Talk:Supercar: Difference between revisions

Automobiles Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Since the vast majority of the links to this page are expecting Supercar (car classification), I propose moving that content here and moving the current content to Supercar (disambiguation). Thoughts? --SFoskett 21:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up all the links to the Supercar page that referred to the TV show and moved the auto article to the front. There is Supercar (disambiguation), which is the former Supercar, but I tried to sum it all up in a sentence, so I didn't link to it. Also went and moved the Talk page, not sure if I'm supposed to though, I haven't deleted a word or removed any meaning, so I think it's fine. -- Prometheus235 23:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This talk was originally on the car classification page Prometheus235 23:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those disgustingly rich people are quite picky, aren't they?

How much of this is actually true? It seems like much of it is opinion as there is no such thing as an actual set of rules for what a supercar is. Plus, much of the writing is very unencyclopediactic (a supercar must be so fast it is suicidal?). I'm putting a bunch of tags on it so hopefully someone who knows more about cars will fix it. maybe i can get my brother to help me. Bonus Onus 23:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This article badly needed a rewrite, which I have now done. I have attempted to keep the intent of the original writer while removing the POV quality of the writing. Please discuss and comment so we can remove those warnings at the top... --SFoskett 19:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

i must say that the original article was better. i'm reverting it. this is a subjective definition. the person who wrote the original article obviously knew what they were talking about. why change it?--Alhutch 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

here's the thing. the article that you guys put out had no teeth. there was really nothing to it. the other article was beautifully written. it had plenty of characteristics. it had style and grace. the new one was just no good.--Alhutch 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say the person who wrote the original article didn't really know what they were talking about. It was a strict interpretation of something that no one really agrees on. For example, who says that there can be only one supercar per company? (btw that is not what "super" means in latin, it means "above", which just refers to the high performance of these cars) I didnt read the rewrite yet but i suspect anything is better than the old version. -Bonus Onus 03:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i read the rewrite, and i dont particularly like it, but i still think its better. Hopefully we can build on it a bit and improve it, so i recommend going back to the rewrite. Bonus Onus 03:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ahutch - the original was POV, poorly written, and just plain wrong. I strongly object to the revert and request that you re-revert it and edit it if you feel it needs work. As it stands, it is just plain opinionated junk. --SFoskett 13:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

the question is, who really knows what the qualificiations for a supercar are? there's no textbook about it. how do we know the truth?--Alhutch 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's why I attempted to write an article calling out the general qualifications without being POV and opinionated like the current article. This is an encyclopedia, and the current text simply cannot stand. --SFoskett 19:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with User:Sfoskett- His rewrite was very good, IMHO. The article as first (largely) written, besides being POV and unencyclopaedic, is flat-out ugly and hard to read because it's poorly formatted. The previous article also seems to set up too many rigid definitions, some of which conflict. They need to be vague and open, but still give the reader an idea about what a supercar is. I'm reverting it because it's trash as it stands. Prometheus235 20:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there's a show on the history channel called automaniac. its hosted by bill goldberg. tomorrow's (wednesday the 15th) program is about supercars conveniently enough. its at 10:00 US Eastern time. i plan to watch. maybe this will give us some answers.--Alhutch 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- The first supercar was the Mercedes 300SL Gullwing, that one probably introduced the concept. 300SL was a crazy car, ten year old WWII fighter aircraft technology transplanted onto 4 wheels.

- I still think there one be only one supercar model manufactured per brand any given time.

- Currently there is big buzz and grinding of teeth about the latest BMW M5/M6 models. These 510bhp V10 cars are said to be beating Ferrari F430 and Porsche 911 bi-turbo badly, even though the BMW is almost twice as big and heavy and it cost less than half. Because the performance gap is cosing, it is pretty obvious that only the most outrageous cars can still be considered worthy of the supercar title. What is so super about your F430 when it gets passed by an almost bus-sized sedan? You truly need a Murcie or an Enzo or a Saleem or a CCR to get rid of the M5/M6.

- It is a shame that NSX gets even mentioned. There is some reason why Japan is the largest collector of vintage Ferraris (originality I mean).

In the USA, "pounds per horsepower" is much more common than "horsepower per ton". I have included both, and kW/kg just for good measure... --SFoskett 20:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Mclaren F1 XP is not a standard Mclaren F1 as it has no rev limiter and was thus able to reach its true top speed at 7800 RPM, with the rev limiter in place the maximum speed possible to obtain will be siginficantly lower as it will be held back when it reaches 7500 RPM. The Mclaren F1 has maximum BHP at 7400 RPM, i wonder if its 0-60 MPH times, 0-100 MPH and other times are also recorded with no rev limiter in place, i imagine one would want to shift gears a bit higher than 7500 RPM when trying to set records, any thoughts on this?

I'm pretty sure the acceleration times are done with no rev limiter, but I can't remember where I read it, so I can't confirm it. I will look out for the source. James086 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A super car in the antithesis of a hypercar. The disambiguation link is wrong. See: The Hypercar concept What is a hypercar?

Skome 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.hypercar.com, the term 'Hypercar' is a registered trademark. I think it's a neologism and it should simply be deleted from Wikipedia as non-notable. SteveBaker 04:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercar shouldnt be completely deleted, however I agree that it shouldnt be linked to supercar. On a side note, so shouldnt ultracar, IMHO. I personally have never heard the term ultracar, whát's next? Megacar? OmikronWeapon 11:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, look at the latest episode of Top Gear, the premier television program on all things related to these types of cars. If they are going to separate a supercar from a hypercar, so should Wikipedia. 68.103.207.65 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, Mercedes-Benz 300SL had cornering problems." This sentance just seems entirely out of place, as no comparison is made to any other car, no specific information is given, no reason is apparent as to why it realtes to the topic at hand at all! At the very least, it deserves to be expanded upon.

I agree - it's gone. We'd need more specific details as to what those problems were - and a reference too. SteveBaker 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many cars that fall into this category have a huge price tag. I'm sure that it's not neccessary for them to cost that much but they do so that only the "elite" can afford them. Like Ferrari selecting people to buy the Enzo and FXX, it's not neccessary but it keeps them exclusive. Anyway, what I'm trying to suggest is a section under "Other Criteria" that mentions something about price.James086 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the price is really an inherent part of a supercar. The Ariel Atom, which certainly rivals supercars on the tracks, only costs around $50,000. The extreme prices tend to just be a natural result of the development and manufacturing costs of such vehicles, not a deliberate decision by the companies--carbon fiber and 800 HP isn't cheap. The Bugatti Veyron, despite costing about $1.3 million to buy, actually costs Bugatti around $5 million to make--it's a loss leader, strictly a means of gaining recognition. As for invitation-only purchasing, it's simply advertising. If "just anyone" could buy an Enzo, it wouldn't be as desirable--it's like limited-edition art prints.--71.146.92.118 07:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think price is important. Track performance is a meaningless arbiter - in fact the only 'supercar' I have driven (Countach) was pretty horrible to drive on the track, I could have beaten it in a decent go-kart. Greglocock 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that 'Supercar' is a vague term - we have to strive to be encyclopeadic - so rather than arguing about whether we think price matters, we should be looking for definitions in car magazines, books, etc that we can reference as facts. Personally, I'd put the Ariel Atom into the supercar class because it's performance and zero-compromise styling put it there. But then there are certainly other supercars who are there mainly for price reasons. We need documented, referenceable definitions here. SteveBaker 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a rebuttal, can i point out that the Ariel Atom is not road worthy in most jurisdictions. It is just a track car. High speed performance is poor. It can't reach 300km/h in a reasonable amount of time, if ever. Same as most go-karts. And, most importantly, styling is outright ugly and non existant. Its just functional. 218.111.23.58 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Atom is street-legal in UK - and they say that if you purchase one in the USA they will do whatever is necessary to make it street-legal in any state you purchase it from. In some states it has to be sold as a kit-car. Besides, there are MANY truely undeniable supercars that are not street-legal in some countries - so we can't disqualify the Atom on those grounds without disqualifying a bunch of other cars. You say the styling is ugly - but that's in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think it's beautiful. I see style in functionality as well as in large areas of shiney paint. That is therefore a matter of opinion and you can't exclude it from the class just because YOU don't like it. I think the Bugatti is ugly as sin - but it's still a supercar. The 0-300kph time. Well, 300kph is 186.4 mph. I believe the Atom's top speed is 150mph - so yeah - it won't reach 300kph anytime soon. But who made up the list of performance criteria? The term 'supercar' is incredibly vague. The Atom will out accellerate a good number of undeniably 'super' cars - it's lap time on most tracks annihilates most supercars - and (to pick another arbitary metric) its 0-100-0 time is the best of any car on the planet. I'm not saying that we should necessarily call it a Supercar - but since there is no firm definition of the term, we can't say it isn't either. SteveBaker 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are undeniable supercars ? M5s, 911s ? What its 0-100-0 ? Have a look at Ultima GTR. Is the Ultima a supercar ? What about Radical Motorsport ? 218.111.20.185 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present "Exotic car" redirects to "Supercar", so we typically have both these external links named on a car manufacturer's page, though they link to the same description. But these cars are not the same! A Supercar, if that term means anything, is characterised by performance, style and price. An Exotic Car is characterised by rarity. (Some exotic cars have mediocre performance, are ugly and/or were not originally expensive.)

I agree. We need to break the redirect. The problem is that writing a good article about exotics is even harder than keeping this one under control. It's a very vague and subjective term. I took my 1963 Mini to a garage here in Texas to get a state safety inspection and the guy said "Sorry - we don't do exotics" - so if a 1963 Mini with a top speed of 70mph and an original price of 455 pounds (under $1000!) counts as 'exotic' then for sure 'Exotic' is not the same thing as 'Supercar'. SteveBaker 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OmikronWeapon agrees. exoticness itself has very little to do with performance.

OmikronWeapon 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, an exotic car is a car where the central appeal is cutting-edge styling. Rarity is important. High performance is incidental, but not central. The prototypic 'exotic' is the Lamborghini Diablo. It's too heavy and ponderous to have true 'supercar' performance, but people buy it because it looks wild.

A supercar has performance beyond its peers, rarity, price, and styling, in that order of importance. A McLaren F1 is the prototypic supercar. The appeal is that it's an astoundingly good drive; the styling is comparatively modest.

Lots of cars fall into both categories, though. The Ferrari F40, Jaguar XJ220, and the like. But I agree, the distinction is important.

Dave Indech 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RusRayden, the Dauer 962 is not a production car and you should not be bumping production cars off this article in order to include it. Dauer buys used Porsche race cars, strips them, and remanufactures them as road-legal. That isn't a production car. In addition, I'd like to see a source for around 50 produced; I'm under the impression that well under 20 were converted. The Porsche GT1 and the Maserati MC12 were actually manufactured for road use, so you cannot group them together with the Dauer. You cannot group the Ferrari FXX with any of the above cars, either; it is strictly a track car and cannot be used on the road. TomTheHand 13:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But don't dellete Dauer from supercar list because it's a supercar (production or not) and this is article about supercars.Rayden 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going have to talk as I am not taking any **** for this as usual, lets clarify this, on the Performance criteria section, a supercar usually refers to particular models of factory-built, street-legal sports cars.

Therefore the Dauer is a racecar turned into road car and to me a supercar is all this engineering stuff this and that put in regardless to competition regulations, for example McLaren F1, Bugatti Veyron, Ferrari Enzo as none of these were ever built for racing in mind

As for the Dauers, converting them is now less likely as the historic scene have made them desirable again and plenty of people want to use them for this type of usage. As to call the Dauer a supercar, its just like Ferrari getting out an old 250TR turn it into a road car and pass them off as a supercar (even for a 1950s racecar before the term was penned), if that is the case, the Ford GT40 will also have to be removed from the list as they were all were never originally intended for road use except MkIII and what about the Jaguar XKSS, thats an converted D-Type

So what I am going to do is create a subsection on the list for race homlogation cars that are seen as supercars, so in that case I support deleting the mention that the Dauer is a supercar. Willirennen 01:15, 17 December 2006 (utc)

The Maserati MC12 is a road car (manufactured for road use) that was designed for homologation. It is sold as a road legal car, but (from what I've picked up) the Dauer 962 is a race car that has been modified from a race car (but not sold by the manufacturer that way). If my assumptions are correct then I don't think it should be counted as a supercar. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat less than enthusiastic about this table with countries of origin. There are many entries that I'd argue. For example, what makes the McLaren F1 English and the McLaren SLR German? McLaren builds the SLRs in England. Both use German engines. The Bugatti Veyron is French. What exactly is our criteria for "country of origin"? TomTheHand 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it presents some problems, the GT40 is an example: UK or US. I think that for the most part it is a matter of were the car was designed. A lot of Chevys are made in Mexico but I wouldn't call them Mexican cars. It certainly is a matter to discuss. Daniel J. Leivick 02:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "where it's designed" is a particularly difficult one because there could certainly be a joint design team and a lot of wiki-arguing over who really did the designing. "Where it's assembled" would be very easy but I think it's much less useful. TomTheHand 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't think the country of origin column would be that controversial although I must admit I had to scratch my head a little for the very example mentioned here. In the end I settled on the marques' country. I think in the worst cases (like Bugatti), two lines could be shown with details in brackets e.g. France (marque), England (manufacture)... or whatever the case may be. What do you guys think? Deon Steyn 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like having the country of origin with the flags. It is interesting to see where many super cars originate from and provides a nice asthetic. It would be great if we could keep it, but I also understand the problems it presents. I would like to stand by my initial suggestion of design origin. Most super cars are designed with small teams working in one place, of course many components may be designed else where but their selection and integration usually occurs in the same place. Some examples may not fit this mold but then the double line solution seems to work well.Daniel J. Leivick 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super or not ? KIV ?

218.208.251.96 18:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are this group of homologated race cars Supercars or not?

Car	Country
Dauer 962 LeMans	Germany
Lister Storm	United Kingdom
Maserati MC12	Italy
Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR	Germany
Porsche 911 GT1	Germany

(quote fom Dauer discussing) So what I am going to do is create a subsection on the list for race homlogation cars that are seen as supercars, so in that case I support deleting the mention that the Dauer is a supercar. Willirennen 01:15, 17 December 2006 (utc)
Rayden 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the other editor meant for this list to be added to List of supercars instead of this page, to keep this page as short and lean as possible (as far as the lists go)? Deon Steyn 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While these cars are indeed production cars, there status as a super car remains questionable. The edit war that is going on right now is not productive. We need to discuss whether these cars deserve inclusion. My opinion is that a second page should be created titled Supersport cars or some such. I already am planning on making a super sedan/saloon page. Daniel J. Leivick 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about the SSC Aero?--RA64 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti's father was born in Italy, but married a French wife, had French children, lived in France, spoke French, established his company in France. Nowadays Bugatti's Headquarters are still in France, the factory too. It has been bought by Volkswagen? Nissan is still Japanese and Dacia still Romanian after having beeing bought by Renault, aren't they? Isn't Seat a Spanish marque, even belonging to Volkswagen? Yes it is! Lamborghini is property of VW, so is Bentley, but they still are respectively Italian and English. It is thus clear that Bugatti is a French maker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.157.252.6 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bugatti's company failed fifty years ago. In 1987, an Italian bought the name and founded an entirely new company called Bugatti Automobili SpA. That company failed, and Volkswagen bought the name, founding another entirely new company called Bugatti Automobiles SAS. Lamborghini and Nissan didn't completely die as companies for a couple of decades before having their names bought up; they've been active car manufacturers and had their entire manufacturing business purchased.

I would rather remove all of the countries of origin, honestly; I said above that I was afraid this kind of junk would happen. TomTheHand 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the law, a company's country of origin depends on where it is registered and where are the headquarters. Bugatti is registered in France, and the head quarters are in France, simple isn't it?

I didn't realize I was dealing with a lawyer! Sorry! Bugatti Automobili SpA was founded in Italy by Italians, so according to your criteria it is an Italian car. Quit changing it. And yes, Bugatti Automobiles SAS was founded in France by Germans to produce German-engineered automobiles. I... don't quite understand how that makes it French. VAG produces cars in Mexico and sells them under Volkswagen; that doesn't make them Mexican cars. I support removing the stupid "country of origin" column, because it results in silliness like the Veyron being a French car. Maybe we can replace it with something like year of introduction, or horsepower, or something else that's actually useful. TomTheHand 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get mad man, just breathe! Bugatti is a maker which was founded in France, registered in France, and the Veyron is made in France, that's it. May you want it or not, Bugatti, the company, is known as a French company, that's all I can tell you. Quit changing it yourself! Though I agree about removing the "country of origin" because it brings no interesting piece of information.

There is the only place I can find one. But it may also disappear some day. --Mato Rei 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you guys agree, I suggest that the list merge with this page, just like the Muscle car page. --Mato Rei 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose idea was it to put the pictures of BMW Z8 and Ford GT as examples of supercars, when looking at the cars that are similar to them rather than cars that genuinely are, they are more like large sized sports cars as they belonged to the disputed supercar section of that page that no longer exist. Thats why I supported the deletion of that lists when that term gets abused a lot even by the motoring press as that I have already taken these two pictures out of this page. Willirennen 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Personally I think of the Ford GT as a supercar but not the BMW Z8. Everyone has their own opinion. You can't determine which sources are reliable because they all have different opinions. It would be possible to have List of cars Automobile Magazine refers to as supercars but thats no good to anyone. Also shouldn't the picture gallery be at the bottom if at all? James086^Talk 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have bhp/tonne figures back please? To a non-American, kg/kw or lb/hp is far from intuitive - power-to-weight is almost universally measured as just that (rather than weight/power) over here.

As an example, the Caterham R400 has a power-to-weight ratio of 400bhp/tonne, hence the name. Personally I think this way makes more sense, since acceleration is roughly proportional to power-to-weight, rather than inversely proportional to weight-to-power.

Thanks.

How about the Bristol Fighter T - 1000hp? Matt

I added the Honda NSX here is why: Despite the NSX's current age, it still has a strong base of fans and supporters. Honda and many car enthusiasts describe the NSX as a supercar based on its styling, body type, drivetrain layout, packaging, and most especially in the area of car handling. Few others have disagreed... John Doe or Jane Doe 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...NSX is a supercar according to fans and supporters as much as illustrator Shin Yoshikawa calls the Toyota 2000GT a supercar for the subtitle of his book which so many people disagree. In another words several months after an afd of the controversial list, I take some lots are trying to recreate that list into this page. I take you lot have not read what I said above or I will repeat this again, supercar is a term that have been commonly abused by the motoring press who go and even call a 350Z a supercar. To point out 2 things, I am removing it as people bicker over what is and what isn't and we have already got a gallery and a category, therefore we don't need a list. Willirennen 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am sick to death of writing and telling everybody this, but I have removed the list for the reason as I prefer people to read the article and decide for themselves what is and what isn't a supercar. As people's views differ to each other, that list is going to do nothing but create pointless arguments like that standalone list which has now been deleted a while ago. Willirennen 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that we could do to resolve the problem but still have a list of sorts is to have supercar manufacturers listed. Not the actual cars, just who makes them would be a much smaller list and readers could then explore the cars themselves. I can put this mostly together if you want. Zach4636 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery of super car examples has become far too long. Its no better than the list of supercars that was so heavily fought over and removed from this page long long ago. Hell, this gallery even contains pictures of cars that haven't even been released yet. Recommend it for clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.255.153 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the gallery is too long. Perhaps there should only be a few notable cars on it. Zach4636 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, I think we should have supercars that costs over US$500,000 when new and have been sold to the public, this will exclude one-offs and concept cars, plus anything that was built before the term was invented (pre 1966 or pre-Miura). Any suggestions are welcome. Willirennen (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a large amount of material from the page, not because it is uninteresting or I want to upset people, but because it is constitutes original research. Please read the policy on Wikipedia:No original research before reverting the changes. Mighty Antar (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this edit to the fullest. If anyone has any objections please discuss them here rather than just reverting. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that we should remove most of the page! I understand where you are coming from, Mighty Antar; but I still do not see why the vast majority of the page should be removed. I wholeheartedly support removing a few sections (such as the gallery) and shortening the rest of the article by taking out some of the redundant facts, but it does not make sense to take out valid information. Zach4636 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously done to get other wiki editors upset, it is as close to if not vandalism and page blanking in my opinion. Please show specifically what is OR instead of deleting the whole page.75.8.98.85 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]