There once was the Fiat X1/9 – every example I knew of had the timing belt break. Since it had an interference engine, this was seriously bad news.
The original Fiero had a pronounced proclivity for engine fires. Many’s the time while driving down the freeway that I caught an acrid whiff of burning plastic to see, moments later, a Fiero, it’s faithful yet forlorn owner gazing helplessly at the bubbling, warping engine cover.
I was going to object and recount my Dad’s love for his Fiat 124 Sport and Lancia Beta Coupe but then I saw above your post;
After two Spitfires and an MGB the Italian cars must have felt super to drive 
Although a special nomination must go to Dad’s MGB, a car whose heavy steering and rock hard suspension Mum claimed contributed to her miscarriage. Lucky me that Dad had bought the Beta before my conception :eek:
The worst of it is that MG had a beautiful little prototype running around, a car that still looks good today, and BL killed the program so they could build the TR7. :smack:
Honda CRX? A sports car? Does not compute.
Yeah, it’s a sporty car, fun to drive, but I’d hardly consider it a sports car. Thought for a minute you’d gotten NSX and CRX confused.
Yay!
Dependability issues.
You are heartily welcomed to the club. 
Frankly, I think bagging on the new Mustang as a ‘bad’ sports simply because it’s a Ford, or because it’s ‘driven by dipsticks’ is an idiotic argument.
Is the Ford GT a ‘sports car’? It’s a Ford too. How about the SVT Focus?
The fact is, the Mustang is a fine sports car. It handles extremely well, it’s got 300HP and a decent 5-speed transmission. It’s got good road feel, a good clutch, and it’s apparently a hoot to drive. It’s also very inexpensive. I’m not sure what else it has to be to qualify as a ‘good sports car’. This is just mindless Ford-bashing.
My votes for the two worst ‘sports cars’ are the DeLorean and the TR-7. Not only were they underpowered, they weren’t even all that great in the handling department and they were very unreliable. Both were hard to work on, and the DeLorean’s stainless steel body was a bitch to repair.
Other sports cars were certainly overrated as sports cars. Many of the old ‘supercars’ actually were no great shakes, and got by on dramatic looks and cachet appeal. As true sports cars… meh.
And of course, many of the domestic ‘sports cars’ of the 1970’s and 1980’s were anything but. The fastest Firebird in 1977 had a 400 cubic inch engine that made a whole 200 HP, and redlined at 4500 RPM. It was a dog. The cars had creaky, flexy frames, lousy brakes, crappy power assisted steering with no feel, and they were overweight and too big. The Z-28 Camaro from that era had, I believe 195HP. Today your average family car has more than that, with less weight and a better suspension.
And while the 240Z was a great sports car, the Z cars got worse and worse, until you got to cars like the 280ZX, which was a slow, soft, overweight car that was anything but sporty. Later Z cars got better again, but for a while there they were pretty bad.
Hell, yes.
If I can’t have one of those, I’ll take an Ariel Atom.
Of course there is a difference between a ‘sports car’ and a ‘GT’.
CRX: 2 seater car, designed for the specific purpose of being fun to drive, successful in competition… sports car.
Sam, the Mustang in its current form is a very good muscle car. The problem is that it’s very heavy (3600 lbs) and very softly set up. It understeers - a lot. I found the steering feel to be at odds with what you said about it. I thought it felt completely artificial - all the resistance to turning seemed to be provided by steering-system friction and flex.
Road and Track doesn’t seem to agree with you.
Neither does Car and Driver
I have not driven a new Stang so I am not in a position to comment myself, but I do find it interesting that all the buff books I read seem to disagree with you. ::: shrug:::
Hmm. I may have been driving one that was a bit soft in the sidewalls, either from bad option-picking (if a dealer is willing to put me in a manual-transmission car for a test drive despite my forthright explanation that I have no intention of buying the car, I’m thankful for whatever I get) or from low tire pressures.
2 seater with rear bench, because it’s a converted hatchback, so… hot hatch. Let’s agree to disagree on this one, eh?
The Ariel Atom… my goodness, those look like a hoot and a half, don’t they? But they’re reallly just trackday cars which happen to be road legal. I bet they’re tons of fun, and I suppose you could drive one to work… but would you?
I love the looks of the new Mustang, but I have no idea how it drives. Guess I should go and find out, but they’re quite rare here.
Hey, the cars we exported were the good ones! Just be glad we didn’t inflict the MG Montego or the Morris Marina fastback on you.
Porsche 924. Rear seats (more or less), and a hatch. ‘Hot hatch’, or ‘sports car’? Or GT? Yes, yes, I know that the 924 was originally supposed to be a VW, then an Audi. I know Porschephiles hate it. But, having once had one, I can say it was a pretty good little car. Faster and better handling than my MGBs. In spite of the hatch and the rear seats, I’d still call it a ‘sports car’.
Oh, and the MGB had an occasional bench seat in back.
Porsche 911? Definitely not a ‘hot hatch’. But ‘sports car’, or ‘GT’? It has rear seats. I’d call it a ‘sports car’, though by some definitions it could be called a GT. (Man, was I an idiot to sell mine! :mad: Someday, I’ll have another.)
I think ‘hot hatch’ is a very new term. I hadn’t heard it before coming here, and then looking it up. Seems to be some sort of hybrid. Not a ‘sports car’, but not your basic coupé either.
“Hot hatch”, meaning the sportier version of a mass production hatchback, has been in use since at least the early eighties. The VW Golf GTI introduced in 1975 was the original hot hatch.
Check my location field, dude. Both those eyesores once graced the Dutch roads. Luckily, most have rotted by now. 
Johnny: all right, I’ll specifiy the term “hot hatch”. The CRX is based on the regular Civic. The floor pan is the same, the engines are derived from the normal ones, it was produced alongside the mundane verions. That makes the CRX a hot hatch, a sporty version of a normal car. Albeit a very good one.
The Porsche 924, let’s forgive it its early Audi engines, was a Porsche. A weird one, sure. But it had RWD, two doors, good handling, and a manual gearbox. There was no 1.4 liter 60 BHP 5-door version. It’s a proper sports car.
And the Peugeot 205 GTI was the BEST hot hatch. Evah.
1.9 no cat, if you please. 130 BHP @ 850 kilos, and more oversteer than most RWD cars. MAN, tons of fun. In a dangerous way.
VW Polo G60 was also in that league. As is the RenaultSport Clio 182 Trophy.