StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Are there American built cars that would considered super cars? Would a Ford GT or Dodge Viper be considered super cars?

Those two, not really, though they outperform a good number of older supercars. Frankly the term lost most of its meaning a while ago when it became possible to put 500hp in anything we damn well please. But for a better example see SSC Ultimate Aero which can do 248mph, barely slower then the Bugatti Veyron or Shelby 1000. America makes a lot of superish cars these days, they just get less attention because people aren't fawning over the brand names, which is what buying most of those cars is really about.

Rossion, Shelby, Panoz. Of those Shelby is the most well known.


Ford and Dodge do not rate there.

Define "supercar."

How much does it need to cost? What kind of performance does it need to have? Is there a definite aesthetic it requires?


The ZR1 Corvette could qualify, depending on definitions. Top speed in excess of 200 mph, record setting breaking (60-0 in 96 feet which is just insane), lateral g in excess of 1g... But it doesn't cost as much as a Ferrari three times its price and it isn't as luxurious as a lot of cars regularly called supercars.


Supercar is extremely vague with no real set definition. To answer which US cars qualify first requires a working definition.

Dude, you got Saleen. One of the most vicious, brutal and down-to-the-bone American supercars of all time. The S7 Twin Turbo produces 750 bhp with a max speed of 400 km/h (248 mph). 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. And it is made in California, with the engine being a bored Ford Windsor small block.

This car comes close to the McLaren F1/Bugatti Veyron league.

I wouldn't count any Panoz as a supercar, as the street legal race version of the Esperante is just a plain looking sportscar. Shelby with the Ultimate Aero definitely counts. Rossion... I am not sure, but the sportscar/supercar lines are definitely blurry and based on how expensive, fast and outrageous a vehicle is. So it's not exactly a closed science.

Seriously, Thanas, on what fucking planet are you from where Ford GT does not qualify as a supercar? Are fucking high, man? And don't get me started on the fun things Vipers do on racing circuits or how it is that Ferrari doesn't even make anything stock and street-legal that can keep up with a Corvette ZR-1.

Guess you never heard of Ferrari Enzo then.

But the point is valid, Corvette ZR-1 is a supercar. A cheap one, but a supercar nonetheless.

Mr. Coffee wrote:Seriously, Thanas, on what fucking planet are you from where Ford GT does not qualify as a supercar? Are fucking high, man? And don't get me started on the fun things Vipers do on racing circuits or how it is that Ferrari doesn't even make anything stock and street-legal that can keep up with a Corvette ZR-1.

Most people consider a supercar to be a blend of performance and lavish interior and exterior design, and the Ford GT, Ziper and ZR-1 all fall short on interior design. That's also why they don't cost a quarter of a million dollars or more. They basically just have normal not even that expensive car interiors making people tend to view them as just streetable race cars, which is exactly what they were intended to be.

Tolya wrote:Guess you never heard of Ferrari Enzo then.

But the point is valid, Corvette ZR-1 is a supercar. A cheap one, but a supercar nonetheless.

The best the Enzo did on the Nürburgring Nordschleife was 7min25.7sec and that's with a professional race driver behind the wheel. The Corvette C6 ZO6 did it in 7:22.68, and the Corvette C6 ZR1 did in 7:19.63, both laps performed by one of GM's engineers who moonlights as an amature race driver.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how fucking AWESOME Vettes are over Pastarockets.

Also, the Dodge Viper ACR posted a lap time of 7.22.1, so, um.. Fuck Ferrari.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Most people consider a supercar to be a blend of performance and lavish interior and exterior design, and the Ford GT, Ziper and ZR-1 all fall short on interior design. That's also why they don't cost a quarter of a million dollars or more. They basically just have normal not even that expensive car interiors making people tend to view them as just streetable race cars, which is exactly what they were intended to be.

I judge it by performance. If you want a luxury car than buy a luxury car. If you're buying a high-performance street-legal race car than your one and only metric should be performance. Everything else is just window dressing.

Supercars are all about that window dressing though.

They're not just about performance, they're about showing the world exactly how large and throbbing your ego is and making women want the contents of your trousers*.



* Your wallet.

Vendetta wrote:Supercars are all about that window dressing though.

They're not just about performance, they're about showing the world exactly how large and throbbing your ego is and making women want the contents of your trousers*.

Pretty much. Irritates the fuck out of me too. Why the shit someone would pay $1mil for a car when they can spend less than half that for a car that can drive circles around the much more expensive car tells me that I'm dealing with someone that has way the hell more money than sense. Shit, just think of how much more performance you could get out of, say a Veyron, if you stripped out all the creature comfort bullshit. Bet you could shave another 100kg off the weight just there.

If it's not in the top 15 or 20 in the list on Top Gear it's not a supercar.

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Vendetta wrote:Supercars are all about that window dressing though.

They're not just about performance, they're about showing the world exactly how large and throbbing your ego is and making women want the contents of your trousers*.

Pretty much. Irritates the fuck out of me too. Why the shit someone would pay $1mil for a car when they can spend less than half that for a car that can drive circles around the much more expensive car tells me that I'm dealing with someone that has way the hell more money than sense. Shit, just think of how much more performance you could get out of, say a Veyron, if you stripped out all the creature comfort bullshit. Bet you could shave another 100kg off the weight just there.

Or someone who has completely different incentives as,y'know, pointed out in the post right above you.

Scrib wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Vendetta wrote:Supercars are all about that window dressing though.

They're not just about performance, they're about showing the world exactly how large and throbbing your ego is and making women want the contents of your trousers*.

Pretty much. Irritates the fuck out of me too. Why the shit someone would pay $1mil for a car when they can spend less than half that for a car that can drive circles around the much more expensive car tells me that I'm dealing with someone that has way the hell more money than sense. Shit, just think of how much more performance you could get out of, say a Veyron, if you stripped out all the creature comfort bullshit. Bet you could shave another 100kg off the weight just there.

Or someone who has completely different incentives as,y'know, pointed out in the post right above you.

You mean the post I responded to and was giving my opinon about, you illiterate fucktard? Go back to fucking lurking, kid.

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Scrib wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote: Pretty much. Irritates the fuck out of me too. Why the shit someone would pay $1mil for a car when they can spend less than half that for a car that can drive circles around the much more expensive car tells me that I'm dealing with someone that has way the hell more money than sense. Shit, just think of how much more performance you could get out of, say a Veyron, if you stripped out all the creature comfort bullshit. Bet you could shave another 100kg off the weight just there.

Or someone who has completely different incentives as,y'know, pointed out in the post right above you.

You mean the post I responded to and was giving my opinon about, you illiterate fucktard? Go back to fucking lurking, kid.

I'm well aware that you responded to it, it's just that your response is not at all substantial.

Post 1-People buy supercars partly because of X.
You-People don't care exclusively about Y.People are DUMMMB!!!!

(I broke it down for you in case you found it difficult to see the exact problem in between your insults and condescension .)

Your opinion looks the point in the eye, ignores then leaps over it and makes a superficial comment that doesn't deal with the point or do anything but allow you to whine about taste. If you can whine in such absolute terms, I can whine about people who whine in ways that are completely besides the point. We all have our pet peeves.

The problem with the really expensive Ferraris, is you never actually own them. You merely rent it of Ferrari. Sorry, Lease. Doesn't sound as lower class.

Scrib wrote:Your opinion looks the point in the eye, ignores then leaps over it and makes a superficial comment that doesn't deal with the point or do anything but allow you to whine about taste. If you can whine in such absolute terms, I can whine about people who whine in ways that are completely besides the point. We all have our pet peeves.

We're having a discussion o what is an isn't a supercar, you fucking retard. It's about as subjective a subject as there is. It's ALL based on opinions, and thank you very fucking much, but I will express my goddamn opinion when, where, and how I goddamn well choose to. So take you're wannabe, newbie asshole attempt at debate and shove it up your ass.

P.S. at least have the decency to at least try to get into the conversation at hand or just shut your fucking mouth, boy.

InsaneTD wrote:The problem with the really expensive Ferraris, is you never actually own them. You merely rent it of Ferrari. Sorry, Lease. Doesn't sound as lower class.

Yet another reason to not waste the money on one.

Mr. Coffee wrote:Seriously, Thanas, on what fucking planet are you from where Ford GT does not qualify as a supercar? Are fucking high, man? And don't get me started on the fun things Vipers do on racing circuits or how it is that Ferrari doesn't even make anything stock and street-legal that can keep up with a Corvette ZR-1.

The interior of the Corvette is in no way noteworthy. It is like comparing a cruise ship to an ocean liner. As to Ferrari not being able to keep up with Corvette, that is in no way true. The differences in lap time are not that far apart (Porsche beats everything though and I would not simply call them supercars either).

Rarity is a huge part of being a superstar. A corvette is not rare.

Likewise, if we are talking about subjective opinion, the Corvette is just ugly. It's form does not flow, it does not have soft curves but is also not as aggressive looking as some cars that don't go for soft curves but still look amazing. Like the Koenigsegg, Lamborghinis or the Pagani Zondas.

And Ford is just Ford. Boring, undependable.

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Scrib wrote:Your opinion looks the point in the eye, ignores then leaps over it and makes a superficial comment that doesn't deal with the point or do anything but allow you to whine about taste. If you can whine in such absolute terms, I can whine about people who whine in ways that are completely besides the point. We all have our pet peeves.

We're having a discussion o what is an isn't a supercar, you fucking retard. It's about as subjective a subject as there is. It's ALL based on opinions, and thank you very fucking much, but I will express my goddamn opinion when, where, and how I goddamn well choose to. So take you're wannabe, newbie asshole attempt at debate and shove it up your ass.

Even for SDNET your mix of vitriol and senselessness is special. Normally the attacks are at least backed up by interesting debate. Here? But hey, express your opinion wherever you please, even when it's specious,after all, Muricah! That is seriously what you sound like.

Sure, it's one thing to look at the definition of supercars and give your own. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about you responding to an explanation of other subjective tastes and going "well, people with these subjective reasons for doing this are dumb because they don't care about these subjective reasons I hold dear". That's idiotic.

The argument was not that those supercars were the best at what you value, it was that they served another purpose that you probably don't value. Responding by going "oh, they don't even do this thing I care about well and they could be much better at it if they did X, why would anyone buy them?" is silly because it's not about what you care about. You might as well respond to someone saying that they value engagement rings for the romance/sacrifice factor by saying:"STOOPID, why don't you go by some <insert mineral/precious metal>, it's probably a better investment than that shitty ring." Technically correct, but you're ignoring the (quite obvious if nebulous and uneconomical) reasons they're doing what they're doing in order to get your little licks in. So you've made a fatuous and ultimately worthless point. The only real gain? Your ego gets slightly larger as you glory in your superior taste.

If you had just said:"Well, for me supercars are actually fast cars and this supposed class of supercars don't tickle my fancy and their 'benefits' mean little to me" we might not have been having this discussion. Well...maybe.

P.S. at least have the decency to at least try to get into the conversation at hand or just shut your fucking mouth, boy.

.Boring.

Thanas wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:Seriously, Thanas, on what fucking planet are you from where Ford GT does not qualify as a supercar? Are fucking high, man? And don't get me started on the fun things Vipers do on racing circuits or how it is that Ferrari doesn't even make anything stock and street-legal that can keep up with a Corvette ZR-1.

Rarity is a huge part of being a superstar. A corvette is not rare.

Depends on the specific model of Corvette. The Z06? Not exactly rare. The ZR1? There are far fewer of those running around than Z06 Corvettes. I dunno what actual production numbers are and don't care enough to look.

As far as aesthetics go, I'm not gonna bother touching on those. As you said, they're subjective. As is the term supercar. IMO, stating a car has to have specific aesthetics (interior, exterior, whatever) is about like saying it has to be under a certain weight. The Veyron would be disqualified if a supercar had to be relatively light weight. It weighs substantially more than my car, and I drive a midsize sedan, not a little economy car. Over two tons? That's morbidly obese for anything with two doors and isn't a damn truck, much less a performance car.

For me, supercar is more about performance than aesthetics or price tag. If you've got a top speed over 200 mph then you're probably a supercar. Funny enough, I consider cornering to be pretty important, too. And the McLaren F1, which most certainly does have supercar acceleration and top speed, lacks the cornering found in a lot of sports cars. The price you pay for a smoother ride, prior to the availability of adaptive suspension like we have now... Availability of a car has some validity, I guess, but I'm more concerned with actual performance. If I wanted something that's about rarity and aesthetics I'd track down a Deusenberg. Good god are those cars pretty. And there are lots of options for luxury cars that are plenty fast for street driving. If you're after track performance then aesthetics don't mean a damn thing. Formula 1 isn't anything resembling pretty on the inside because going fast isn't about admiring the dash board and other shiny things.

But yeah, I will agree that most Ferraris and various other expensive as fuck sports car brands are nice looking, inside and out. It's just not something I find to be important enough to justify the difference in price. I'm not interested in convincing someone they have the wrong definition of supercar, too. It's subjective. I'll share my opinion, but I'm not gonna say "No, you're wrong and stupid!" if someone doesn't agree.

I don't think the difference in price is worth it either but if I had unlimited money I would probably own one regardless.

I also agree on the old cars, these are my favorites as well. This is the car I want to own if I win the lottery (scroll down for pretty pictures).

Thanas wrote:The interior of the Corvette is in no way noteworthy. It is like comparing a cruise ship to an ocean liner. As to Ferrari not being able to keep up with Corvette, that is in no way true. The differences in lap time are not that far apart (Porsche beats everything though and I would not simply call them supercars either).

Wait, really? The Porsche 918, which is the one that beats everything is not a supercar? What planet are you from?
I'd agree that most Porsches aren't supercars, but most of their limited production models such as the 959 and the upcoming 918 are supercars by any reasonable measure.

Too many of them produced to be a real supercar.