I was talking about the GTR overseas and yes they arn't that fast stock but I've seen some crazy fast us spec 323's with that motor swap. I'm not that familier with them personally but I've seen hi 12 second passes and although that car was far from stock, it deserves some credit for potential. There's also a 10 second one floating around aswell. I enjoy seeing a junker like that keep up with a stock viper. Neways I just figured I'd throw that one out there.

My original pick was also the 2nd gen mr2 but you beat me to it. That mr2, rx7, corrado and the eclipse were definatly the cars to have back when I was 16. The svx could have been a sweet car if it came in manual and turbo. Subaru would of had a real winner there. My dad had the stealth r/t and it wasn't slow but it didn't feel 13 second fast to me. It's a heavy *** tank and the tranny must have been developed in palestine. It blew up twice within 60k.


btw, I never compared the eclipse to the GTR Familia. one's a 2.0L and the other 1.6L-1.8L. Different classes. FYI, The eclipse was too busy playing catch up to the rx7 back then.

 

Think of the SVX more along the lines of the SC300 and SC400. Problem is it came out in an era where it was being pitted against the Supra, FD, 3000GT/Stealth R/T, and 300ZT. It just wasn't meant to be a car like those, but magazines and consumers didn't really have anything else to compare it to. It would have been nice if it was offered in a MT, but a turbo would have ruined what Subaru was trying to achieve with that car. What they achieved wasn't spectacular, but I sure loved seeing them on the roads, and still do.

I only mentioned the DSM because they made the 323 GTX look pretty unimpressive in the early 90s. They made a lot of cars look that way and are still to this day one of the best performance bargains ever.

 

Probably fits in the slow fun car category

 

Yeah, the svx was definatly at the wrong place at the wrong time. I think if they should of at least had a manual option for it. There was just wayy too much competition back then. For the record, I actually liked the way the windows looked.

I think you are confusing the gtx with the gtr. The gtx was pre 1990 with 135hp and the gtr was only available overseas with a 210 hp 1.8 between 1991-94. Now I'll be the first to admit that mazdas awd system back then sucked ***** and lost a lot of power to the wheels because of it. Thing is, it is a sweet swap for a base 323 fwd over here. I still give mazda props for making such a car back then. I mean it was a hatch back with 210 hp awd.

Both the rx and eclipse have gone soft these days. It really sucks that the older models were so much faster then now. I know mazdas reasoning for the 8 but the eclipse could still be a beast if mitsu wanted it to. Instead, it has morphed into a strickly girls car. DSM has everything for the evo now and they could easily give the eclipse some evo parts. I guess I'm still stuck in the 90's where sport cars were low, 2 door and fast as hell. Now, the fastest cars are econo box ones unless you want to spend 50+.

 

I hate the whole drifting craze. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an okay sport, but all I hear from people when they see I own a 240SX is "when are you gonna take me drifting?" It's NOT a drift car! But, it is a good all around performer that gets decent gas mileage (25/28) and has a large trunk.

The best aspect of the 240SX is the car’s handling. With springs, struts, and sway bars the car sticks to the road like glue. I cannot believe how well my 15 year old car handles, even compared to modern sports cars. The 240SX shared the same IRS with the 300ZX and Skyline. They could also be purchased with a limited-slip and AWS. Also, most "import" people make fun of the 240SX for having a large stroke motor shared with the Altima, Stanza, and Hardbody Pickup / Frontier. I think the motor is great. It may not have much after 5500 rpm, but it has a strong, flat torque curve and is reliable as a motor can get.

240SX = underrated as a true sports car

 

the stock engine in the 240sx is a very good engine, but it is in the end a 2.4L truck engine. A simple swap with a japanese silvia sr20det (same engine mounts) will completely reinvent that car. You can find some S13,S14, and S15 engines with trannys for low $2000.

 

I just didn't like the stock motor in the USDM cars, the car was too heavy and it had too little umph, but I sure liked the looks of the car at the time. Without a motor swap they're just blah, I guess I'm too much of a speed freak. Also, if I ever have to swap a engine into something it sure as hell isn't going to be an engine that should have been in the damn car in the first place.

 

I would like some more power, but you can't argue with the low end torque of the motor (which is something that no other Japanese sports car really has). Plus, the motor responses decent to bolt-ons and will take about 8 psi of boost without having to change the fuel system or any internals. I don't think the weight is that bad at 2850 lbs. Honestly, when I drive my friends 1993 300ZX it feels like a tank compared to my 240SX.

The 240SX is far from perfect, but it's fantastic for the money (new or used).


Oh, and a big for the SVX.

 

I Love Hundai !!!!

I Love Kia !!!!

I Love Neon !!!!

Yay !

 

anyone who says an rx8 is a sports car but a GTO is not. Has obviously never been in one.

And for the argument that FWD cars are not sport cars, if a Z06 were to be FWD, what would you call it?. Just a hypothetical question

 

This has all been covered. Got any nominees?

 

Any car you can go reasonably fast in and have fun, nice handling is a sports car.

 

heres a reasonable proposition.

we just stop defining "sports car" because i have the entire table laid out below. for our intents and purposes, this thread regards "performance cars" meaning any car that was made for higher performance. whether it be from the get go(ie rx7 or 911) or from regular chassis with changed drivetrains and suspensions(like the focus RS or lancer evolution)

performance cars(by stealth fox)

1. Sports cars-in the pure form a sports car is a car originally designed for the intent of sporting and SOLEY sporting and are low to the ground, relatively compact in size, light in weight, commonly convertables and have highly performance oriented suspensions AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL (and can include things like rear seats)

examples- mazda rx-7, porsche 911, toyota mr2, lotus elise, nissan 240sx, s2000, 350z, corvette, the older fiats and alfa romeros, miatas
not examples-impreza wrx, integra type R, skyline GTR, bmw m3

2. sport coupes- front wheel cars made to be sporty or high performance versions of regular cars

examples-integra type r, acura rsx, toyota celica, nissan sentra se-r, civic Si

3. grand touring cars-larger heavier, typically more luxury oriented cars(not necessary though) that have high performance aspects

examples-mazda rx8, aston martin db9, infiniti g35, ferrari maranello, bmw m3

4. performance sedans-performance versions of regular sedans

examples-bmw m5, evo, sti, audi s4

5. muscle cars-american made high torque fast as hell v8 cars that can't handle for **** and are heavy

examples-mustang, gto, trans am, camaro, etc



i think with that 5 section system you can classify every performance car properly.

 

hmm.. so anyways..




overrated and underrated..

 

The pure sports car IMO is the sort of vehicle that compromises comfort and all the convenience of a transport machine for performance in speed, handling and entertainment. It has no automatic transmission (counts out the RX7 and NSX), nor is it front wheel or all wheel driven. It has no back seats either. This counts out the RX7, 911, 240sx, alfas (not sure about corvettes) as they all accomodate back seats. It has no technical assistance such as power steering or even air conditioning. The Ariel Atom comes to mind, then you have the Ferraris, Lambos and so on.

Doesn't have to be FWD. This should also include the Skyline, GTO, M3, basically 2 door versions of their 4 door counterparts hence the term "coupe".


Agreed with most except the G35c and M3. Grand tourers need not be heavy, just not designed for autoX. Included should be the VR4/GTO, 300ZX, NSX, RX7 etc.


Agreed.


I think the GTO can handle, it is actually a sports coupe (basically a 2 door version of the Holden Commodore from Australia).

 

How about the Lotus Elan M100. A FWD from the early 1990's that didn't handle like one and did 0-60 under 6 sec. with a 4 cylinder. Not the best Lotus, but impressive for the time.

 

too many opinions to discuss but ill agree with you the holden vtx or whatever the hgih end one is a great handling car its just that compared to a real sports car like an rx7, its just a blowout, it weighs 1000 pounds more than the typical sports car and it got more r&d in that big *** engine than in suspension

 

The 8 is overated.

 

maybe on this forum but no where else in the world

 

Here's my take...

I've owned a 330ci and 2 E46 M3s before I got the 8. In stock form, the 8 handles better than the BMWs since it's lighter. Downside? it's really lack of torque (acceptable from a high rev NA rotary engine).

Is the 8 overrated? Not at all. At its price range it's an amazing sport car. It has the nicest interior (luxury side) and better balanced suspension compare with other sport cars at its price range imho.

My brother has an EVO 9 MR and my co-worker got an STi and I drive them regularly, both cars are faster then the 8 (no ****) but I still prefer my 8 due to the overall rating (handling, interior, styling - to each of his/her own,)

But seriously, I'd pay $10k more on the 8 if it had 50+ more hp or 300lbs lighter from the FACTORY.

 

spend 7k and you'll get a hell of a lot more than 50hp boosting

 

Yea I know. But the extra boost is not covered by the factory warranty. See if the 8 got 280-300hp (NA or FI) w/ the same weight at 3000lbs from Mazda, I really don't mind paying the extra $10k (if they had one).

 

in a couple of years nothing will be covered by the factory warranty(hence a lot of people waiting for their warranties to expire)

 

Nice posts guys. I only have one problem. I'm allowed to express this opinion though since I own one. The STI is not a sports car, it's a rally inspired modified version of an economy sedan. Yes it's very fast, so I suppose people will call it one, but there's no way I can look at that car and call it a sports car. Now the S2000, and RX8, those are sports cars, if for no other reason because they are originally formed cars built from ground up, not modified versions of economy cars. Not to mention they have the looks and refinement, and define a true sports car. That is all.

 

Think about the root words of sportscar for a bit. Now try to tell me the STI and Evo aren't the most sporting cars in their pricerange on the road today. The days of a sportscar having to look a certain way and have a certain amount of seats is long gone IMO. It was stupid to ever have a such a term based so strongly on looks and number of seats in the first place.