with reckless abandon. For instance big block means the engine uses a block larger than a manufacturer's standard V8 block. Chevy's 427s is a big block. Oldsmobile's 455 and Pontiac's 400 are not, because they're made from their manufacturers' standard V8 blocks.

Furthermore, all-wheel drive and four-wheel drive are not synonyms. Not all horizontally opposed engines are boxer designs, and while turbos are a type of supercharger, many supercharger types aren't turbos.

Enough! I'm going out to drive my vintage big block Corvette convertible sports car.

Sam Barer writes for Olympia-based Apex Features Syndicate. Submit questions or cars for profiles to soundclassics@apexstrategy.com.

[ 04-26-2004: Message edited by: sammyb ]</p>

04-26-2004, 10:22 PM
20 to 35

1)Porsche 911(aircooled)
2)Nissan 350Z
3)MG Midget
4)AC Cobra
5)MR2 Spyder

04-27-2004, 03:21 AM
Anyone 20 to 35 years name 5 sports cars
1)Triumph Spitfire
2)Jaguaur XK 120
3)Porsche 550 Spyder
4)Jaguar E Type (drop head coupe)

Those are the first cars that come to my mind when I think of sports cars. Only reason spitfire is at the top of my list is well cause I drive one.

Cheers, graemlins/thirsty.gif graemlins/driving.gif

04-27-2004, 06:14 AM
Anyone 50 or older ( I still don't beleive it )
1) 30/98 Vauxhaul
2) Austin Healey 100
3) Triumph TR6
4) Early Ford Thunderbird
5) E Type Jaguar Drophead

With apologies to so many

[ 04-27-2004: Message edited by: Graham ]</p>

Bruce Bowker
04-27-2004, 06:51 AM
sammyb - what an interesting article. I enjoyed that and it is pretty much my thoughts and what started me on this thread.

Intersting picks for sports car so far.

04-27-2004, 08:53 AM
35 to 50

1) Series 1 E-Type drophead
2) MGA
3) Sunbeam Tiger
4) Austin Healey 100
5) Alfa Romeo Giullietta Spider

04-27-2004, 11:09 AM
20-30 Only five????

1.)Mazda MX-5 Miata
2.)Porsche 356 Speedster
3.)Austin Healey 100/4
4.)Toyota 2000 GT
5.)Alfa Romeo Spider

I could go on.....

04-27-2004, 11:22 AM
I won't pick anything as such, my picks would probably not be typical anyway...

I will make a suggestion though and an observation to perhaps make a point. I wasn't around in the 1960's (born in 1972, to a non-car enthusiast family), but based on current advertising I would suggest that Italian sports cars weren't all that common here in North America until about 1967/68, not that they weren't over here that necessarily. But as the 1970's progressed the Fiat Spider, Fiat X1/9 and Alfa Romeo Spider seem to almost eclipse to some degree the British sports cars.

I have very few memories of my growing up, but do have a picture of the door to my room taken at some point in my childhood, when... ??? Anyway, the picture on the door is a brochure of a Fiat X1/9, and I'll freely admit to still liking them. And in many ways I seem to recall seeing more of the Italian roadsters (1970's-era) than British roadsters at the same time.

[ 04-27-2004: Message edited by: Sherlock ]</p>

04-27-2004, 12:51 PM
Fact is there are just way too many “sports cars” out there to limit myself to just 5. Also there are many "other" types of cars intermingled with these and would place higher than these if the list was opened up to all comers. But here is what I managed to narrow my list down to. However if you ask me the same question a month from now I’m sure it would change.

Anyone 35 to 50 years old name 5 sports cars
1) DB4 Zagato.
2) Lightweight E-Type.
3) AC Cobra MkII.
4) 67 Corvette L88 427ci.
5) DeTomaso Pantera.


04-27-2004, 01:29 PM

myself I'd define 2dr, rwd, mostly likely 2 seater (a 4 seater would be a GT) and with "sporty" bodywork. Things like

1. MG TC
2. Triumph Spitfire
3. Mazda RX-7
4. MGB
5. Porsche 914

things like a Acura Integra while nice and high performing I'd consider a sporty car.

late model Camaros and Mustangs are GT cars in my book.

Mickey Richaud
04-27-2004, 02:27 PM
Over 50:

AH 100/3000
Datsun 1500/1600/2000
Jag XK's

Interesting - T-bird was mentioned, but no 'Vettes listed yet!

[ 04-27-2004: Message edited by: Mickey Richaud ]</p>

Geo Hahn
04-27-2004, 02:39 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bruce Bowker:
Anyone 50 or older name 5 sports cars
2)Lotus Super Seven
3)Austin Healey 3000 Mk 1
4)Triumph TR3

That list works for me... if I were to add a 6th it would be the XK120 roadster.

I read a theory somewhere that much of our outlook on life is based on our world as it was when we were 10 years old. Maybe our preferences in cars somewhat fits that model.

04-27-2004, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mickey Richaud:

Interesting - T-bird was mentioned, but no 'Vettes listed yet!


Hey Mickey,

Actually I did...

“4) 67 Corvette L88 427ci.“

I have always been a huge fan of the C2s, ever since I was a kid when my Dad had a white 64 Vette Coupe with the 327ci.

As for the T-Bird – while I always liked the early birds and even some of the later birds, I never really considered them a real “sports car”. Matter-a-fact I don’t thing Ford ever tried to fool anybody and simply called it’s first generation Thunderbird a “personal luxury car” or something similar.


[ 04-27-2004: Message edited by: Bret ]</p>

04-27-2004, 10:42 PM
I agree with Bret that the Corvettes are definitely sports cars, but could always be ordered to a more GT specification.

With the Blue Flame Special 6cyl, the C1s were more sporty than true sports cars (plus only a powerglide tranny!) With the V8, manual tranny, optional big brake package, soft-top delete option, these were sports cars. Granted, they were more brute force than finesse.

The C2s were certainly better sports cars. Independent rear suspension, standard disc brakes (although drums were still an option in '65!) make the car a true sports car by any definition. I've driven many Corvettes, and next to the C5, the '65 is probably the most totally gratifying and involving Vette to drive.

C3s started with brute horsepower, but ended-up going for handling as a selling point. The late C3s are more GT cars, but even a TR7 feels more like a GT than a sports car compared to a TR6!

I'd like to point out that a car can have rear jump seats and still be a "sports car," provided it isn't based on a sedan. A Porsche 911 has rear seats, as do many Austin Healey 3000s. My '59 TR3 had a rear seat, but certainly nobody would say a TR3 is more of a GT car than sports car (100 miles on Sunday in my '60 proved it is far from a quiet, comfortable cruiser!)

Wow, my wife must be ignoring me...my posts have become extremely long!!!!! images/icons/wink.gif

Mickey Richaud
04-28-2004, 03:07 AM
OOPS - Sorry, Bret. Guess the eyes let me down that time.

I always liked the early Sting Rays and wanted one, but for some reason never really considered them sports cars.

04-28-2004, 03:57 AM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mickey Richaud:
I always liked the early Sting Rays and wanted one, but for some reason never really considered them sports cars.<hr></blockquote>

Don’t worry Mickey, I don’t think you’re alone in that viewpoint.

But in my mind it’s subjective. While the first C2 Stingrays (1963) where milestones in design especially over it’s predecessor it essentially carried over the same engine & drive train options of the previous model (1962) design. However as the C2 progressed through the years it saw profound performance & handling improvements. Like most things American the focus was on Horse Power. But the 65 Stingrays dropped its drum brakes in favor of 4 wheel disk brakes and as well as the 396ci (400HP+). However the last & best C2 (Best of all Vettes IMHO) came in 1967. That was the year of biggest improvement of all, with the introduction of the L88 Engine rated at 430Hp – but in reality it was pumping out close to 500Hp. In a word – Fast and with a few tweaks it could turn reasonably too and absolutely fry folks on the straight ways.

Next to the C2 the C3 would have to be my next favorite Corvettes. However my love affair with the Vette ends in 72 with the US emissions standards kicking in. The 72’s only saving grace was its Chrome but that disappeared the following year. After that it would be years before the Horses would climb up above 300 again.


[ 04-27-2004: Message edited by: Bret ]</p>

04-28-2004, 08:25 AM
I think this is what Bruce was getting to with this thread.


Why is something a sports car to "ME" and not to someone else! I love early T-Birds. to me a sports car doesn't have to be blisteringly fast, most MGs are modest at best and yet no one would say they arn't a "sports car". To "me" 2 seat open smaller than full size reasonably good to drive and enjoyable car is a "sports car". Corvettes Some yes, Mustangs some yes. To "ME" a lot of Ferraris No, they may blow the doors off most British sportscars and out handle just about everything on the road, but to "Me" they are a GT or a supercar or something different all together.

Someone said you develope your perception of the world when you are 10, and that would mean for me early 60s and I think that is right for me. If you blokes are younger your idea of what is or isn't is totaly different.
It's nice to see the variation that different people have. Some like Italian some British some Japanese ? ,some modern some old, and really they are all right, there is no right or wrong just different perceptions of what you like and admire.

Enough said, I will get back in my box now, but it's been interesting,

Thanks Bruce. graemlins/cheers.gif

04-28-2004, 11:26 AM
Defining what is, and what is not a sports car is a twofold operation. First, we have perception. Second, we have definition.

Perception is that anything which is fast is a sports car. Perception often is that a sports car cannot be a GT car.

Defining sports car is different. As my article mentions, sports cars were defined originally (and continued until the advertising explosion in the late 60s) to be a purpose-built (usually not sedan-derived frame) nimble vehicle with performance (acceleration, handling) exceeding the average contemporary family car. Certainly there are sports cars that somewhat break the definition, but for the most part, it holds true.

A sports car can be a gran turismo (GT,) by adding appropriate comfort equipment. I agree that many Ferraris were specifically GTs rather than true sports cars. SuperAmericas, Superfasts, 330America, 365GTC4 are certainly much more akin to a sporty GT due to size and weight.

Bruce Bowker
04-28-2004, 12:29 PM
Graham and Sam - those were my thoughts. What defines a sports car both personally and by a formal definition.

For me it has always been cars with no roll up windows, roadsters and for reasons I don't really know alomost always English. I would have to say that the English have made more "sports cars" than most other countries. I can't call a Porsche 911 or any derivative theerof a sport car. Porsche Spyder yes.

As I had mentioned earlier I thought Mustangs etc had a lot of nerve calling themselves sports car and now everyone calls whatever a sports car.

I thought perhaps younger people would list only Mitsubishi 3000, Mazda RX 7 and cars like that but not many got mentioned.

It was fun reading what people said.

04-28-2004, 01:52 PM
Remembering the key word here is perception.

I would think that the definition of the term “Sports Car”, or for that matter Sedan, Truck or anything else, would naturally change and/or evolve with the passage of time.

Technology, design and the car buyer’s pallet are constantly in a state of flux (evolving or devolving depending on how you look at it) never remaining the same. If it didn’t I fear we’d all be driving those annoying little Yugos or Trabants type vehicles. How boring would that be?

An extreme example to make my point would be the description of Trucks. Today they are a far cry from what they where at their inception. Save the most basic of the design elements (a bed), I’m not sure that they’d be recognizable to someone who purchased or drove say a pre-WWI truck. Would he turn his nose up to it because it doesn’t fit in with his “perception” of what a truck should be? Don’t know, but I tend to think he’d probably love the improvements.

That said: I don't think Fangio (if'n he was still with us) would turn down a chance to drive a 2004 Ferrari.

Bruce Bowker
04-28-2004, 02:20 PM
Bret - interesting thoughts and I agree. Seems it also has to do with what era we are from.

04-29-2004, 03:02 AM
I certainly agree with Bret. The definitions change with market requirments and technology -- hence as do the perceptions.

Cars with no roll-up windows and two seats are roadsters, but not all roadsters are sports cars images/icons/wink.gif . As my article pointed out, a Miata is called a roadster now, and it makes sense to do so, because there's not much market for a car with removable weather equipment.

There's no doubt a Porsche 911 is a sports car. It also happens to be a fantastic GT. In fact, it's probably a more pure sports car than a 356, because the 356 was a fairly strong derivative of the Beetle. I've owned a 911 (1970 911T,) but I've never been a huge fan. Fun cars, and comfortable, but I'm a convertible guy, and the cabriolets came too late in production.

Mustangs -- yup, I agree...sporty sedan-based coupes. Pony cars by definition, along with Camaro and Firebird.

The modern market is fairly funny. BMW M5 is a "sport sedan" not a sports car, as are Audi's S4 and Mercedes E55. What really gets me is Cadillac trying to market the SRX SUV as a SUV that handles like a sports car.

An SUV is an SUV. No matter how fast it is, or how it handles compared to other SUVs, it is not, nor will ever be a sports car. Porsche Cayenne included!

04-29-2004, 04:20 AM
I think a lot of the changing terminology is not so much market driven as "Marketing" driven. The advertising people decide that the name sportscar sells so their 2 door 4 seater with a "sporty" body becomes a sports car. Much the same as limosine gets bandied arround now for any large sedan/saloon type car. To "Me" a limosine is what Rolls Royce , Cadillac ,Daimler and their like built in the 30s very large with a glass partition between the drivers compartment and the passenger section. Some modern ones may fit that criteria, but plenty of large sedans are called limmos because of the current day marketing.

When I posted a reply here last night a (mustang owner) freind and I had been having a few graemlins/thirsty.gif and I included some mustangs in sportscar. Amazing the effect graemlins/thirsty.gif has, as I love mustangs but don't consider any of them sportscars. 2 seater T Birds yes and 2 seater Corvettes well yes I surpose but not mustangs. (No 2 seaters)But that's just me , to "me" no matter how good a 911 Porsche is its still not a sportscar. But a bugeye sprite that bombs out at 70 mph is.

Anyway it's been very interesting hearing other peoples point of view, and I really do think a lot of our views are formed due to our ages and experiances.

Thanks Bruce, good thread. graemlins/cheers.gif


04-29-2004, 06:30 AM
Anyone 35 to 50 years old name 5 sports cars
2)Lamborghini Gallardo
3)Porsche 911 GT3
4)Ferrari 360
5)Viper SRT-10

AT least from todays offering those would be among my personal favorites...

From the past?

Jaguar E type
Alfa Duetto Spider
Porsche 911
Corvette (1963-67)
Lotus Elan or/Europa

04-29-2004, 07:08 AM
20 years or younger-
1. ford gt40
2. ferrari california spyder 250
3. jag d-type
4. porsche 911
5. sunbeam tiger

hows that?

Bruce Bowker
04-29-2004, 09:55 AM
OK after staying awake half the night I would have to call a 911 Porsche a sports car and also many others that I thought not to be. What I will not call a sports car though is a 4 door BMW or the like and any 2 door coupe with more or less full back seats that the manufacturers are calling sports cars as a marketing device. images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif

Again it was interesting seeing people's thoughts.

04-29-2004, 10:57 AM
I look at the pictures on the bottom of your posts, and I see Two E Types, one a drophead, a definite sportscar, and the other a 2+2 hardtop which I will admit I would also call a sportscar, even if it doesn't quite fit the definition I have always thought I beleived. And I surpose if it is true for Jaguars, it would also be for any thing else.

I would still draw the line at 2 doors though.

Gives us old fellers brain strain thinkin about it. graemlins/cheers.gif


04-29-2004, 11:13 AM
What are people's thoughts on the RX-8? Definitly sporty but its got some extra mini doors. Not quite a sedan but not quite a pure sports car either.


04-29-2004, 11:51 AM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 78Z:
What are people's thoughts on the RX-8? ....<hr></blockquote>

I see it as a small, fast sedan.....*really* fast, in fact. I followed one around Lime Rock last month....for about 10 seconds....at which point he shifted into second gear and ran away from all of us in the street car class. He would have beat most of the racers in the other class too.

As for sports cars:

Anyone 50 or older name 5 sports cars

1) Bugatti 35B
2) MGA
3) Lotus Seven
4) Austin Healey Bugeye / Frogeye Sprite
5) Ford Model "A" or "T" Speedster ( https://www.nwvs.org/CarPhotos/003B/003B.shtml )

[ 04-29-2004: Message edited by: aeronca65t ]</p>

04-29-2004, 11:51 AM
Mazda RX8? sports car?

The issue now with categorizing cars is that there a whole bunch of new cars always coming out, some creating a new segment on their own. There are numerous examples of this, it's almost confusing to even follow all of the new cars now... graemlins/crazyeyes.gif Not like the old days when I suggest that overall categorizing was far easier.

As for the RX8... in comparison to the old RX7 (either series 1, 2 or 3) it isn't a sports car, yet Mazda supposedly claims the ancestry of the RX7 as part of the inspiration of the RX8.

And related to that, I think people now are more and more wanting an all-in-one car. So a car like the RX8 becomes to some degree a little ambiguous.

Sports car? I'm inclined to say no...

04-29-2004, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 78Z:
What are people's thoughts on the RX-8? &lt;&lt;SNIP&gt;&gt;

Hmmm? Well I agree that it is sporty, but I’d consider it more of a GT personally.

I’m not a big fan of the RX-8 but there is always the chance that it will grow on me. Anyway I feel that the Mazda Miata more so than the RX-8 would more snugly fit into my “perception” of what a sports car is.

So lets see if we can surmise what we’ve all said thus far?

What is or isn’t a Sports Car.
Soft-top/convertible and/or removable hard top (with some exceptions)
No roll up windows (with some exceptions)
Two seats (with some exceptions)
Two doors (with some exceptions - but NO 4 doors definitely!)
Front engine with Rear wheel drive (with some exceptions)
Staggering performance – Twistys & straight line (with some exceptions)

What have we all learned? Don’t know, but one thing for sure Spoilers & Sport Wings don’t belong on Minivans. Also Mustangs shouldn’t be called Sports Cars or use the acronym GTs (with some exceptions).


04-29-2004, 02:30 PM
I would not consider the RX-8 a sports car. A GT yes a sports car no. I think sports cars are meant to be convertibles, and they don't have to just be roadsters. I also have a question for everyone. Adam mentioned Jaguar D-Tpye as a sports car. Would it really be a sports car being a pure breed racer. Surely all its derivates the XKSS and the E-Tpye are sports cars but would it also be one?

Cheers, graemlins/thirsty.gif graemlins/driving.gif

04-29-2004, 02:53 PM
It's hard to narrow it down but here are a few different cars I would like to own.

Anyone 20 years old or under name 5 sports cars
1)Lotus Elise
2)Datsun Roadster
3)Datsun 240z
4)Toyota Supra 93+
5)Nissan 240sx

There is rear wheel drive and wrong wheel drive, I think you can tell which one I like.

04-30-2004, 03:23 AM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jon12:
There is rear wheel drive and wrong wheel drive<hr></blockquote>

^i like that. and i wouldnt really consider the rx8 a sports car. id put it under a fast and sporty family sedan. why else would it have backseats and back doors. now maybe if they droped the top and the back seats it could be a sports car.

04-30-2004, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by adam90009:

^i like that. and i wouldnt really consider the rx8 a sports car. id put it under a fast and sporty family sedan. why else would it have backseats and back doors. now maybe if they droped the top and the back seats it could be a sports car.<hr></blockquote>

images/icons/confused.gif a sports car needs to be a convertible? have you driven one yet, or sat in it? it's definitely not a sedan. they purposely engineered it so you could call it a 4-seat sports car. you sit in it and you see exactly what they mean.

in any event, if you wanted you could call it a 2+2 i guess. it's no more a sedan than a Porsche 911.

on a side note, my friend took delivery this monday of a new Nissan 350Z, the Enthusiast edition. i can safely say that that is indeed a sports car.

04-30-2004, 04:27 PM
My wife used to own a Dodge Shadow 2dr hatch. This thing was a turdly economy car by anyone's definition - except our insurance. They classified it as a sports car! So she paid more on insurance than I did on my Z28! images/icons/shocked.gif