motor

mendocino · 08-10-2003, 11:07 AM

edit:

well actully mx5 and s2000 are roadster... not cabrios, because they don't exist in coupe... I think.

1zippo1 · 08-10-2003, 01:14 PM

I'm glad that I started this conversation, I would like to know the real correct to this question. It even seems that I'm not as stupid as I though

and that I'm not the only one who doesn't really understood this fully.

TT · 08-10-2003, 01:22 PM

It's the classic thing everbody think to know.. then you think about it 2 seconds and you realize you're not that sure

Anyway it would have been easier if the "seats" rule was the only one

mendocino · 08-10-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by TT

Anyway it would have been easier if the "seats" rule was the only one

yes indeed??? but does anybody knows a roadster with 4 seats? I think I don't!

Jabba · 08-10-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by mendocino

Well I think it's still working with some explanations:

the only two examples that are wrong I think are pagani and lambo... but put it this way:

those are super cars, so obviously sporty, and I don't think we can call the diablo and the c12 'coupe' so their 'topless' version can't be seen as derivative of 'coupe' . if the top disapear, they moved from supercar to roadster... or perhaps superoadster...

you can call them whatever you want...my old diablo was listed as a coupe on the registration and sales documents...so thats good enough for me....btw the F50 has both a solid top and removable roof section and its not called an F50 Roadster...IMO its a manufacturers decision....Ferrari have their "TS" model which stands for "Transversale Spider" you could call this a Roadster as well....as its exactly the same design as my Diablo VT Roadster....also Ferrari have TB (Transversale Berlinetta) or Hardtop and of course the spider soft top.....for these models also....I cant see how "pagani and lambo" are wrong...they made the cars... they can call them whatever they want....plus I dont think they would make that sort of mistake some how....

mendocino · 08-10-2003, 02:41 PM

LOL I didn't mean that pagani and lambo were wrong... I woudn't be that pretentious

I ment that with my umble definition, two examples are exeptions: pagani and lambo. but I think it works with non super cars.

draak666 · 08-11-2003, 07:00 AM

Here's an update on the definition of a roadster. Autobild.de just did a comparative test involving the Z4, Alfa spider and boxter. German is only my fourth language, but from what I understand a pure roadster must have the engine in the front and rear wheel drive, and a long front hood and a short rear. :idea:

http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen...742145ba97ba2#

TT · 08-11-2003, 07:11 AM

Nice find draak!

mendocino · 08-11-2003, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by draak666

a pure roadster must have the engine in the front and rear wheel drive, and a long front hood and a short rear. :idea:

http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen...742145ba97ba2#

don't work with mambo and pagani neither... well I give up finding a good definition and I'll trust constructors claims.