No, I think there’s less arbitrariness than that. Certainly, any 100 car nutz are going to categorize a list of 100 cars with some differences, but the essential point here is that there are at least a dozen basic categories… and “not being a limousine” does not equate to “must be a sports car.”
It’s more like wine. Maybe your judgment stops with “red or white” - but that doesn’t make a French riesling a Napa chardonnay. More to the point, all white wines with a little snap to them are not chardonnays.
And back to the OP, a lot of the most powerful and quickest muscle-era cars had autos… because automatics can handle a lot more horsepower than all but the very beefiest manuals, and because even in the day, autos turned in quicker ETs. (Most needed a little tweaking to tighten up the shifts and bring the stall speed up into the power band, but they were still 60s slushboxes.) (A very, very skilled driver could often wring an extra tenth from a manual, but with less skill and far more consistency, autos did a better job.)
No, it’s not, then again I’m a hardcore three-pedal-purist
Other transmissions which are not manuals;
Torque converter (with or without lockup) automatics (duh…obviously)
DSG and other multi clutch “automated manuals”
Any form of flappy-paddle gearbox
CVT’s
Basically’ it needs a foot operated clutch pedal to be a true manual.
And don’t get me started on supercars manufacturers like Ferrari and Lamborghini putting flappy paddle/DSG and other automatic crap in their cars.
If the transmission is capable of shifting autonomously, it cannot be considered a manual
And yes, IMO, to be considered a sports car, it MUST have a manual transmission, no exceptions
I’d learn a paddle shifter, if the opportunity arose. I’ve always had fun with a right hand stick with left side drive & I’ve had fun with left hand stick with right hand drive.
Still, those old push-in-the button center console plastic T-shaped slap-stick transmissions for me will always be the sign of a truly crap car.
If a fine Italian manufacturer makes a truly superb car, but drops one of these T-shaped “P-R-N-D-2-1” plastic center console shifters between the front seats… I’m not sure what it is.
How do you say “Stupid American…! Is the bank still open? Wow do We have a deposit!” in Italian?
Nope. The original definition was pretty narrow: lightweight, two seat convertible. Hardtops weren’t considered acceptable for sports cars until after WW2 when they became common in motorsports, though club racing stuck with convertibles much longer. The two seater requirement is pretty much still adhered to, leading to endless debates on whether the Porsche 911 or BMW M3 is a sports car (they aren’t, except for those variants with the rear seats removed, often to accommodate a roll cage). A 2-door coupe with 4 seats and sporting pretensions is a sports coupe, be it Camaro, M3, or Fiat 500 Abarth.
Optimum performance is the reason manuals were always considered de rigueur, for a sports car but transmissions have come a long way since then, and as seen above it’s tough to argue for a manual when motorsport doesn’t insist on them. Yeah, some people still think a sports car has to have an automatic; some people like blood sausage. People are morons.
“A sports car (sportscar) is a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling. Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite”
So my Celica is a sports car. It has tiny back seats, but two seats are not a requirement. It has more spirited performance and nimbler handling than the majority of other cars that would qualify with this definition. It is also a convertible which I consider a requirement despite the waffling of the ‘experts’ on that subject. I don’t really count my Mustang though most people would, it’s 5liter V8 makes it more of a muscle car by my own definition, and despite it’s spirited performance it’s not nimble. It’s also not a manual, not a necessity really, but it’s not the kind of performance transmission I would generally consider needed in a sports car.
Still, this kind of definition is limited to certain people’s opinion, and those that have none of their own and can only say ‘me too’ to the opinions of others. Most people consider a relatively compact 2 door performance car to be a sports car. That makes more sense than the non-specific criteria you and the wiki seem to be using.
Nope. It needs fenders. Just ask the FIA or the SCCA.
And that Celica is no sports car because Celicas back then handled like Corollas and the soft top made it heavier and less stiff. It’s a snort of derisiongirl car.
Your statement demonstrates that you know nothing about Celicas. The soft top does make it heavier because of the integral roll cage, and it is also heavier because of the massive steel plates welded to the frame to increase it’s stiffness. This is a minor difference. It handles far better than Corollas and many other of the cars you might consider a sports car. The convertibles are coveted as rally cars because of the excellent handling provided by the low center of gravity.
I guess they got better. In the 70s-80s the ones I tried were dogs, just flashier Corollas, and the Celica rally cars I’m finding are all hardtops. Which is unsurprising because the first step to making a race car is not “weld massive steel plates underneath.”
“Sports car” is nearly an obsolete term. A Celica, Mustang, or Camaro is a “sedan,” unless it has a removeable top. Then it’s a “convertable,” not a “roadster.” There is no need to apologize for owning a sedan. That’s why we came up with terms like “muscle car” and “ponycar” for fun cars that start reliably. Hell, even my Roadmonster wagon (LT1 small block) goes and handles(!) well enough for the burbs, but no one would mistake it for a Triumph Spitfire. Which it, like most cars on the road today, could eat in a straight line. Maybe not in a turn, but I’d scare the Spit’s driver trying.
Most Celicas were not perfomance models. Mine is fuel injected, has performance bearings in the engines and on the wheels. There is some electronic ignition control, though not what would be considered electronic ignition now, it still has points, just a better spark. The only disadvantage is the low end gearing, they don’t have fantastic jackrabbit starts, but they do have a very high top end. On a good road I’ve exceeded 110 mph with a smooth as silk ride. That was no where near the 5750 redline on the engine, and the speedometer goes up to 140mph for a reason.
In the engines the bearing surfaces are machined to higher tolerances (or just selected for that). For the wheels they’re just higher quality thrust bearings.
I don’t know if those things are true, they may just be marketing claims, but the insurance company believes it and charges me extra for having performance cars, not much, but it makes the cars seem cooler.
Even assuming you are correct, I don’t care. It’s a cool car. It was produced in limited quantity, and on regular basis people ask if I’d be willing to sell it, and the answer is always no. I hope you get some satisfaction out of your assumptions
::: Sigh:::
Do you really want to argue automotive specifications and nomenclature with me?
After 40+ years in the automotive business which includes a stint managing a foreign car parts house and working on a professional racing team I feel fairly confident I know more about the subject than you do.
I’m glad you like your car and I hope you enjoy the hell out of it, but don’t tell people that it has"performance" engine bearings (it doesn’t) or that the wheels have thrust bearings (they don’t). You will only make yourself look not very bright to a real car guy.
Back to the OP what is a sports car?
A car designed to transport two people and a small amount of luggage (think a picnic basket) over windy roads at a high rate of speed.
Classic sports cars include:
MG-TC
TR-3, 4, 5, 6, 7/8
MGB
Triumph Spitfire
Spridgets
Mercedes 190SL, 300SL, 230-280SL
Corvette
Etc
Modern sports cars?
Mazda MX-5, RX-7/8
Mercedes SL, SLK, SLS
Current version Corvettes.
