What was a Super car ?

[Neil Haughey]

Like this one;
http://www.fa-automobile.fr/detail-vente.php?car-for-sale=venturi-210&id=34&v=585

but this model looks better still

http://www.fa-automobile.fr/detail-vente.php?car-for-sale=venturi&id=34&v=681

I have a bit of a thing for these venturi cars. Probably because they are rare, look great, have genuine racing pedigree and most importantly are unknown to the hairdressers, accountants, footballers etc. that buy the 'brand name' sportscars.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Forgot to add that I read before that even the 400 makes the F40 seem like a dog in terms of performance.

 

[Hilux]

917`s on max boost were over 1000bhp

962`s topped out at 245 on the Mulsanne I believe, until the Nimrod I think it was (purposefully it is suggested) went slightly off road and chucked stones into someone who crashed and the next year a chicane was installed.

Regardless they look big in photos but are amazingly small in reality. The group 5 silhouette 935`s (had to retain 30% of the original factory shape) were longer with the Le Mans tails on them.

 

[peanut]

ORIGINAL: sawood12
I don't think Porsche have ever really done a Supercar. They are far to sensible and logical for that. Even the 959 and Carrera GT are not true supercars in my mind.

are you serious ? what do you think the Porsche flagship model 928 was then ? The fastest production car in the world and one of the most expensive at the time . .....World land speed record and car of the year []

 

[George Elliott]

Peanut, I agree with Scott - Porsche never did "Supercar" its not in their culture. Porsche cars tend towards things like light weight, efficient, durable, practical - eg the hatchback on a 928.
I would add that I have no interest in "Supercars" as such, - they are of no use to me for sure.

George

944t
964

 

[333pg333]

ORIGINAL: morris944s2john

"Even the 959 and Carrera GT are not true supercars in my mind. "

I agree!

If Porsche had done a road going 917, with 1000 BHP, now that WOULD have been a supercar![][8D][][]

I have to say bollocks to the top quote. [] Supercars were always cars built for the road and then track not the other way around. How you can say that the Carrera GT is not a supercar is beyond what I always took the definition to be. If we are considering some of the other cars pictured here I have to say that Bugatti is the 2nd ugliest supercar I've ever seen. I just can't think of the first. Don't like the Ultima or that Venturi for looks either but I bet they both are wonderful to drive on the track but not around the burbs, not that any supercar is designed for the burbs but you get my drift.
Porsche have always had supercars, just not in the Italian vein. Just because a Porsche is much more reliable than the Italians doesn't negate their supercar performance.

 

[Hilux]

After research..........................

Apparently Porsche's first inclination was to develop a 750 hp straight-16. However, they decided to go with a bored out 5.4-litre, twin-turbo 12-cylinder that was good for 1,100 horsepower in race trim.

For qualification, boost was cranked up to an amazing 39 psi when the 917/30s were capable of developing 1500 bhp, making them the most powerful racecars ever! Performance was unbelievable, with 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, 0-200 in 10.9 seconds and top speed in the 250 mph neighborhood.

In 1973 the 917/30 lost exactly one race. It won all the rest. Forced to act, Can-Am implemented the only rule it could to slow down the 917`s. For 1974 all Group 7 cars had to achieve better than three miles per gallon, which effectively killed both the 917 and Cam-Am series.

 

[944Turbo]

ORIGINAL: peanut

ORIGINAL: sawood12
I don't think Porsche have ever really done a Supercar. They are far to sensible and logical for that. Even the 959 and Carrera GT are not true supercars in my mind.

are you serious ? what do you think the Porsche flagship model 928 was then ? The fastest production car in the world and one of the most expensive at the time . .....World land speed record and car of the year []

And Auto (at the time - manuals were later) no supercar can be automatic

 

[TTM]

The F40 corresponds best to my idea of a "supercar" - I don't think there is another car which both looks so dramatic and has its form follows so well its function. Terrific performance, exotic looks, no driver aid, no fussy comfort equipment.
I believe both the more achieved F1 and CGT ended up either looking too understated or feeling too refined compared to the F40.

ORIGINAL: Hilux
For qualification, boost was cranked up to an amazing 39 psi when the 917/30s were capable of developing 1500 bhp, making them the most powerful racecars ever! Performance was unbelievable, with 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, 0-200 in 10.9 seconds and top speed in the 250 mph neighborhood.

I would guess any modern pilot would need a new pair of pants after each lap.

 

[morris944s2john]

ORIGINAL: Hilux

After research..........................

Apparently Porsche's first inclination was to develop a 750 hp straight-16. However, they decided to go with a bored out 5.4-litre, twin-turbo 12-cylinder that was good for 1,100 horsepower in race trim.

For qualification, boost was cranked up to an amazing 39 psi when the 917/30s were capable of developing 1500 bhp, making them the most powerful racecars ever! Performance was unbelievable, with 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, 0-200 in 10.9 seconds and top speed in the 250 mph neighborhood.

In 1973 the 917/30 lost exactly one race. It won all the rest. Forced to act, Can-Am implemented the only rule it could to slow down the 917`s. For 1974 all Group 7 cars had to achieve better than three miles per gallon, which effectively killed both the 917 and Cam-Am series.

Now THATS what I mean! That is the kind of performance Porsche could achieve, even 35 years ago, when they really try. 35 years on in 2008 I'm sure they (Porsche), if they wanted to could make a usable road car do that. Thats why the 959 and Carrera GT, fantastic cars though they are, are not true supercars.

To answer 333pg (**** indeed! [])

The 959 is too much like the 911, which its based on and the 911 like the 944 can be used as an everyday road car without too much inconvenience- so not a super car then. I obviously have never driven a Carrera GT but when you hear journalists say things like " great car, but Porsche held back", that doesn't sound like a super car either.

Super cars are not about holding back.

Lamboughini countach- outrageous looks and performance, image and totally stupidly impactical as a usable car. Thats a super car., F40, Jag 220, Enzo, Bugatti Veyron, yes all super cars. Road legal 917- outrageous performance and looks/image, less than 3mpg fuel comsumption, yes that would be a supercar.

Porsche wouldnt make a roadgoing car like that, they are too sensible! They could make a true supercar to the limits of their technology if they wanted to, but they choose not to. (but personally, I'm glad of that!)

 

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: 333pg333

ORIGINAL: morris944s2john

"Even the 959 and Carrera GT are not true supercars in my mind. "

I agree!

If Porsche had done a road going 917, with 1000 BHP, now that WOULD have been a supercar![][8D][][]

I have to say bollocks to the top quote. [] Supercars were always cars built for the road and then track not the other way around. How you can say that the Carrera GT is not a supercar is beyond what I always took the definition to be. If we are considering some of the other cars pictured here I have to say that Bugatti is the 2nd ugliest supercar I've ever seen. I just can't think of the first. Don't like the Ultima or that Venturi for looks either but I bet they both are wonderful to drive on the track but not around the burbs, not that any supercar is designed for the burbs but you get my drift.
Porsche have always had supercars, just not in the Italian vein. Just because a Porsche is much more reliable than the Italians doesn't negate their supercar performance.

Don't get me wrong - i'm not suggesting that the 959 and Carrera GT's are not super cars, i'm just saying I don't think they are Supercars. I think most of us agree the 959 isn't on the basis it is essentially a souped up 911. The reason the Carrera GT doesn't qualify in my book is because it isn't outragous enough. It is too sensible. It will be reliable, capable of using in all weathers and for popping down the shops to. You try popping down to the shops in a Ferrari F50!!

Not all Supercars were road cars - i'd say the F40 and F50's were basically track cars for the road.

 

[peanut]

ORIGINAL: 944Turbo

And Auto (at the time - manuals were later) no supercar can be automatic
[/quote]

so Aston Martin and Jaguar have never made supercars then !?
gearbox has nothing to do with it nor has outright speed. Most of the cars mentioned so far have been specials or race cars I thought the OP was talking about production cars that anyone could go out and buy. ?

 

[sawood12]

This is how I would catagorise sportscars. This list is not complete and the cars have to be taken in the context of the time they were built and they are not necessarily based on what is the fastest, quickest etc. This is how I catagorise sportscars in my mind based on a range of catagories - some are quantative e.g. actual performance figures and some are based more on how the car feels to me in my mind.

Premier League - true supercars - no holes barred - for billionaeres and multi millionaires i.e. budget not an issue where the cars are used to get them to their Gulfstream...
Lamborghini Countach, Diablo, Merchielago
Maclaren F1
Ferrari F40, F50, Enzo
Bugatti Veyron, EB110
Jag XJ220
Pagani Zonda

First Division - mini-supercars - a little bit more sensible - targetted for the millionaire on a buget.
Ferrari F430, Testrarossa, Daytona,
Lamborghini Gallardo, Muria
Porsche 959, Carrera GT, 911 GT2
Ford GT

Second Division - super-sportscars
Porsche 911 turbo & GT3, 928 GTS, 944 turbo
AM DB9 Vanquish

Third Division - top of the range sportscars
Porsche 911 Carrara S, 928S4, 944S2, Cayman S
Audi R8 (expect this to be controversial!!)
AMV8
BMW M6

Forth Division - sportscars for the enthusiasts/conneusseiurs on a buget
Porsche 911 carrera, Cayman, Boxster S

Fifth Division - entry level enthusiast sportcars and sportscars for the undiscerning and sportscar versions of saloon cars
Porsche Boxster, 924
Nissan 350Z
BMW Z4, M3
Audi RS4, RS6

 

[944Turbo]

ORIGINAL: peanut

ORIGINAL: 944Turbo

And Auto (at the time - manuals were later) no supercar can be automatic

so Aston Martin and Jaguar have never made supercars then !?
gearbox has nothing to do with it nor has outright speed. Most of the cars mentioned so far have been specials or race cars I thought the OP was talking about production cars that anyone could go out and buy. ?

[/quote]


d type manual
e type -manual
XJ 220 Manual


Aston ,
Err no


I think a carrera GT is a supercar

 

[Hilux]

I dont know how anyone can say that the the 959 is not a supercar. A 959 not only won the Paris- Dakar, but won its class outright and finished 7th overall at Le Mans. I dont think many other supercars can say the same.

 

[TTM]

ORIGINAL: 944Turbo
so Aston Martin and Jaguar have never made supercars then !?

Are you sure Aston Martin ever made a supercar ? I mean apart from Bond's DB5 ... []

 

[RC18B 911 turbo]

ORIGINAL: 333pg333

ORIGINAL: morris944s2john

"Even the 959 and Carrera GT are not true supercars in my mind. "

I agree!

If Porsche had done a road going 917, with 1000 BHP, now that WOULD have been a supercar![][8D][][]

I have to say bollocks to the top quote. [] Supercars were always cars built for the road and then track not the other way around. How you can say that the Carrera GT is not a supercar is beyond what I always took the definition to be. If we are considering some of the other cars pictured here I have to say that Bugatti is the 2nd ugliest supercar I've ever seen. I just can't think of the first. Don't like the Ultima or that Venturi for looks either but I bet they both are wonderful to drive on the track but not around the burbs, not that any supercar is designed for the burbs but you get my drift.
Porsche have always had supercars, just not in the Italian vein. Just because a Porsche is much more reliable than the Italians doesn't negate their supercar performance.

If supercars were built for road and then track how would the Carrera GT fit into that it was originally planned to be a race car until the LeMans organisers changed the rules and it was ruled out before it even started so they turned it into a road car. But I do agree I think the Carrera GT is a supercar they look and sound amazing in the flesh. I agree as well on the 959 being a supercar they look nice in an odd sort of way and the price tag was ridiculous and still cost Porsche money to produce them.

 

[TTM]

I think the CGT is the first Supercar Porsche made - it delivers thrills regardless of the pace it's being driven and the average punter will always stop for a look when they see one parked.
With this regard the 959 is essentially a modified 911 with an ugly bodykit and as dull from the inside (*) as any air-cooled 911 can get, regardless how fast it can go.

* though I must say the specific cloth pattern of 959 seats does look very nice indeed []

 

[sawood12]

[/quote]

If supercars were built for road and then track how would the Carrera GT fit into that it was originally planned to be a race car until the LeMans organisers changed the rules and it was ruled out before it even started so they turned it into a road car. But I do agree I think the Carrera GT is a supercar they look and sound amazing in the flesh. I agree as well on the 959 being a supercar they look nice in an odd sort of way and the price tag was ridiculous and still cost Porsche money to produce them.

[/quote]

Not entirely true. The engine that went into the GT was intended for racing but after the rules were changed rendering it still born Porsche needed to recoup some of its development costs and the Carrera GT was born. It is clear that it was rushed to market and not fully developed as it is so twitchy on the limit meaning unless you are Walter Rhorl you are likely to end up in a ditch. Porsche has managed to tame the rear engined layout (after 40yrs) so you'd think they would have managed to make the mid-engined GT a bit more managable on the limit - they could have i'm sure, but didn't give themselves the time. The 997GT2 is just as quick (round the ring at least) and has much more benign handling meaning more normal people can get more performance out of it. I'm not even sure the 997GT2 deserves the 'Widowmaker' title anymore.

For me the Carrera GT is simply not outrageous enough. How can you consider it in the same league as the Pagani Zonda or the Murchiellago for example? It may be as quick if not quicker, but it's too 'normal'. Too much like a Boxster on steroids. The average Joe Bloggs who isn't into cars at all might see a Carrera GT pootling down the road and probably wouldn't bat an eyelid, but if he saw the Pagani he'd know it was something out of the ordinary. I think that is the point i'm trying to get to and in my mind what sets true Supercars apart.

 

[RC18B 911 turbo]

You have a very good point there that is essentialy what a supercar is about, being extra special to everyone even the people who don't care about cars. Although I was quite suprised by the reaction the Carrera GT got it seemed everyone was looking at it but I'm not sure it was to do with looks probably the way it pulled away from the lights.