Supercars or...?!
 

http://www.carsfromitaly.com/others/...rraco_1024.jpg
http://www.lambocars.com/events/houten26.jpg

http://www.maxspeed.it/manifestazion...ni.Jalpa.1.jpg
http://www.maxspeed.it/manifestazion...ni.Jalpa.3.jpg

http://www.1motormart.com/gallery/75ferr01.jpg
http://www.czechferrari.cz/obrhist/308dino.jpg
http://www.focfloridaregion.com/images/car2_6fx.jpg

http://carcatalog2.free.fr/ph122a.jpg
http://www.autosportdesigns.com/bodyshop/images/031.JPG
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.h...rari400i97.jpg

http://jimweb.free.fr/frontleft.jpg
http://www.host.fr/porsche/944-turbo-cabriolet/k2.jpg
http://www.ou.nl/open/pmc/images/pri...porsche-sm.jpg
supercars or cars?

the other ones are definetly supercars, I think the porsches are semi-supercars....

\

i agree with this statement.

supercars...
You've made me kinda sad...ain't seen the 928 for a long time :(

i think that this ferrari are fiat not ferrari 10.000/20.000€ for buy it.
urraco and jalpa isn't good car for me after miura before countach......

Hes, the 308 GT4 is one of the sexiest Ferraris ever! :D I don't care if you can get one for 20'000 :D not really the same thing as a Stilo ;)

http://www.ohioconcours.com/2000/00-023.jpg
vs
http://www.gtcar.com/images/stilo.jpg
:shock:

I confirm you, I'd take the GT4 anyday :)

if i've 20.000€ i don't buy one of this car

i dont consider them supercars, yes they r vert very fast and special cars but not like others, like enzo, f50, f40,cgt etc...

Come on man. you can't classify a 944 as a super car! :?

Same for a Mondial...being a Ferrari doesn't make it a supercar IMO...

I would say that a true supercar has to be a member of the 200 mph club...that used to be the critera for the so called "hypercar" club.

That would of course at least exclude the F355 and 360 and countach etc....and as I understand it the stock F40 quoted at between 196 - 201 (maybe it needs a tail wind to reach the magic 200 mph...LOL)

Like everything though there is always an exception to every rule and the F40 being this one.

A Testarossa is a supercar, so is a Countach...a hopped up Supra might manage 200 mph, I still don't consider it a supercar...

The GT4 is certainly a good Ferrari even if not really appreciated and started his life as a Dino ... I like it too :mrgreen:
The 944 is not a supercar and none of the cars above but then the 360 is not a supercar .

Some how the Testarossa's 0-60 mph time of 5.8 secs doesnt exactly shout supercar performance to me....(think how many cars are quicker than that now)

I am sure thats why this was greatly improved with the 512TR and M

I think we are talking about manufacturers "supercars" here and I dont think the supra was really intended for 200 mph.

http://www.carsfromitaly.com/others/...rraco_1024.jpg

Mmmmm, Urraco :D

These are such beauties. And you can even drive them hard at less than crazy speeds so you get to to enjoy the sound and feel too. Try that in a Gallardo, fun begins @200! :D

Everyone's definition of 'supercar' is different, so I won't say mine is the right one. I do think that whether it can do 200 mph is the right criterium. IMO the Testarossa, Countach, Jalpa/Urraco/Silhouette and 308 (calling it a mere sportscar just sounds too little for that car) are supercars.

Whatever way you're looking at the term supercar, the Ferraris (except for the 410/412) and Lamborghinis pictured above are superb cars IMHO. You can't really measure their superbness by comparing them to new cars. I think you have to place them in the perspective of their time. The 308 still is an amazing car, even if you can pick one up for 30k euros and it won't outrun a Mitsubishi Evo on a twisty road. But it's around 25 years old! The 308 was every bit as fantastic in its day as the 360 Modena is now.

What shall we call supercar performance then ?

There are lots of cars that can make 60 mph in less than 5 seconds these days and 100 mph in around 11 seconds.

There are not many that can make 100 mph in less then 8 seconds however...a few I can think of being the F40/F50/Enzo, Zonda, mclaren CGT and koneisigg (I would presume)...XJ220 ?

I wouldn't know. 30 years ago 170 mph would suffice as supercar performance, whereas today we might be thinking 200 mph. In the future that figure will go up. So it's not a criterium that lasts.

I thought about it some more and I think a supercar is not only defined by top speed and acceleration, but also by handling, outlandish looks and restricted usability. In short, it has to be something very powerful and special.

Supercar performance is not a term we can't do without when discussing cars though.

I have heard the F355 being called a supercar before (by clarkson for one) and for me it just doesn't seem right...as that doesn't leave any room for say an F40/F50/Enzo and thats why I think he came up with the name "ultra or hyper car" but that sounds a bit silly to me....like something out of star-trek or something.

I understand where you're coming from, but in my book the F355 is a supercar too. Why couldn't they fit into one category? It's not like we can't tell which one is faster if we call both the F355 and F50 a supercar. The cars speak for themselves. It's all a matter of how broad or narrow you want these categories to be.

I absolutely agree on the subject of hypercars or ultracars. Besides, if making up new names for categories is the answer, you're in exactly the same position in 10 years, in need of making something up that can top hyper or ultra cars.

well 1st of all i guess a supercar has to be intended as a supercar, ruling out the porsches u showed(944 being a "poor-man's porsche" and 928 being a grand tourer). The lambo urraco and cars like that is more difficult. What if we call Hypercars cars that are meant as a statement, a showcase for the brand's capabilities, in the top-10 of cars being produced at that time. But then the question remains, where do supercars start and sports cars end? 300kph? sub-6 0-60mph time?

The 0-100 mph time can separate quite a few cars out to define supercar modern age performance. It also removes driver skill that would be a factor in times achieved around the ring.

if you remember to wind up the turbos first ;)

I want all of them. That is all.

do u guys think, that if a car goes 0-60 in less than 7 sec. is fast?

I think they lose their super car status when "cheap" modern performance cars are able to outrun them. I bet most of those cars would lose to an S2000 or any mid-range sports car... they're just too old and out-dated. They are however classics, and are still worthwhile IMO.

good post 8)

I would also add that they could be called a supercar from the eighties or from whatever era the particular car was from.

I don't think the term supercar is only depending on the speed it reaches. The overall exotic appeal, the uniqueness, all these factors have an equal important role IMO...

And that's why a Testarossa is a supercar IMO. It might not be able to run with todays supercars, but looking at it's age, and all other factors, it makes a it a supercar for me.

And a fairly long list of other cars as well.

Oh sure, but in 1984 it was the creme-de-la-creme of automotive engineering.

I consider it a supercar when it was at the top of the automotive foodchain at its time. The Testarossa was, the F355 for example isn't, even though it's heaps better than the Testarossa.

Is the 550/575M a supercar then ? (not a trick question just interested in your opinion)

I agree about the 355 not being a supercar and thats what I had previously posted although stradale said he saw it as one.