Yeah, not to pick on G35Gnome, but he's having unusual problems getting off the line. My AT with just the Borla exhaust (and only stock Eagle RS-As) has pulled off a 2.155 60', and it was only lightly brake-torqued. This is a very good AT, up there in the top 2 that I've tried (the MR2 Spyder's new one might be better, but it's rather different).

Not that a couple tenths of a second either way should make any difference as to what transmission you choose. The MT is for fun. Period. All this "true sports car" talk is pointless. If you like MT, you ought to like it in any car you happen to be stuck with (so long as it shifts smoothly). My 5-speed MX-5 doesn't have a chance in hell against my AT G35 at a stoplight. Do I sit there thinking I may as well have bought an AT if I'm not going to be faster? No, I drive the hell out of that little car. Any actual performance advantage is just a bonus. Nobody who truly enjoys a manual transmission would switch to an AT just because it (by some fluke of gearing) was faster than the MT by a few tenths of a second, so what the hell is the point of incessantly pointing out the opposite?

-Jack
Obsidian '03 G35 Sports Coupe
Titanium '03 MX-5 Shinsen #532

 

Excellent post JDMAN. I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Nobody who truly enjoys a manual transmission would switch to an AT just because it (by some fluke of gearing) was faster than the MT by a few tenths of a second, so what the hell is the point of incessantly pointing out the opposite?"

 

So JDMAN, your 5at 0-60 time actually beat boosted 6mt time!?!!

 

"Excellent post JDMAN. I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Nobody who truly enjoys a manual transmission would switch to an AT just because it (by some fluke of gearing) was faster than the MT by a few tenths of a second, so what the hell is the point of incessantly pointing out the opposite?""

I never thought of it that way, good point.

 

For the approximately $.03 it's worth (recently adjusted for inflation), here are my definitions:

1) "True" sports cars are strictly 2 seater, high performance cars like: Corvette, Boxster, NSX, SLK, Miata, all 2 seat Ferraris, MR2, S2000, RX7, Viper, Lamborghini, etc. Also qualifying are cars with unusable "vestigial" back seats like Porsche 911 series, Jaguar XK8, current Mercedes SLs, etc.

2) Sports/GT cars: all 4 passenger Ferraris, Maseratis, G35 coupe, RX8, BMW 8 series (even though its back seat is in the near-vestigial category), Mitsubishi 3000...not too many others. This is a pretty underpopulated class.

3) Sports sedans/coupes: sometimes very high performance cars that are also available in nearly identical sheet metal as (relatively) plain vanilla passenger cars: Camaro/Firebird, BMW M3, Subaru WRX, Eclipse, Buick Grand National, Taurus SHO, Mercedes SMG, Audi S4, etc. The G35 sedan could fit in here too, even though it's only available in one basic form.

4) Luxury sports coupes: Usually heavy, soft, expensive 2 seaters, more fashion statements than sports cars, like the Lexus SC series, many older Mercedes SLs (think 80's era), the original and the latest Thunderbirds, Cadillac Allante...another underpopulated category, mercifully this time.

Some other cars sort of fall "between the cracks", like the Buick Reatta, the Prowler, or the old VW Karmann-Ghia (2 seaters, but not particularly luxurious or sporty). These are also more like fashion statements than anything else.

So...there you have it, according to me : )

 

Thank you, great analysis.

 

Oh no... another war?

5AT- premiumpackage /performance package/ K&N

 

1) "True" sports cars are strictly 2 seater, high performance cars like: Corvette, Boxster, NSX, SLK, Miata, all 2 seat Ferraris, MR2, S2000, RX7, Viper, Lamborghini, etc. Also qualifying are cars with unusable "vestigial" back seats like Porsche 911 series, Jaguar XK8, current Mercedes SLs, etc.

I think defining based on physical parameters (like "must be 2 seater") OVER performance parameters is quite FLAWED. I can't even imagine calling the Miata a "sports car" while at the same time NOT calling a G35 a "sports car". Ucky. And I don't understand how you can call the Merc. SLs/SLKs sports cars when they are laden with Luxo features which seems to DENY the G35 of it's "sports car" name in most of these posts above - oh, it's a "luxury" sports coupe, yada yada yada. There's ALOT of gray area in your definitions.

Personally, I think a Sports Car is anything that is more high performance than not. It's this reason that the 330Ci is not a sports car, but the M3 is...they are essentially the same physical parameters, but quite different performance wise.

 

Like I said, it was my $.03 worth. My perspective comes from the original sports car definition though, beginning with cars like the MG TC in the early 50s. These were fun, sporty cars to drive, but were not particularly fast. They nonetheless were the first OEM vehicles to be specifically referred to as "sports cars". They were, as a rule, lightweight, tossable, 2 seat cars with stick shift manual gearboxes. The were also all roadsters. In the earliest definitions, any 2 seat sports car with a fixed hardtop (like an E-type Jaguar or a Corvette Stingray coupe), was usually referred to as a "GT" (Grand Touring) car rather than a "true" sports car.

When passenger car-based sporty cars like the Mustang and Camaro came along, the automotive press called them "Pony" cars, and later "muscle cars", but never sports cars, no matter how juiced up they were.

As time has passed, the definition of "sports car" has certainly broadened (particularly when applied in car advertising), but for me anyway, a "true" sports car still must have only two seats, or at least only two usable seats. It can have a fixed hardtop like a Porsche 911 or a Ferrari, but it can't have a real back seat like a G35C. So by adapted traditional definitions, the G35C is more of a modern "GT" car, than a "true" sports car. The 350Z would be though.

As to the Mercedes models you mentioned, in my opinion, MB has only recently begun making what could be fairly called true sports cars, and new SLs and SLKs qualify IMHO. Many older MB 2 seaters don't because they are all luxury/show and no go, similar to the Lexus SCs. Until the recent past, only MB 2 seaters from the late 50s (like the legendary gullwing 300SL) would qualify. In fact it was a spectacularly fatal crash of a racing 300SL that scared MB off of building true sports cars for many decades.

As to any fast car being a sports car, that's fine if you want to define it that way, but I think the term better fits cars that are more purpose-built from the ground up as performance-over-all-else cars (along with the other attributes I mentioned before). Otherwise the term pretty much loses its purpose for existing as a definition. It's a fine distinction though, ultimately, and I suppose not a really terribly consequential one. I was just expressing my own personal take on it.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by BMW3toG35C on 12/06/03 02:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

Is it over? Can I open my eye's now?
Everyone has valid points. Enjoy life. THE END!

www.corevoltage.com

Stillen Box | Fallsgate Amp | Projection Fogs