Jun 21, 2008 -
What Makes a Supercar?
As recently as the 80's, that was an easy question to answer. It was any vehicle that had superior performance and could dance circles around anything else on the road. But in a world of 270hp family sedans and road-ready rally cars, that's become much harder to answer.
So what happened?
I think the pivotal point was the introduction of some of a greatest "sub-super" cars the world has ever known. In the 80s, you could go as far as a 230hp Corvette before a price gap separated the peons from the elitist Ferraris and Lamborghinis. But in 1990, Honda released a car with supercar performance for half the price: the NSX. Suddenly there was a supercar within reach of a middle class consumer (besides the 911, but I'll delve into that later). But a barely sub-$100K car was difficult to sell in the early 90s. Then four more affordable sports cars came out: the Dodge Viper, the Nissan 300ZX, the Toyota Supra, and the Mazda RX-7. These cars undercut the NSX and even the Corvette. While none of these cars were sales successes for long, they sparked a rebirth on automotive expression.
So what's wrong?
These cars developed a bridge that had been previously nonexistant. The closest thing you could get was a Porsche 911. But I'd separate the regular 911 (which was affordable) and the turbo (which was/is not). Before, the line between sports car and supercar was very distinct and even broad. But in this world of high output economy cars and 13.x quarter mile trucks, that line is quite skewed.
So what makes a supercar now?
The honest answer: I don't know. If you want to base it on pure statistics, you could include the likes of Lotus or the BMW M5, depending on which stats suit your preferences. If you base it on price, you invite a great deal of controversy to your argument. Should a supercar be exclusive? Does it need to be? Does performance even matter? What about heritage?
Top Gear addressed these issues, albeit not conclusively. Jeremy Clarkson feels a supercar should be almost uncontrollable and completely unconventional. Richard Hammond feels a supercar should excite you and cater completely to your childish wants. James May feels a supercar should have heritage and a dominating persona.
I agree with all of them, but then again I don't. By combining those attributes, there really aren't any contenders. While I disagree that a supercar must be a member of some aristocracy of performance, I do feel a supercar needs a certain amount of pedigree. A supercar should excite you, but it need not be childish in nature. It should feel purposeful. And a supercar should be purpose built, but not to the point of making driving difficult for its own sake.
What do I think a supercar is?
I think a supercar is any vehicle that is purpose built for a specific task and does it better than anything else.
While I don't think a Lotus Exige is a supercar, an Ariel Atom is.
While I don't think an M5 is a supercar, a Bugatti Veyron is.
While I don't think a 911 Turbo is a supercar, a Nissan GT-R is.
While I don't think an Audi R8 is a supercar, a Ferrari 430 is.
I think the very term supercar has morphed in the past 20 years without our even knowing it.
