I think having only two seats is a highly desirable, although perhaps not essential, requirement. For instance, the Mitsubishi Evo and the Subaru Impreza WRX are acclaimed by everyone as great-handling, quick, and hot cars. I’ve driven both, and they are great fun on the track.
But they look like boxy sedans, not like sports cars.
I won’t be dogmatic about the two-door thing. I’ll bet we can come up with a few worthy exceptions.
But my attitdue toward the Evo and WRX suggests that in addition to two doors a sports car has to have a certain “sports car look.” I has to visually suggest that it is meant for fun first and functionality second.
This is why I would say that the 1960s Mustangs were sports cars, but the mid-1980s Mustangs were not. The early Mustangs couldn’t handle very well, and didn’t have much power, but they were fun cars and had spirit. That 1986 Mustang in the link had more power and better suspension, but no soul.
I don’t mean to say that a sports car has to look wild and exotic, like a Bugatti Veyron (the most powerful and expensive production car in the world). But it can’t look like plain vanilla transportation. The Miata is a simple but elegant design that just says “fun and sporty.”
So my criteria are:
- Good (not necessarily great) handling
- Good (not necessarily great) power
- Two seats
- Manual transmission
- Sporty looks (whatever that means)
None of these is absolutely essential if there’s enough in the other categories to make up for the missing quality. Nor can there be quantitative criteria, IMHO. I agree with Renee that a sports car has to be quick, but I wouldn’t go so far as to put a number on it, and certainly not as big a number as 130 mph. My first track car, a Miata, could barely get to 105 at the end of the front straight at Summit Point, but it was a lot of fun.
So like art, it’s hard to pin down, like love, it takes a lot of different things all working well together, and like porn, you know it when you see it.
