# The 50 Best Sports Cars of All Time **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 21, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915 "2005-01-21T14:36:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mike1dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@mike1dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mike1dog)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/41 "2005-01-23T14:40:06Z")
It’s obvious to me that this list is Brit-centric. I mean all those lotuses. They are obviously sports cars, but they are absolute junkpiles. I think Colin Chapman sold the cars for what they cost him and made all his money by selling spare parts to fix them when they (frequently) broke down. However, I don’t understand why the Lotus Elise didn’t make the list. It’s far superior to any of the other Lotuses (Loti?) on the list. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/42 "2005-01-23T16:23:17Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > **Chaparrelv8** said: > And yet you put the Z-28 on the list? The GT-350 was designed for SCCA racing, and the suspension gear was totally different from stock Mustangs. Differences included a larger front stabilizer bar, special Pitman & Idler arms, lowered upper “A” frames, Koni shocks and traction bars. Ford even located the battery in the trunk to improve weight distribution. > > The Z-28’s were certainly excellent SCCA competitors, but the GT-350 raced with essentially the same running gear as the street version, whereas the Z-28’s were extensively modified. I loved both cars, mind you, but I don’t understand how you can claim the Z-28 is a true sports car and the GT-350 is just a straight-line muscle car - especially since the Shelby wasn’t even all that fast in a straight line. It had 302 HP, and ran 15 second 1/4 mile times. The Z-28 was more powerful, with 365HP small blocks and 425 HP big block engines. I put the Z28 on there not for the '60s model - it’s on there for the '90s model. Imagine being in the market for a $20k or so in early 1993. You could get a 165 hp Ford Probe, a 210 hp Mitsubishi Eclipse, a 215 hp Ford Mustang GT, a 160 hp Honda del Sol, or, suddenly, a 275 hp Camaro Z28. I think this was the first popular-priced car on 17-inch wheels as well; that car has won as many races on handling as on straightaway speed. That car signaled that the musclecar really wasn’t fading away anytime soon - it was back, better than ever, and it handled this time. The late-60s Z28 meant a Camaro with some good bits (anti-roll bars the size of scaffolding, joints that didn’t have an eighth of a mile in free play, tighter spring and damper setup) in the suspension as well as a rather unique 283-crank-in-a-327-block high-winding 302. Camaros were offered with other engines but the Z28 got only this one in the early years. There are two problems when you talk in 2004 about the handling of 1960s musclecars: 1. Tire technology has gotten a lot better very steadily. If we were now going to compare the handling of two cars from then, we’d better make sure that neither car had any better tires than the ones they come on. Even a pair of 1980 tires on the rear end will take a half second off the quarter mile and add .1 g to the skid-pad figure. 2. When Detroit started chopping up compacts to design musclecars, they wanted to keep them cheap. This meant that none of them got independent suspension, and nobody but the Oldsmobiles got a rear anti-roll bar until 1968. In addition, very few racing teams had enough testing capabilities and manufacturer connections to allow them to get involved with new vehicle development. The Javelin won the Trans-Am the last few years of the musclecar era because AMC actively sought help in suspension development from Mark Donohue and Penske. GM and Ford never did; as a consequence, the early Trans-Ams were won by motor, tire, and driver. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/43 "2005-01-23T16:27:12Z")
> [@coop](#): > > Why no classic [Australian cars?](http://www.fouronthefloor.com.au/garage/gtho.html)😕 Dude, i’m a big fan of the old HO, but i really can’t bring myself to call it a sports car. As a street car, it was really designed mainly straight-line speed, and with a standing quarter of (IIRC) 14.1 or so, it wasn’t even especially fast by today’s standards. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/44 "2005-01-23T16:30:08Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > An Elise is a very special car, though. One of my favorites. But I don’t agree with your characterization of supercars. Most of them ARE fast. Check any magazine road-test from 1980 on. You’ll see a lot of supercars putting up very similar speed numbers as Corvettes, turbo 944s, and RX7s. The F40, XJ220, and F1 were pretty much the first supercars that could actually put some separation between them and a non-turbo 911. It’s your decision as to whether a non-turbo 911 is a supercar or not. I can point out that in the year of my birth (1985) the fastest car sold in the United States was the Corvette, at 151 MPH. That was an aberration caused by a lack of Lamborghinis and 911 Turbos that year, but it illustrates my point that there’s never been too much difference in performance between a hot midrange sportscar and a lower-eschelon supercar. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/45 "2005-01-23T16:35:41Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > Good post, **chaparralv8** , though I don’t agree with some of your choices on the DROP list. I have no fond memories of many of these cars that might endear me to them. In any list of 50 cars, you’re going to get a lot of room for argument - I just counted up the cars that were glaringly obvious omissions from the list and found for each a car that I didn’t think deserved to be there. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/46 "2005-01-23T16:41:40Z")
> [@mike1dog](#): > > It’s obvious to me that this list is Brit-centric. I mean all those lotuses. They are obviously sports cars, but they are absolute junkpiles. I think Colin Chapman sold the cars for what they cost him and made all his money by selling spare parts to fix them when they (frequently) broke down. However, I don’t understand why the Lotus Elise didn’t make the list. It’s far superior to any of the other Lotuses (Loti?) on the list. Hmm. Have you ever driven an Elan, Seven, or Europa? The difference between one and, say, an MGB or Miata, is night and day. You can’t really argue with Chapman’s business model. It’s the same one Ford uses! Besides, everything on a Lotus that breaks\* is from an Escort or a 2CV or something and as a consequence costs about fifty cents. You just have to take advantage of the considerable Lotus knowledge base… \*Aside from pistons from a 907 Twin Cam engine. Those are unique and really, really expensive when they go, which is often. If you’ve got a decent machine shop around you, get them to machine new ones from TRW forged blanks and do it with tight tolerances and great care. It’ll cost $80 per piston which is 10% of what Lotus charges for some really poor slugs. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/47 "2005-01-23T18:34:16Z")
> [@](#): > > The late-60s Z28 meant a Camaro with some good bits (anti-roll bars the size of scaffolding, joints that didn’t have an eighth of a mile in free play, tighter spring and damper setup) in the suspension as well as a rather unique 283-crank-in-a-327-block high-winding 302. Camaros were offered with other engines but the Z28 got only this one in the early years. True. I thought the ZL-1 Camaro was a Z-28, and it had a 425HP big block in it. > [@](#): > > There are two problems when you talk in 2004 about the handling of 1960s musclecars: > > 1. Tire technology has gotten a lot better very steadily. If we were now going to compare the handling of two cars from then, we’d better make sure that neither car had any better tires than the ones they come on. Even a pair of 1980 tires on the rear end will take a half second off the quarter mile and add .1 g to the skid-pad figure. But this is true for any car from the 60’s, and there are plenty on the list. I couldn’t find the skidpad numbers for the 240-Z, but my recollection is that they were pretty darned low. > [@](#): > > 1. When Detroit started chopping up compacts to design musclecars, they wanted to keep them cheap. This meant that none of them got independent suspension, and nobody but the Oldsmobiles got a rear anti-roll bar until 1968. In addition, very few racing teams had enough testing capabilities and manufacturer connections to allow them to get involved with new vehicle development. The Javelin won the Trans-Am the last few years of the musclecar era because AMC actively sought help in suspension development from Mark Donohue and Penske. GM and Ford never did; as a consequence, the early Trans-Ams were won by motor, tire, and driver. The Trans-Am cars were an exception to the generally horrible suspensions of the early muscle cars. The Z-28 and GT-350 were fine handling vehicles by the standards of the day, and both had significant suspension modifications over the stock vehicles. But you’re right about the ‘typical’ muscle car. I had a 1967 Camaro with a 327 set up to put out over 400 HP. It was wild in a straight line, but cornering sucked. It had a typical suspension from the day - a solid axle with leaf springs. Under any sort of power, those leaf springs would wind up and create lots and lots of wheel hop. They did the same thing when cornering on rougher roads. But the Z-28’s and GT-250’s were in a better class. No great shakes by today’s standards, perhaps, but not bad for the 1960’s. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/48 "2005-01-23T20:51:07Z")
Clarification on that Lambo my friend rented, it was an 83 - [http://www.diabloig.com/Photos/Countach\_pics/index.htm](http://www.diabloig.com/Photos/Countach_pics/index.htm) There’s no doubt the list is biased, Top Gear rates the Dodge Neon as a crappy handling american car, while the folks over here in SCCA were P.O.'d cause the neon could be bought from the factory with upgraded suspension parts that made it incredibly competitive in class. ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/49 "2005-01-23T22:23:43Z")
> [@kniz](#): > > In regards to the Miata. I have owned an RX-7, a Miata and now have an RX-8. I enjoyed the Miata, but would take either the RX-7 and especially the RX-8 over it any day. I got a ticket on the first curvy road I drove the RX-8 on, because it was so much fun taking the curves at high speed. 😛 so you really like the RX-8? I didn’t care that much for the RX-7–but the RX-8 seemed nice. I have a Miata–my commuting car. I sat in an RX-8 recently–it looks and feels like a nice ride. Just gotta talk the wife into one now! Lots of curvy roads near me! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915/50 "2005-01-24T14:55:58Z")
> [@chaparralv8](#): > > Hmm. Have you ever driven an Elan, Seven, or Europa? The difference between one and, say, an MGB or Miata, is night and day. Heck, my Porsche _924_ outperformed my MGs; let alone my 911. Personally, I think the 924 was underrated. If it had been sold as a Volkswagen (as originally planned) or an Audi (which provided the engine), I think it would be considered a great car today. It was very well balanced, great handling, and good performance for its price. The cargo area was very useful, too. I think it suffered by comparison to the 911, much as the 914 did – and for some of the same reasons. As for the list being Anglocentric, nearly half of the cars on are British. I wonder why that is? I can think of a few reasons: British cars used to be very popular in this country. For a long time, the MGB was the largest-selling sports car ever. And the Brits gave us variety. There were MGs, Triumphs, Lotuses, Austin-Healeys, Morgans… Lots of choices. It seems that other countries didn’t put out so many different cars, and they certainly didn’t put out the sheer numbers that the Brits did. I mean, 513,000 MGBs alone! Personally, I’m surprised the Alfa Romeo Spider didn’t make the list. My best **fiend** , who has never owned a sportscar, likes the way the MGB looks better than the Spider; but I like its design. As you’ve probably guessed, I’m a big MGB fan. Still the Spider – especially the ones I saw in the late-1980s – just looked so _cool!_ I saw more of them in L.A. than I did MGs. An MGB looks ‘classic’. It is, to me, the quitessential sports car. But I liked the long bonnet of the Alfa, and the ‘boat tail’ treatment of the boot with the little spoiler on it. The MGB looks stodgy by comparison. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-50-best-sports-cars-of-all-time/285915.md?page=2)