According to Webster:

sports car: a low small usually 2 seat automobile designed for quick response, easy manueverability, and high-speed driving.

Even Webster lists "quick response" (i.e. fast acceleration) as the #1 attribute of a sports car.

 

wat's on mind man... if u really going to race. no passanger in the car but u. maybe u will race like wat u said .. but I won't. auto want to beat manual. u dreaming man.!! no way. manual got 180hp at the wheel. it almost the same hp as auto at engine. ... how can u beat it?

 

Well, you have that right. You really can't compare the two based on power output and displacement, because rotaries are more like two stroke engines with the way that their displacement is currently computed. Run a 1.3L rotary at 2000rpm and run a 2.6L piston engine with a camshaft of similar duration and lift and the two cars will pull in very similar amounts of air and fuel. The rotary of today is a more efficient and, IMO, a better engine in stock form than the old big displacement engines of fifty years ago, but your statement is somewhat misleading, at best.

I agree with most of this paragraph, except when you group the automatic RX8 in with the RSX and Celica. The RSX-S and Celica GT-S will run very close to a manual RX8 in a straight line and the Celica will even give the '8 a run for its money in the twisties. The RX8 should still beat both of these cars in either a straight line or around some curves given equal driver skills, but the manual RX8 doesn't perform so much better in a straight line than an RSX-S does or handle so much better than the Celica does that you can just write it off without a thought like it was a Civic Si.

Note: Before people jump all over me and say "There's no way a FWD Celica could even hope to come close to handling like an RX8", I would like to point out that Edmunds.com drove a Celica through their 600ft slalom course at 67.1mph. When they threw an RX8 through what I assume is the same course, it only managed 64.6mph, although most slalom tests result in a 67-70mph average speed. Regardless of what the exact numbers are, this clearly shows that the Celica is capable of hanging with an RX8 through the curves, especially if disparities in driver skill are considered. Factor in the Celica's few tenths of a second disadvantage in the 1/4 mile, and you have a car that, performance wise, is very close to the RX8. If performance was truly the only measurement of what makes a sports car a sports car, you'd have a hard time justifying including the 6MT RX8 but not the 6MT Celica GT-S in that category.

 

Look. Everyone has there own view of "A" car. And if purchases a car due to what you have read in a magazine or online then you should get a Rustang I heard they are fast:D...
I do have a question and I dont know if this has heen asked befor but oh well;
Is it possible to put a M/T in a AT/T?

 

PoorCollegeKid - I certainly agree with you that the Celica GT-S is a fabulous handling car. But I disagree that it can keep up with a manual RX-8 in a straight line. The Celica's 1/4 mile times (mid-15s) are at best a full second slower than the manual RX-8. A full second at 100 mph = 146 feet, or over 10 carlengths. That is not a close race.

To Gord - after thinking about it, I think the problem is either a) you are stuck in the old mindset of what a sports car is or b) it is just a question of semantics.

In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there were muscle cars, pony cars, and sports cars. Different categories for the different types of cars. If there were not different categories, then a Barracuda would be in the same category as a Lotus Super 7 (i.e. all "sports cars"). Clearly a Barracuda and a Super 7 are in different categories. Just as you can't say the Barracuda and the 7 are in the same category, you can't say that a Ferrari 360 and a Toyota Celica are in the same category (i.e. all "sports cars"). Then the term sports car would have no meaning since it can refer to two totally disparate cars. But, there are no longer pony cars and muscle cars to group together, so we must use different terms from 50 years ago. If it makes you feel any better, we can call them all "sports cars" and have sub-categories of sports cars:

Supercars/Exotics - cars that offer superior performance at a cost that most of us will never be able to afford (Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Aston Martins, 911 Turbo, Bentley Continental, Saleen S7, Porsche Carrera, etc).

High-Performance - (what I previously called "sports cars") cars that provide the power, handling, and braking required of a true sports car and at a semi-affordable price (STi, Evo, VW R32, GTO, Mustang, 350Z, Elise, S2000, Boxster, etc.)

The Rest, Sporty Cars, Sport Two-Doors (whatever you want to call it) - cars that look the part, but lack one of the fundamentals (power, handling, braking) required out of a car in the High-Performance category (Celica, RSX, Focus, Eclipse, Tiburon, Civic Si, etc.)

For the most part, all "sports cars" can be grouped in these categories. There are some that are in no-man's land i.e. the Corvette - does it belong at the very top of the High-Performance category, or at the bottom of the Supercar category? Chrysler Crossfire, probably a bit too slow to be in the high performance category, but it outclasses just about everything else in the Sporty category. Based on these categories, I still think the manual RX-8 is near the bottom of the high-performance category and that the auto RX-8 is in the middle of the pack of the sporty category.

 

I assummed that the origin of this thread was having a bit of fun and to indicate that there are areas were the automatic might be better than the manual.

This has clearly got to be true with slow stop start traffic. Pressing the clutch repeatedly in this type of traffic is not pleasant.

Here in the U.K. we do not have the automatic but a low powered 5speed manual. Taking into account gearing and the differences in torque, slightly more power is available at those important speeds between 35 - 52 in the manual 5speed. The manual 5 speed alhough slower 0-60 gives slightly better acceleration where the driver needs it, so I have no hesitation in saying the 5Speed manual transmission is the only version to have(High power 6MT quoted as 7.5 seconds 0-60 and Low power 5MT quoted as 8 seconds in the U.K. Not a second off these figures for dropping the clutch at high revs). The five speed is very similar to the FD tranny and does not have the crudely added 6th gear or that strange double cone syncromesh so it is by far the best tranny.

Obviously I am talking with my tongue in my cheek knowing full well my argument does not hold water.The crucial points about both U.K cars is the fine handling and accelleration once moving. Accelleration times for 20-60 in second and 50-80 in third are awesome and enough to be compared to more exotic cars.

Check out the lap time for the RX8 in a popular uk TV show. (Yes that is a ferrari below the RX8)

Top Gear PowerLaps

 

At best, the 1/4 mile times in stock Celica GT-Ss (as reported over on newcelica.org) are in the high 14s @ low to mid 90s mph. Most drivers are in the low to mid 15s, however, just like most drivers are in the low 15s with the RX8 even though it can run mid 14s with a good driver. There is about a half second difference between the best times that I've seen reported for either of the two cars stock from reputable sources (Judge Ito over here and a couple of people with slips and witnesses over on the Celica boards when I used to browse through them a while ago), which is close enough at the times that the two cars are running to be considered a driver's race. Both cars suffer greatly if not launched at a high rpm, so an average driver in each car will run fairly close to each other. Put a great driver in each car, one that can really wring out the best time through the 1/4, and the RX8 will end up ahead of the Celica by a little bit. Look at it this way: a Celica GT-S is just about dead even with an RSX-S through the 1/4 mile, which is also just a hair slower than a manual RX8. Yes, it's slower, but it's still in the same ballpark, which was the point of my post.

I do like the way that you break categories down in the rest of this post, though. It makes a lot more sense than people who argue that sports cars should be judged on something subjective like appearance, or something rather pointless like size, number of doors, or number of seats. IMO a sports car is a car that performs quite well all-around, with a special emphasis on handling, braking, and feedback. Muscle cars were meant to go fast in a straight line while sports cars were meant to go fast around a track. The two categories are not mutually exclusive as many people seem to think, however, and there are many cars that can rightly claim to be part of both. Again, IMO a Porsche 914, a Mazda Miata, a Corvette, an Evo, and an Enzo are all sports cars even though they all go about it a little differently and have differing strengths and weaknesses (although I'd be hard pressed to find a weakness in the Enzo. My God is that car amazing :D ).

 

Bump!

 

Yes the Five Speed MT slots right in. I don't know if you have to change the PCM and don't know if the 6 speed will fit.