It has come to my attention, primarily via repeated requests from law enforcement officials and clergypersons, that we make an effort to define what a “sports car” is as definitively as possible. There’s just been too many fights, too many families torn asunder because of a collective inability to agree on an acceptable taxonomy of this category of automobile. They’re right. For far too long we’ve been talking about this very important category of car in the most vague and confusing terms, and we need to solve this problem.
I think most people, even people not particularly interested in cars (fools whom I, with Mr.T-like compassion, pity), have some image that pops into their head when they think of the general category of “sports car.” It’s usually something fast, loud, sleek, and often, red. And while all of those can be properties of what we’d consider a sports car, the truth is a lot more nuanced.
Just in case you don’t believe this is a grave issue threatening the foundations of our society, allow me to direct you to this clip from the long-running animated show Family Guy that I happened to see somewhere online and got me thinking about this issue:
Now, this clip, a bit of well-known popular media that has been shared countless times, does manage to encapsulate the basic issue: people seem to have very different ideas of what a “sports car” is. For the record, I think Peter is completely wrong here; a Miata is a sports car, and I’ll outline why soon. I mean, Peter’s an idiot, but we all knew that.
With that in mind, let’s try to get some clarity here. We’ll start with the broad strokes:
An Overarching Definition of a Sports Car
A “sports car” is an automobile designed and intended to provide an engaging on-road driving experience while performing duties of general transportation. A sports car has two-doors and no rear seat, or at most a minimal/occasional back seat. Any drivetrain layout (front, mid, rear, RWD, FWD, AWD, transverse, longitudinal, etc) is acceptable for all sports car subcategories unless otherwise noted.
Overall speed is not necessarily a requirement, but the car must have as its primary purpose to be engaging and pleasurable to drive via some combination of its design and engineering. The type of drivetrain is not relevant, nor is the power source (electric, gasoline, steam, whatever is fine) but the car’s intent must be one that centers the joys of driving for its own sake.
I think that covers the essence of why sports cars exist. They’re not about fast, necessarily, but they are about fun.
That said, there are a number of sub-categories of sports car, and I think the differences in these sub-categories are what have caused the most confusion for people, who are quick to assume that one category defines the entire genre. This is not so. Everything that follows is a type of sports car:
Fundamental:
These are sort of the closest to the platonic ideal of a sports car that most people conjure up when they hear the words. These are, like all sports cars, two-door cars, primarily two-seaters, usually hardtops (but can have a convertible version), may have any engine location, and their size varies, but they’re not too small. They have dramatic styling, usually of a traditional sports car look, sleek and low and with a long hood and a short rear deck. Practicality is not a significant concern, but these can be daily driven without too many compromises.
Examples: Jaguar E-Type, Corvette, Audi TT, Datsun Z, Porsche 911/356/928, Acura NSX, Ferrari 328 GTS, Lotus Esprit
Roadster:
Perhaps the first true category of sports car. Quite small, open-topped (though fixed-roof variants can fit in), power is less important than the overall handling and driving experience, which leverages the small size and light weight to create a very visceral and connected experience. Sometimes the power can be comically low, like how a Bugeye Sprite makes only 43 horsepower.
Examples: 1898 Bollée, Mazda Miata, Toyota MR-2, Porsche Boxster, Speedster, 914, MGB, Austin-Healey Sprite/3000, Triumph Spitfire/TR series, Crosley Hot Shot
Hot Hatch/Hot Mods:
Cars that started as some other category (economy hatchback, family car, etc) or were designed with more practicality/utility but have upgraded performance and a driving enjoyment focus. These are the only category that did not start as a sports car from the initial design stage.
Examples: VW Golf GTI, Dodge Omni GLH, VW Scirocco, Renault R5 Turbo, Hyundai Veloster, Mini Cooper, Chevy Corvair Monza
Muscle Car/Pony Car:
I know some groups make distinctions between Pony and Muscle cars, but I think they’re part of the same basic category. The main focus is on power, large engines (especially V8s but not exclusively), lots of noise and drama, straight-line performance over handling. Almost always RWD, at home peeling out of a Dairy Queen parking lot.
Examples: Camaro, Firebird, Corvette, AMC AMX, GTO, Mustang, Plymouth Barracuda, Dodge Challenger, Ford Falcon (Aussie)
GT Car (with a Shooting Brake sub-subcategory):
These are fast cars designed primarily for long, high-speed cruising. A GT car is more comfortable and well-appointed than an average sports car, has an actually usable back seat, decent cargo-holding ability, and this category includes Shooting Brakes, those two-door sporty-intended station wagons.
Examples: Jensen Interceptor, Citroën SM, Aston Martin DB series, Buick GNX, Reliant Scimitar GTE, Facel-Vega, Nissan GTR
Supercar:
These are the flashiest prima donnas of the sports car world, and, ironically, are probably the least likely to actually be driven. They have exotic engineering, dramatic styling, are wildly expensive, attention-grabbing, and generally have ridiculous doors that prioritize drama over usability. High power, high status, high visibility, and the lowest day-to-day usability of any sports car.
Examples: Ford GT, most Lamborghinis, most Ferraris, Pagonis, Spykers, Aston Martin Vanquish
Close, But Not Quite
Sporty Car:
That “y” is doing a lot of work here. Sporty cars have much of the look and feel of a sports car, but without the engineering to make them perform in genuine sports car ways. The best-known example of these Sporty Cars may be the Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia; it looked like a sleek little sports car, but was just a Beetle under the skin, which VW played up in ads:
Really, that ad sums this category up pretty well. And it’s not a bad thing! These cars can be delightful and appreciated! They can also be modified to become true sports cars with aftermarket parts or modifications, so I think there is some class mobility possible here.
Examples: Toyota Paseo, VW Eos, VW Karmann-Ghia, Toyota Sera, Nissan Figaro, Mercury Capri (later one), Triumph Stag, Chevy Monza
Track car/Actual Racing car
Because their primary purpose no longer includes basic transportation or on-public-road use, these are not in the sports car category. Once it has enough track-focused modifications (roll cage, stripped interior, race exhaust, etc) these cars become track-only beasts, and are a different category.
Personal Luxury Cars
I mostly included this one because I wasn’t quite sure what to do with Thunderbirds or Toronados and similar cars. They’re not quite driving-pleasure-focused enough to be GT cars, but that’s what they’re closest to, I think. The focus of these cars seems to be comfort and style, so that keeps them out of the sports car category.
Sports Sedans
If it has four doors, I think it needs to be something other than a sports car. So while all those BMW M5s or those Mercedes-Benz AMG C-Class sedans may be as fast and fun to drive and capable as any actual sports car, I think part of the core essence of a sports car is just two doors at most, so these Sports Sedans should be in their own separate category.
Would you like these categories on a chart? I hope so, because I made one:
There! I’m glad we got all that sorted out. I’m sure there are plenty of you out there with different ideas and thoughts on this, and legally I have to leave automotive taxonomies open for public debate for three years before it gets codified into officialdom and carved into marble tablets that will be stored at the Smithsonian, so now’s your time to talk! Have at it!
You forgot Hypercars
Similar discussion could be relevant while discussing Sports Bras.
Overall speed is not necessarily a requirement, but the
carbra must have as its primary purpose to be engaging and pleasurable to drive via some combination of its design and engineering.I would move the categories for GT cars, hot hatchs and muscle/pony cars down to the “close, but not quite” category. Only the fundamental, roadster and supercar feel like sports cars to me. I mean, I drive a GTI – but it ain’t a sportscar, but a sporty car.
I’m surprised this hasn’t come up, but only certain versions of the Aussie Falcon could be considered muscle cars. The standard Falcons were pretty mundane sedans, and there was no two-door Falcon after the 1970s (I think). You could even argue the later hot ones (especially the XR6 Turbo) to be closer to sports sedans rather than outright muscle cars.
A sportscar is a 2-seat car with suspension frequencies above 2 Hz.
Platform-sharing is an interesting conundrum, and I think I eventually reached my own conclusion about it. A sports car can share chassis design, or even the frame entirely, with a practical compact/midsize as long as the packaging is substantially changed for the purpose of driving enjoyment. Cars like the Triumph Spitfire and BMW Z1/3/4 are plonked directly onto the hard points of the Herald and 3-series sedans, but are full-fat roadsters nonetheless. What I’m getting at is:
The Ghia IS sports car, because it’s got a less practical, more aerodynamic body with a lower roofline and sitting position than the Bug it’s based on and is made to be more enjoyable than useful. It’s more of a GT car than a roadster, but as covered in the article, GT’s are sports cars.
The Z1 was heavier than the 325i by 200lb, so the Ghia being heavier than the Beetle doesn’t convince me that it’s not a sports car.
Exiting the bubble that is the US market, the Karmann Ghia’s performance is close to contemporary price-point competitors like the Caravelle Gordini, DKW Malzoni, Saab Sonnett, Fiat 850 Spyder and even the far more expensive Porsche 356A, and the interior build quality is nice for that market segment.
As RallyMech eloquently explained, hot hatchbacks are just fast compacts, and muscle cars are just fast midsizes. Neither one is a sports car, because they’re made to be practical compacts/midsizes first, with performance as an add-on after the fact.
Tangent:
Modern pony cars like the Camaro have a substantially lower, more recumbent sitting position than their sedan counterparts like the CT4, with a lower hood and roofline and a perfunctory rear seat. That makes them sports cars, but means that to find a modern muscle car, we have to get creative. If “muscle car” is an absolute term meaning “a midsize sedan with a full-size sedan’s engine”, then the Camry TRD and GS F are muscle cars, but if it’s a relative term meaning “a vehicle with an engine from a vehicle in a larger size category”, then the M2 Competition and Dodge Charger are muscle cars.
I’m back to harp on the way Jason neglected to distinguish between muscle cars and pony cars, because in hindsight I think that makes all the difference.
A muscle car is just a type of performance sedan. They have upright seating with ample rear legroom, a separated trunk and a practical body shape/size regardless of door count. The packaging of a Plymouth GTX is identical to that of a Belvedere, and nobody’s accusing the Belvedere of being a sports car.
But a pony car might actually have some claim of being a sports car. Not because they’re smaller, but because they have distinct bodies.
The Mustang may have been targeted at secretaries, but its packaging was distinctly different from the Falcon it was based on, with a shorter decklid and cabin, smaller rear seating owed to the shortened wheelbase and lower driver seating position, and styling meant to indicate performance. This applies to the Camaro, Firebird and the E-body pony cars as well.
The Falcon, Nova and Duster are just compacts, regardless of engine option, but their pony car counterparts actually make substantial compromises to prioritize driving pleasure, even if performance isn’t appreciably different in some cases.
A Camaro isn’t meant to be cheaper, more fuel efficient or easier to park than a Nova, it’s strictly meant to be more fun to drive.
Once their compact platform-mates died out to make space for front-wheel-drive offerings, the surviving pony cars really had to stand on their own and eventually gained dedicated platforms.
Maybe pony cars were sports cars all along. I’m not sure if I’d say they were good at it, but they certainly meet the criteria for classification.
Disagree.
Sportscar is anything 2 seat or 2+2, sits low, has an emphasis for driving enjoyment, and has a unique chassis+nameplate. It cannot be a hopped up trim level of the normal car. Hot hatches, muscle cars, pony cars, crossovers, or sedans do not fit.
A BRZ is a sports car. Same for a Z4, Miata, 911, R35GTR, most Aston Martins, most Ferraris/Lambos, etc.
Peak sportscar as an architype is the Lotus Elise. Above all else it was built for the act of driving rather than transport you from place to place.
GT-R is verging on super 2-door saloon territory…
Saloon territory? It’s a GT car. Built to be driven, hard, for long distances. Same territory as a contemporary 911, or 2 door Astons.
There was no sedan version, and there was no ‘base’ low performance model. Most importantly, it was built from the ground up as a car for driving, not transportation of people.
To me still feels Skyline-ish…
I came here to say exactly this, muscle cars are hopped up midsizes and hot hatches are just fast compacts.
I will say, since cars like the Z3 and Spitfire count as sports cars despite sharing a platform with the 3-series and Herald, I would consider platform-sharing for cost to be fair game, as long as it’s not the same practicality-oriented body and packaging.
That would make the Ghia a GT car, and I’m ok with that. It’s barely slower than a Porsche 356, anyway.
That’s why I specified a Unique Name and Chassis (aka shell or unibody). Can’t be just a hopped up version of the normal car with a different name same body (M3), or different body same name.
The platform can be shared with another vehicle, as that’s largely universal today.
Technically speaking the Z3 (E36/7 chassis) is the front half of a E36, rear half E30, just like the 318ti (E36/5). Difference is just about everything mechanical, as the 318ti was a fun but practical 3dr hatch, while the z3 was intended to be a rather impractical roadster from the start, and the clown shoe (E36/8) coming later.
The somewhat impractical nature is intrinsic to a sports car. Small or nonexistent rear seats, not nearly enough trunk/storage space for a grocery run, performance oriented suspension that isn’t the most comfortable (until mag ride became a thing), etc.
Original muscle cars maybe, the modern ones are sports cars from the beginning. I guess a better question would be are the mustang and charger still muscle cars, if there is no low powered family option they are based on?
Hot hatches though are right out
The Charger is a full-size sedan that happens to be fast from the go, and the Challenger was the same thing without a D-pillar, but the 21st-century Mustang and Camaro are, without a doubt, sports cars.
I meant the new charger, which is a 2 or 4 door (No more challenger) Not sure where something like that falls tbh
This is sure to be a civilized conversation
IMO the form of the car does not matter. Sports come in all shapes and sizes. If it was developed with the intention of being driven enthusiastically, which to me means quick and controlled on pavement, then it’s a sports car. There are then degrees of sportiness where handling and acceleration prowess push things upward.
What could be a more pertinent and interesting question is what is the greatest sportscar ever made and why is it the original Lotus Elan.
I’m just happy to see that TR3 represented, since it was my mom’s first car, and she always said “real sports cars don’t have roll up windows.” Possibly she was trolling.
Firstly, it’s ‘I know it when I see it’.
More importantly (!) supercars, muscle cars, and so on are not subcategories, they’re different categories. A 911 is not a sports car, for example. Fast isn’t the same as sporty.
The defining feature of sports cars is that they are relatively small and lightweight. Mostly, they feel fast, but aren’t actually all that fast. This leads us down a rabbit hole which ends with debating whether it’s possible that a low-powered Caterham 7 is obviously a sports car, while the highest-powered variants are not – but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
<lolWhatGif>
Why? Now you’re into defining the word sports of which small and light weight has no bearing.
A sports car is one that was developed with the intention of being driven enthusiastically.
It needs a bit more though. I am sure an M3 was also developed with the intention of being driven enthusiastically and that is just a 2 door saloon.
I don’t agree with the form being a prerequisite for being called a sports car anymore. Sports are competitive things. If a car was designed to go be capable on the road either in speed or handling or both, that’s being competitive. There are degrees of this, but form need not apply any more, in my opinion.
There has to be something though. A Hyundai i20N was designed with the driver in mind and most definitely is not a sportscar.
Why not? Lots of you are relying on antiquated definitions of words. Go look up what sports means. Old cars had to be small and low so they could actually drive well; to be sporting. That’s not the case anymore.
Well physics is still the same, so like for like a lower CoG is always going to benefit driving dynamics 😉
This is true. The entire scale of performance has changed. Thus imo the definition of sports car must be broader. There aren’t many small cars, with only two seats.
I don’t see why the definition must change. There are sports cars, and then there are fast, sporting sedans and hatches and even SUVs today (much as I think fast SUVs are moronic). But being fast simply doesn’t make something a sportscar.
It’s too bad that there are so few true sportscars anymore, but that’s the sad, sad world we live in today.
Because eventually nothing will adhere to what the post war definition is.
And that is just fine, if sad. I fully expect the Miata\BRZ to be the last, and it will be a miracle if either gets another generation.
An X5M is not, and will never be a sportscar, no matter how much power BMW crams under it. There are all sorts of cars that no longer exist. Nobody makes 2dr sedans anymore. Nobody on this side of the pond makes sedan deliveries either..
But the term will still be around and we will have to define what it means.
Yes – it means that car over there, which is not something you can buy new anymore, so buy one of those.
That’s not how language works when something for all intents and purpose still adheres to the spirit of the words.
If things fall into antiquity, then sure, we won’t redefine what those words mean. But sports cars will continue to be produced but they won’t be in adherence to the post war definition. People aren’t just going to stop calling something a sports car because it’s not a light weight roadster.
This is as much a language conversation as it is a car conversation.
A matter of opinion.
I think it’s possible that true sports cars might still be produced – but things aren’t looking particularly optimistic for them being purchasable by mere mortals from mainstream brands.
You can’t buy an Opera Coupe or a Sedan deVille anymore either, and there is no reason to mutate those specific automotive terms to mean something different.
It already has a perfectly good definition.
deVille and opera are interesting comparisons. Opera is an easy to enter coupe with an opera window; so a very very specific form.
deVille was actually mutated because if you ask anyone what a deVille is, you will get a large Cadillac as answer, which is not the original deVille. deVille was actually first for horse drawing carriages with an open coachman area and a closed passenger compartment, then it was for cars of the same body format, then it was for Cadillac which IMO is it’s most prominent definition.
🙂
Anyone who thinks of a Cadillac when the term is used has no knowledge of automotive history.
And it’s an example of you can call something anything you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Just like “sportscar”.
You are mistaken about the history. Most race cars – in the 1920s, not 1950s – were much larger than the original sports cars. Sports cars were not the fastest cars, they were the best handling.
Meanings can evolve as usage changes, and you can use the phrase to mean whatever you like. But you shouldn’t be so surprised or upset that many people still use a meaning more closely related to the original idea. The 911 is too big, heavy, and powerful to fit that: it’s a supercar, not a sports car.
You’re clearly using a very different definition if you find it in any way odd that a 911 isn’t considered a sports car. Seems like you’re falling into a trap where a Greyhound bus is actually a minivan, because you don’t put any upper limit on categories.
The defining feature of sports cars originally was size.
The 911 is 100% a sports car. It’s the evolution of the 356 which is one of the original, defining postwar sports cars. The 911 is [still] a nimble car and that is what truly defines a sports car.
Yeah, couldn’t believe that was even said. Anyone who says the 911 is not a sports car has no brain at all. That’s THE sports car!
Except 911s weren’t considered sportscars even when they debuted – they were an upmarket more comfortable car than the 356, with that rear seat. They were always intended to be GTs, though the hottest versions like the original lightweightsRSs and GT3s etc certainly were and are sports cars. But as I keep saying, it’s a fine line and the 911 was probably one of the closest GTs to being a sportscar originally. But compare a 911 to it’s hairy-chested rivals like the Triumph TR-5/6 – which was every bit as fast, and about 10% as civilized. You could jump in a 911 in Stuttgart and blast down to the South of France and arrive feeling human. You’d get there just as fast in a TR-5, but you would feel like you’d been through a war – shaken AND stirred. That’s the difference between a sportscar and a GT.
That isn’t the difference between a sportscar and a GT, it’s the difference between a British and a German sportscar. Reliability and comfort is what made Porsches successful. They were the sportscar you could drive to work during the week and to the track on the weekend. But they’re still sportscars. Something the 911 has always been. It was never considered a GT. Today’s 911 is a large, tech-heavy car, but that’s just what a 21st century sportscar is. It’s not the 1950s anymore.
It’s also the difference between a sportscar and a GT. By definition, a GT is a comfortable sportscar.
No. GTs have different powerplants, suspension setups, etc. They’re built for a different purpose. Comfort isn’t the whole story. And no one ever said a sportscar couldn’t be comfortable.
Funny, pretty damned sure that an MGB and an MGB-GT have ALL of those things in common other than purpose. One is a pure sportscar, the other is a GT. At a much higher and newer level, a Ferrari 550 vs. a 456GT. Same bits, different comfort levels, slightly different purposes. A comfortable sportscar is literally the definition of a Grand Tourer, aka GT. Something you don’t mind spending hours and hours in having fun.
As the saying goes – you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.
The MGB-GT being a true grand tourer is pretty debatable. And the 550 is actually a grand tourer.
It’s actually my job to be right about this subject, but you’re entitled to be confused.
You don’t seem to be very good at your job. A lot of that these days, sadly. <shrug>
I’m actually very good at my job. Plus, I’m not a delusional asshole.
You certainly come across as one in print.
I wasn’t insulting your opinion, just arguing against it. But then you had to be a dick about it, so go fuck yourself.
And yet you were insulting. So right back at ya.
I’m with ya Jonee. The MGB-GT is just a “GT” car because it has a roof and a hatch. It’s the same damn thing as the B. In fact, it has STIFFER suspension because it weighs more.
Right. Calling it a “GT” was just marketing and a way to give it a different name.
Yes. Come to think of it, is that what this conversation is REALLY about? Are people simply hung up on what 1950s marketing said was a sports car?
“Sports” means, organized competition requiring a specific skill. How does that dictate a “sports car” be a specific form or comfort level?
I’m being a pragmatic, sensible, citizen of the 21st century. Size (and derived from size, weight) is an absolutely moronic way to define what is and is not a sports car in 2026.
Straw man argument. I never argued that. You argued that one of the worlds most famous sports car isn’t a sports car because in 1950 “sports car” meant the car was “small.” Well, times have changed. What was small then isn’t the same as small now, and what was large then, isn’t the same as large now. “Sports” cars were small because in order to drive well, they had to weigh as little as possible and be low to the ground because they were running tractor suspension on cobble stone roads. Things have changed.
We’re not trying to define what was the definition of sports car in 1950. We’re trying to define what the definition of sports car is and it’s now 2026.
Size and weight still matter. A BMW m5 wagon is blisteringly fast and thanks to modern tech goes around corners with astonishing grip, but it weighs as much as a small moon, never lets you forget it by literally every account, and nobody is EVER going to think it’s anything like a Miata. And that goes triple for an X5M and other such jacked up nonsense.
Because that was the only way to make a street car handle well.
Technology and manufacturing changed. Now small cars can handle like shit and big cars can handle well, or vice versa.
I personally think the Wikipedia page has it nailed down pretty well:
We must remember, it still must be a CAR. SUVs and Trucks need not apply.
Then you must think that a 5500lb+ M5 wagon is a sports car too? It’s not, it’s just a really fast station wagon.
Neither are most 911s. They are GTs. Fast, comfortable-enough to do long distances, but they trade practicality for style.
I’m gonna say that categorizing modern cars is like gender vs sex- sex is easy to define because it’s physical. Gender, not so much. Gender is far more about how someone feels despite or because of their physical body.
So it’s easy to define something as ICE or EV, those are big physical differences. It’s easy to say this is a v-8 and this is an inline 4 because those are physical differences.
A modern 4 door F-150 is really just a 70s luxobarge with an open trunk, yet we still call it a truck. a modern 911 is really a personal luxury vehicle but we call it a sports car, because that’s what it feels like. A mid 80’s Volvo wagon outperformed ferarris in a slalom- is it a sports car?
A car is what it feels like to it’s owner and that’s what really matters. For some folks, their pickup is a sports car. To some folks, their corolla is a luxury car. The definitions are all personal and that’s fine.
A sports car is any vehicle with fewer than 100 fish in it.
Two doors, two seats.
I think the rest of the categories here are perfectly cool living in the spaces they created for themselves – they don’t need the SC tag.
I would only include the Fundamental and the Roadster categories provided that they meet my criteria- they must have a stick and they must handle well and be fun to toss around with reasonably good acceleration and fairly low to the ground. For example a hot hatch is a ghoot and can out handle some old school sports cars but its still more of a hot version of a regular car.
Supercars are too much IMHO and in a category of their own.
To me a sports car is a Miata, MBG, Spitfire, E Type, S2000, etc.
Correct take.
SOME E-types – definitely not all of them since they had thier “Fat Elvis” period in the 70s with the SIII V12.
This is a GT, not a sportscar:
https://www.supercars.net/blog/1971-jaguar-e-type-series-iii-22/
I feel the same way about 911s, obviously. A few of them have been true sportscars, most of them have been GTs.
I think that 2+2 was distinctly different and not really a sports car like the 2 seater variants. Also awkward AF like a first gen Panamera
Goofy looking beasts indeed. See also the 2+2 versions of the 280Z.
OK, then what is the definition of a “performance car” and how is it different than your definition of a sports car?
Performance car can be any car with high performance specs. I would say that’s an umbrella term that covers everything from super/hyper cars and sport sedans to sports cars.
IF we are going to include Grand Tourers I think sports sedans are allowed…not least because a lot of the great hot hatches are 4 doors.
I agree. I either sports car is a narrow definition and GTs/Super Cars/Hot Hatch/Sports Sedan are separate or they include any car where there is a balance of practicality and driving enjoyment regardless of the form factor. I think if GTs are sports cars and not just GTs then so are M5s.
By definition a hot hatch has to have a hatch. So it’s 3 or 5 doors.
Ha good point, though I’ve never entirely been a fan of that designation as a hatch isn’t really a door in intent or actual use, besides a few old wagons w/ rear facing seats)…but since we’re splitting hairs with this whole exercise and it’s a common phrasing I will totally concede the point!
As long as the Viper goes into the supercar category, this list is virtually perfect!
It can’t be a track/race car just because they offered trim packages that made it so. 4 of 5 generations were convertibles, it took top trim level Corvette’s to get similar specs, and it was sure priced like a supercar in comparison.
Listing muscle cars as sports cars is weird though.
Can we have the 928 have moved to GT please?
I vote we throw this whole list into the trash bin before ChatGPT starts referencing it and calling everything a sports car.
I vote to double down and start referencing Wranglers as sports cars to fuck with ChatGPT
it would be interesting to place the Karman Ghia beside a Bugeye Sprite and track them to see which one provided the most engaging on-road driving experience