Move Over !!!

[Focus]

Does a rear hatch disqualify a car from being a sedan? A four door vehicle that only seats two is a gutted sedan, but still a sedan.
Wow the LTD seats 6 while the Odyssey seats 2. Which one is a van? One is race prep, the other RWD...
My focus is a sedan, but Joe's is neither sedan nor RWD. What is it, and rabbits and such?

[jimkana]

Front Wheel Drive = GROCERY GETTER

Vans are classified as "Vans" no matter how many seats you take out. Respect the Van.

[hondamaint]

Front Wheel Drive = GROCERY GETTER

Vans are classified as "Vans" no matter how many seats you take out. Respect the Van.

YEAH, what he said . I think?????

I like groceries.

[Focus]

So a Mustang, be it convertible, hatch-back, or coupe, is a GT 2+2.
When Matt ran faster than you, you lost to a very impressive sedan, but when I ran faster than you, you lost to a GROCERY GETTER! I think I'm getting the hang these definitions, Eric. Thanks for clearing that up.

[jimkana]

I have lost to every kind of car there is, so there is no distinction there.



"So a Mustang, be it convertible, hatch-back, or coupe, is a GT 2+2."

Mustang is not small or light weight so, no, not a GT or a 2+2. Although the weight thing is a difficult question because all cars have gotten so heavy in the last 15 years, that what was once heavy, is now average or light. Given that Ferrari has a 4200 pound car and my 1968 Impala sedan was only 3600 pounds, we have come a long way in the wrong direction.

It is more correct to call the Mustang a Pony car, which is a Sedan based coupe with a powerful motor. (excluding 4 cylinder Mustangs, of course.)

[Focus]

I can agree with the pony car definition (despite the terrible 4 and 6 cylinders up until to 99), as the originals were based on the Falcon, and newer ones on the Fairmont. 05 and up are an original Mustang-only platform, but are still too heavy for GT. Even though they run GT in Grand Am. This is confusing.

[TouringBubble]

I said that a GT is a Sports Car with a roof. I did that to save myself some typing, but I can see that that only confused you.

I'm not confused ... it's just fun messing with you.

GTs are NOT Sports Cars, but they are usually connected via shared design. Historically, a GT was a variant of a Sports Car or vice versa, but what is critical to know is that they are NOT the same by definition. The dividing line is the fixed roof.

I can agree ... somewhat. Point taken.

GT - 911 Turbo (some are AWD)
Correction - AWD includes the rear wheels, no? Still a GT

This is the beginning of a LONG discussion ... you're quoting definitions and then expanding upon them ... see below for full explanation ...

GT - Exige (what if you remove the roof?)
Correction - Exige has a fixed roof that is not removeable. ELISE has the targa roof that can be removed. Even with the Targa off, there is roof structure (not including the windshield header). Hence it is still a GT.

If you attended the LOG event last year, you would know what I'm taking about. There were several Exiges there with no roofs. The Exige's roof bolts on ... somewhat like the K5 series Blazer (or a hard-top Miata I guess). Take out a few bolts and spend a little time, you've got an open-roofed Exige. It's not clean or "finished" around the sills and such as the Elise, but still.

GT - GTR (seats 4, AWD)
Correction - AWD - see 911 turbo. 4 seats - that makes is a GT 2+2, a less common usage, but it is a class of GTs.

Okay, this is where it gets dirty and you lose credit man. So, by definition, a GT car must be RWD, seat 2, be light weight and have a fixed roof. The ONLY one of these the GTR meets is the fixed roof (weight is debatable as you've said). But, you've said that adding drive wheels is okay ... now adding seats is okay?

Why can't we add doors too is the car is close enough? The RX8, for instance. Meets ALL specs of GT other than the 2 doors (which you didn't even list, but reference), so would, IMO, be more of a GT car than the GTR. they're not even "real" full-sized doors.

So, I would argue that if we can add seats and drive wheels to include cars "close enough", we can forget doors too ... which would make the Evo a GT car by your expanded definition. This is based on the idea that a "Sports/GT Coupe" and a "Sports/GT Sedan" can both be a "Sports/GT Car."

[jimkana]

I'm not confused ... it's just fun messing with you.

Likewise. Its good that we are having a friendly, yet spirited discussion.
Lets be clear, I am CLARIFYING the definitions. I am not making them up. This is the tradition that has been passed down for a thousand generations and I am trying to pass it on to you.

I was not aware that the Exige's roof was a bolt-on design, but your statement that it is not clean where the roof is removed, just makes the case that it is not really intended to be removed. Yes, you can do it, but that does not mean it is not a fixed roof. A Miata's bumper can be removed with a few bolts, but that does not mean it was intended to be operated that way. For Clarification, a Miata's roof is held on by four latches, not bolted on. It requires no tools to remove. All of the latches are basically the same as the ones used on its convertible top. There are two "bolts" at the rear which secure the top, but the roof is not technically "bolted" at that point.

Okay, this is where it gets dirty and you lose credit man. So, by definition, a GT car must be RWD, seat 2, be light weight and have a fixed roof. The ONLY one of these the GTR meets is the fixed roof (weight is debatable as you've said). But, you've said that adding drive wheels is okay ... now adding seats is okay?

Again, let me clarify. "GT" is not technically the same at "GT 2+2", just as "Sports Car" is not the same as "GT". It is a Grand Tourer, in the same way that a "GT" is, with the addition of 2 seats. I say it is a class of GTs because they are both intended for the Grand Touring function. I did not make this up, remember, these terms were used in the 50s and 60s before I was born. I am relating them to you.

You can't add doors, as it would obviously be a sedan.


*****

So, I would argue that if we can add seats and drive wheels to include cars "close enough", we can forget doors too ... which would make the Evo a GT car by your expanded definition. This is based on the idea that a "Sports/GT Coupe" and a "Sports/GT Sedan" can both be a "Sports/GT Car."

You are a 20th century "liberal" right? You are trying to twist a very simple definition until it screams and say that one thing is another which is obviously not true. The next thing you will try to do is to tell me that a dump truck is a sports car because of some wierd way you can make the definition bend over backwards on its self. "Oh yes, they have two doors and two seats and rear wheel drive and compared to the Shuttle launch pad, its a gossamer thing, so it must be a Sports Car".

You are confusing the issue because you are thinking that it is a bad thing if you can't call your sedan a Sports car. There is no moral equivalency here because there is no moral high ground. There is only a configurational difference that reflects the functional appropriateness for a given task. It is very clear that the smaller a car is, the better it can be at racing. Hence the 1969 Datsun 2000 roadster just completely owned the Miatas down in Georgia, because it was so small, light and powerful.

Defining Sports Cars as differentiated from GTs or GT 2+2s or sedans, gives us a way of describing them which makes clear to the listener exactly what kind of car we are describing. When you try to confuse the distinction, you unravel the precise description you are able to convey with a word. That is the process of deconstruction a word, sowing confusion, so that anarchy may result. Good heavans, man! Stop before the Universe unravels!

[TouringBubble]

I could care less if my sedan is considered a sports car honestly. It has 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance near supercar levels and cornering capabilities comparable to high end sports cars (note the lower case generalization) for 1/4 the cost. It doesn't need a title to be bad ass.

Those cars are in a class of their own ... overpowered, techno-marvel commuter sedans for the masses. The idea behind them is so far off from the pure Sports Car idea that it would be ridiculous to associate the two.

Again, I'm just messing with you about this. I know you're pulling from racing definitions defined years ago. But I am put off by the "tweaking" of the definition to fit in new technologies/layouts that are "close enough." The 2+2 thing would make perfect sense if the definition wasn't originally "2-seater" as you've quoted. 2+2 is not a 2 seater, just like AWD is not RWD.

My argument is simply that once you start making allowances, there is no longer a definite line that says "no." That's all I was implying with the GTR and Evo examples. But, I was 100% honest about the RX8 ... it's much closer to the original definition (or the 2+2 you mention) than the GTR.

[Jedi1]

I want my trophy back! I don't care if we drive GT's, Sedans, Coupes, Sports Cars or Mini Vans. It shall be mine!

[rodhx]

Now I know why the old forum imploded

Eric is just too far behind the times.

Maxima = sports car (just ask Nissan's PR guys)
Mercedes CLS, VW CC, etc = coupes (again, ask the PR guys)


I'm just wondering if we will get a devotion tomorrow or will Eric take the opportunity to go through the paddock and classify each vehicle so we will all be clear on this

[DAB21]

Okay David, Paul, and Chris. You XP guys gotta move over now and make room for Agent Orange. She'll be there with gas in the tank and a new air cleaner; so watchit buster(s)!

[slowautoxr]

Hey no getting this thread back on topic. Critical mass was almost achieved.

[Focus]

I'm pretty sure the Maxima was advertised as a "sports sedan" and the new ones have "the soul of a sports car."

I completely understand the need for definitions by layout. A girl once told me she was borrowing a sports car from her friend for the weekend. I asked what kind, and she said a nissan, not new but not too old. It was six speed. I assumed a 300ZX, which I've always liked, and was impressed. I later found out it was a Sentra SE-R, which is the equivalent of what I drive every day, but stock. Fail.

[TouringBubble]

But the 300ZX isn't a Sports Car ... most were fixed roof and some 2+2 ... we'll have to ask Eric if it's weight or handling might disqualify it as well.

=)