Talk:List of supercars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Supercar list by decades 2 Vague Supercard Definition 3 Who decides what is a supercar? 4 Omissions and time-sensitive definition 5 Should this list be deleted= 6 Specific Vehicle discussions 6.1 Ferraris 6.1.1 What Ferrari-chat members (F-owned) considers supercars 6.2 Chrysler ME 4-12 6.3 Honda NSX 6.4 Toyota 2000GT 6.5 Panther Solo 6.6 Porsches 6.6.1 911 Turbo SE 6.6.2 911 GT1 6.6.3 911 GT2 6.7 Mercedes-Benz 6.7.1 Mercedes-Benz 500E 7 Corvettes 7.1 Z06 8 Delorean? 9 S2000 10 Buick Reatta? 11 Citation needed 12 Pantera 13 Ariel Atom?? 14 Koeniggsegg CC and derivatives 15 Should we remove "Potential supercars that never entered production"? 16 Should we trim the disputed supercar list? 17 VANQUISH 18 My reply to all the above

[edit] Supercar list by decades

I've taken the liberty to rank the supercars by decades. This allows cars to be judged with respect to the peers in its own era. For example, the Lamborghini Miura was a bona fide supercar in 1966, yet at 350 hp it does not fare well against supercars in 2006 or, worse yet, 2046 (if supercars exist at the time). Thus, a non-controversial way to include the Miura in the list is by its year of introduction. Shawnc 02:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vague Supercard Definition

Alright....there are some cars on there that I really question. Is a supercar just something that's expensive and fast (Ferarri 360 for example) or is it something that is truly the high end (Ferarri Enzo, for example)? If it's just high end, is the high end FOR THAT MANUFACTURER good enough (Dodge Viper)? (would that make the Hyundai Tiburon a supercar?)

I'm mainly questioning things like the Ford GT, Ferrari 360, Dodge Daytona, and Plymouth Superbird. (The last two might be considered muscle cars, even)

Maybe these articles should just be deleted and left in the car classification article?

The debate really is whether supercars is a separate class of ultra high performance cars that are the fastest road cars of their day, such as the Miura, F40, Enzo and McLaren F1, or whether supercar is simply a term to describe a car of any class that has performance of a certain level. Although I've heard the word supercar being used to describe the former, the problem with using it that way is that you would have to include the Lamborghini Miura and the Countach but you couldn't include the Gallardo which is as fast, if not faster than both of them. Therefore, it's my opinion that a supercar is any car of any class, sportscar, grand tourer, muscle car or even a luxury saloon (Mercedes S55 AMG for example), that has a certain level of performance. The only problem then is that you have to decide where you set the performance bar for a car to be considered a supercar. The Porsche 911 Turbo is probably a supercar but is the 911 Carrera? Hope this helps. 999 09:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

either we should get an agreed upon definition, or ditch the article, I think, and in the car classification article, list only the indisputible ones.

Although this article isn't essential to the Wikipedia, I see no reason to delete it. I'm sure we can come to a consensus about what a supercar is. If anyone is interested in this, please speak up and tell us your opinions. 999 21:33, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the list should be removed as the "supercar" is a generally accepted classification. However, I do agree that there are cars on the list that definitely do not belong.

To my way of thinking, a "supercar" has to meet certain requirements

1. Extraordinarily high performance in terms of power, acceleration and top speed. 2. Extroverted and even outrageous styling. 3. A prestigious and/or exclusive badge.

According to these critera, and in my opinion, the following cars do not belong: Chevy Corvette (except, perhaps, the L-88 model from the 1960s) Any De Tomaso except the Pantera and Mangusta Dodge Viper and Daytona Ferrari Dino and 3xx series with the possible exception of the 360. Noble M12 Anything by Plymouth Anyway, that's my $.02 Anything by Porsche (for the road) except for the 959 and Carrera GT.--JonGwynne 11:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I disagree with all three of your criteria to an extent:

"1. Extraordinarily high performance in terms of power, acceleration and top speed."

This criteria (i.e. performance, although I think power is irrelevant) is the only one that I believe should be used to judge what a supercar is. However, "extraordinarily high" is not a strict level that we can use to judge which cars to include in this list because it is very vague and open to interpretation. What is ordinary to one person will not be to another and neither person can prove their opinion to be any more valid than the other's.

2."Extroverted and even outrageous styling."

Again, too open to interpretation. To some people any low, sleek car is extroverted but to others only something like a Ferrari Enzo Ferrari will do.

3."A prestigious and/or exclusive badge." (Note: I presume you mean marque when you say badge rather that the actual badge itself)

Same problem with being open to interpretation. Just how expensive and how few numbers does a car have to be produced in for it to be exclusive? And whilst Ferrari is prestigious, is Pagani - which makes similar cars but is a much newer and less well known marque - prestigious? And even when you have a marque like Ford that is surely not exclusive or prestigious they are making a car (Ford GT) that most people would consider to be a supercar.

The problem is, I hope you can see, that although the term supercar is widely used it is not as you say "a generally accepted classification". People have different opinions about what a supercar is and therefore it is very difficult, maybe impossoible, to have a strict definition. SamH 15:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with some of the things you say SamH.

re: 1. Yes, "extraordinarily high performance" is not a fixed measurement. The problem is that what was legitimate supercar performance in the 1970s is the province of a great many relatively common cars today. My modern Jaguar XJR will outaccelerate a Ferrari Daytona and even keep up with a 512BB and yet no one in their right mind would consider the Jag a "supercar". However, in any given year, there are a handful of cars that push the edge of the performance envelope and that is what I mean by "extraordinarily high performance". It is a subjective criteria but, how can it be anything else?

re: 2. Again, you're right that this is a somewhat subjective description, but it has to be. Some cars have exceptional performance but are simply too "ordinary" looking to be considered supercars. Consider the Maserati Ghibli Cup II. 330bhp from a 2.0 liter twin-turbo V6? Not only an extraordinary technological achievement but it gives the car sphincter-puckering performance (espcially with no traction-control). The Maserati name is also sufficiently exotic and loaded with supercar pedigree. Problem is... all that magic is wrapped up in a slightly re-worked BiTurbo coupe body. Kinda like putting Catherine Zeta Jones in jeans and a white T-shirt. She's still gorgeous but we'd all agree that she's looked better.

re: 3. Once again, this category also has to be left somewhat subjective. One doesn't normally associate Ford with supercars, but the Ford GT has everything one needs and more. Just being a Ford shouldn't disqualify it. On the other hand, the Ferrari 400 series of four-seater GTs has all the Ferrari pedigree and engineering magic but is no more a supercar than my Jag. So just having the right badge (you're right, I'm talking about what's on the badge rather than the actual badge itself) doesn't mean it is automatically a supercar. New companies like Pagani and Koenigsegg obviously make supercars. On the other hand, the British company TVR makes cars that seem to have everything: raw power/performance and styling that would make other supercars feel inadquate (stories about in TVR discussion groups about the glee with which they humble Ferrari, Porsche and Lambo owners on the road and in a recent magazine track, the least powerful TVR in production, the T350C, was faster around the test track than a Pagani Zonda, Lamborghini Murcielago, Porsche 911GT3 and at a fraction of the cost). Yet no one really considers TVRs to be supercars. Why? They're too readily available. You can pick up a new one for the price of a midrange BMW and a used one for the price of a Honda S2000.

re: a strict definition. Obviously a strict definition is out. It is more like the old definition of "art": It can't be described in literal terms but you know it when you see it.

I understand what you mean by the analogy of 'knowing' when you see a piece of art. However, what is art to me might be a pile of rubbish to you. One might even argue that a car's styling is artwork but there are plenty of people who would disagree. You and I (anyone in fact, but for the purposes of this example just you and I) could be given a list of car's and told to decide which ones are supercars. We would undoubtedly choose different cars but without a strict definition we wouldn't be able to prove that either one of our choices was correct. If I put my list on this article and claimed that it was correct that would be POV, the same if you put your list on. To be NPOV we would have to include every car that you, I and everybody else contests to be a supercar and also say that we believe each other's choices are invalid. Surely such uncertainty would defeat the object of a list such as this? Note: at the same time as leaving this message I have tidied up this talk page.SamH 18:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who decides what is a supercar?

This is probably a better place to move the dialogue and debate to define supercars and come up with a better convention. A quick search with google or kartoo, should reveal that the majority of "supercar" hits are with manufacturer based websites. I did try to look up the supercar dictionary meaning with very limited success (even wiki was cited as a source!) The first reference to the use of "supercar" that I can find seems to be with Gerry Anderson and the puppet show Supercar (television) back in 1961! "Supercar" is not a phrase in common use, it is really just something adopted by car manufacturers to promote a particular line of a high-performance sports car. On that basis, authority for the application of this tag should correctly be vested in how any manufacturer describes their vehicle. This is nicely managed on the automobile and truck pages so it should apply equally well here. --RolandG 11:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the term "supercar" is commonly used among automotive journalists to describe cars of extraordinary power, performance and styling. --JonGwynne 21:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with JonGwynne; I think that the word "supercar" is in common use. I've often heard it being used by manufacturers, journalists and enthusiasts. SamH 09:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then it would be reasonable to leave the definition of what is a supercar up to the manufacturer. --RolandG 16:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The supercar is in the eye of the beholder, not the manufacturer. Would you let Hundai produce an MX5 knockoff and then, because they call it a supercar (even though, by their standards, it may be) we should all be forced to accept it as such? Of course not.

That manufacturers have an interest in how their vehicle is promoted and 'can' attach a supercar label to a vehicle implies that they are equally valid stakeholders. You may not be pleased by their choice of label but that is of little consequence. Unless you have a deeply cynical view of advertising, I doubt that manufacturers 'force' anybody to accept a definition. I also doubt that they deliberately go out of their way to humiliate their customers with inappropriate labels. --RolandG 00:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omissions and time-sensitive definition

Another problem with the list is that what parameters would define what a "supercar" is changes. A car with the performance of for example the current Porsche 911 would definitely have been considered a "supercar" in 1960. So, the inclusion of the Maserati Bora is wholly justifiable, but its performance is not exactly startling by today's standards.

On to the list itself - for a start I'd imagine that all concept/prototype vehicles should be scratched. The Chrysler ME Four Twelve should not be there (yet). The Bugatti Veyron should probably also not be there until some sort of production is attempted.

Also, modified versions of production cars should not be eligible. I'd vote for scrapping the Jehle on those grounds. The Lotus Esprit and Carlton too I feel should go - even for its time the performance of the Esprit was not that remarkable, and the Carlton, as impressive as it was, also fails to make the grade in my opinion - mostly due to it having 4 doors. Notable omissions that I would like to see included are:

• Jiotto Caspita
• Yamaha OX99-11
• Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale
• Maserati Ghibli
• Maserati 5000 GT
• Ferrari 275 GTB/4
• Ferrari 250 GTO
• Ferrari 365 GTB/4
• Ferrari 500 Superfast
• Bizzarrini 5300
• Iso Grifo
• Aston Martin V8 Vantage
• Aston Martin DB4 Zagato
• Aston Martin V8 Zagato
• Nissan R390 GT1
• Porsche 911 GT1
• Mercedes-Benz SSK
• Mercedes-Benz 300 SL "Gullwing"
• Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM
• AC Cobra 427
• Lancia Stratos
• Ford GT40 (Original)
• Bugatti 35
• Bugatti 57
• Pegaso Z102
• Duesenberg SJ
• Hispano Suiza Type 68
• Monteverdi Hai

Too many cars would make the "almost" list. Ciao ~ Zak

I agree with your (Zak) points about time sensitivity and concept/prototype cars but the more I consider it, the more I feel this page should be deleted. Trying to create a list of supercars when the term "supercar" is so subjective just seems ridiculous. I think that any such list will be meaningless because it can't be based on a widely agreed definition. What are people's thoughts on deleting this page? SamH 12:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should this list be deleted=

I don't think it should be deleted. For better or worse, the term "supercar" is a part of automotive culture and history. Maybe what we should do is agree on a list of objective criteria. I would suggest a list of "disqualifying characteristics" since I think it will be easier to agree on what a supercar ISN'T. So, with that in mind, any car that has none of the following characteristics is a "bona fide supercar"

• 1. Less than 300bhp for any car or less than 350bhp for cars built after 1970.
• 2. A top speed of less than 160mph
• 3. Any car whose production ceased before 1965.
• 4. Any car that was not available for sale to the public for road use by its original manufacturer (i.e. no prototypes, concepts, or aftermarket tuner "specials")
• 5. Any large-scale, mass-produced car (e.g. Chevy Corvette, Dodge Viper) - after all, supercars have to have at least some exclusivity. Though, to be fair, there have been special, limited-edition Corvettes and Vipers that would qualify as proper supercars.
• 6. Any car that has a more powerful version offered by the same manufacturer - e.g. The "regular" Aston Martin V8 Vantage isn't a supercar because of the "Vantage 600" model with vastly increased power.

As to the above list, here are my comments:

• Jiotto Caspita - Did it ever go into production?
• Yamaha OX99-11 - Did it ever go into production?
• Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale - No problems there
• Maserati Ghibli - Which one? The original or the tweaked Biturbo?
• Maserati 5000 GT - A little too old, isn't it?
• Ferrari 275 GTB/4 - No problem with any of these Ferraris
• Ferrari 250 GTO
• Ferrari 365 GTB/4
• Ferrari 500 Superfast
• Bizzarrini 5300 - No problem here
• Iso Grifo - Ditto
• Aston Martin V8 Vantage - Only the "Vantage 600" model
• Aston Martin DB4 Zagato - No problems
• Aston Martin V8 Zagato - Sure
• Nissan R390 GT1 - Were any of them actually sold for road use?
• Porsche 911 GT1 - Sure
• Mercedes-Benz SSK - WAY too old.
• Mercedes-Benz 300 SL "Gullwing" - Too old
• Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM - I thought you wanted to disallow cars modified by aftermarket tuners...
• AC Cobra 427 - ABSOLUTELY no probem with this one.
• Lancia Stratos - Dunno, it was a fine rally car, but was it really a supercar?
• Ford GT40 (Original) - DEFINITELY no problem with the "Ferrari killer"
• Bugatti 35 - Too old
• Bugatti 57 - Too old
• Pegaso Z102 - Did it ever go into production?
• Duesenberg SJ - Too old
• Hispano Suiza Type 68 - Too old
• Monteverdi Hai - Did it ever go into production?

re: Lotus Esprit and Carlton. The performance of the Esprit S4S is astonishing for any car, much less one with a 2.2 liter I-4 engine. I agree with you that early Esprits didn't have the performance to match the looks, but Lotus corrected that in later incarnations of the vehicle. The Carlton deserves inclusion (in my opinion) because it is still the fastest production sedan ever made (though, admittedly, that is increasingly due to the requirement of speed-limiters) and is an automotive icon for that reason.

I agree that the term "supercar" is part of automotive culture and history, and therefore I think that the supercar article should be retained and expanded. However, "supercar" has a very vague and loose definition so I don't see how a list of supercars can have any weight (in the same way that a list of stylish cars would be pointless). Of course, if there were a widely agreed upon set of criteria for classifying supercars, having a list would make sense (e.g. the definition of aircraft is widely agreed upon so we have a list of aircraft). However, we can't just invent a set of criteria because it's the job of an encyclopaedia to document things that already exist (e.g. the aircraft definition), not to invent new things based on what the editors think is correct (e.g. supercar criteria). SamH 13:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find your argument contradictory. There is this term called a "supercar" that is somewhat, but not entirely, subjective. After all, there are cars like the Lamborghini Mucielago that people would widely would agree is a "supercar". There are cars like the Chevy Corvette which some people think is a supercar while others disagree. There are also cars like the Ford Focus which is widely agreed to not be a supercar. So, there does seem to be some widely-accepted criteria by which a vehicle is considered a supercar. Just because there is no official standards body who have established an objective definition of what makes a supercar, doesn't mean such a definition can't be created and agreed upon by a group of people. BTW, I've seen many purely subjective lists published in automotive magazines like "most beautiful cars", "most important cars" and so forth. So, what do you say? --JonGwynne 09:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Even if we could invent a set of criteia that we all agreed upon (which I think would be impossible because we all have our own subjective opinions about what a supercar is), it wouldn't be useful in compiling this list because it would still just be one opinion that is no more valid than another opinion. I too have seen lists like you described in auto magazines, but of course they are free to present only their own opinion whereas, as an encyclopaedia, we have to present all opinions. Surely you agree that it would be wrong to have a list of "most beautiful cars" on Wikipedia? SamH 09:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, for what it is worth, I think we could stick to the current format where we have two categories: undisputed supercar and disputed supercars. That way the only cars on the undisputed list are the ones we all agree belong there and the rest can go to the disputed list. As a side benefit, the undisputed list would probably stay pretty short, which would be in keeping with the superlative nature of the category. The alternative would be to try to agree on criteria and, as I said before, I think we're better of trying to agree on exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary criteria since it would be easier and probably less contentious. But I'm OK with the current format.--JonGwynne 01:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I maintain my position that there is little or no value in a list such as this. However, I wouldn't object to it being kept, as long as it's made clear that it is not necessarily fact. SamH 10:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Sam that we should delete the list of super cars associated with this vague definition. We can then trim down this fascinating discussion to list the key points raised and redirect any supercar debates that spring up on each of the vehicle websites to here. Wikipedia has a good sidebar tool "What links here" for supercar enthusiasts to list refering articles. Leave it to that and put our energies into other burning issues and contributions. --RolandG 00:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still agree with Sam that we entirely delete this list and move on. It would make more sense for anybody to just work backwards by using the "What links here" toolbox option. Cripes, not even the wiki list of famous cars has this level of debate. --RolandG 10:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of keeping this list intact. This list is a convenient place to find, in one place, vehicles of rarity that are capable of high performance. While "rarity" and "high performance" are somewhat subjective, I know we can tell the difference between an Aston Martin and an Isuzu. As a journalist, I understand the dire importance of objectivity, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If I have learned anything from news writers before me, it is that there is no such thing as complete and total objectivity. I have found this page an extraordinarily useful resource, and would be upset to see it go. If anyone does not agree with a car listed here, he can move it to the disputed section. After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about: everyone has the ability to contribute. --Jagvar Apr 4, 2005

You will have more luck doing a search for articles about vehicles that mention the word supercar. --RolandG 00:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I worked at Lotus and worked on the Carlton. At no time was the word Supercar used for the Carlton. We loved it, it was a fine project. But it was not a supercar. Etna, and M300 (on which I did some work), which was the 4wd 2xV6 I would guess turned into the Veyron, WAS a supercar, in our terminology. A the time we were also working on the ZR1 Corvette, and the Chev Indy showcar. We built 3 of the latter, one of which had a twin turbo LT5 engine and was suitable for use by journalists. That might have been a supercar, but was not in production. The ZR1 was not considered to be anything much other than a stiff suspension, huge tires, and a nice engine. We did't call the Esprit Turbo a supercar, but had no objection when it was compared to the Countach, 328 etc, at the time. My feeling is that in 1988 the Countach was a sort of upper end sportscar, bottom end supercar. And rather heavy, stupid and ugly. The 328 was just a (very) pretty Ferrari sportscar, not a supercar. So, to wind back the clock, the Dino, and the Miura, were terrific sportscars (hey I'm being nice about a Lambo), but to my mind do not represent the lodesamoney/carbon bling factor of the true supercar.

Greglocock 11:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to reply to that list above, generally the term did not exist until the 70's, so any of the cars made before then are used as an example of . The reason why Miura is more regarded than others at the time was, before that, cars like the 250GTO were purely built for racing or were built around the homlogation regulation so that

• Jiotto Caspita - Did it ever go into production? - but it was to be
• Yamaha OX99-11 - Did it ever go into production? - same as above
• Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale - No problems there - is a racecar, may count
• Maserati Ghibli - Which one? The original or the tweaked Biturbo? - definately none of both
• Maserati 5000 GT - A little too old, isn't it?
• Ferrari 275 GTB/4 - No problem with any of these Ferraris
• Ferrari 250 GTO
• Ferrari 365 GTB/4
• Ferrari 500 Superfast
• Bizzarrini 5300 - No problem here
• Iso Grifo - Ditto
• Aston Martin V8 Vantage - Only the "Vantage 600" model - in fact none of them
• Aston Martin DB4 Zagato - No problems - based on a DB4, which still do not count
• Aston Martin V8 Zagato - Sure - same as above, in fact Aston Martin never built any supercars, they build Grand Tourers, so I am in a proposal to delete any Astons on the list.
• Nissan R390 GT1 - Were any of them actually sold for road use? - was to be but new homlogation regulations meant Nissan didn't have to build them anymore, same reason as the Toyota GT1.
• Mercedes-Benz SSK - WAY too old.
• Mercedes-Benz 300 SL "Gullwing" - Too old - like I said, the term didn't exist then
• Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM - I thought you wanted to disallow cars modified by aftermarket tuners...
• AC Cobra 427 - ABSOLUTELY no probem with this one. - seen as a uprated car
• Ford GT40 (Original) - DEFINITELY no problem with the "Ferrari killer"
• Bugatti 35 - Too old
• Bugatti 57 - Too old
• Pegaso Z102 - Did it ever go into production?
• Duesenberg SJ - Too old
• Hispano Suiza Type 68 - Too old
• Monteverdi Hai - Did it ever go into production?

Anything that says Did it ever go into production? counts as potentially they were to be, until the project died. Willirennen 15:21, 18 September 2006 (utc)

[edit] Specific Vehicle discussions

[edit] Ferraris

The following cars are currently listed as bona fide:

1. Ferrari 512BB
2. Ferrari 612 Scaglietti
3. Ferrari Testarossa
4. Ferrari 360
5. Ferrari F430
6. Ferrari F40
7. Ferrari F50
8. Ferrari Enzo

After much thought, I would like to remove most of these, leaving just the following:

1. Ferrari 250 GTO
2. Ferrari GTO
3. Ferrari F40
4. Ferrari F50
5. Ferrari Enzo

Thoughts? --SFoskett 19:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would keep the 512BB. --Pc13 20:19, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I went back to a contemporary review of the 512BB and it was held in considerable awe. You're right - I would consider including it based on this opinion. But NOT the later Testarossa - it was only the "best regular Ferrari", not a supercar. --SFoskett 21:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The non-special edition V8 Ferraris probably shouldn't have been on there - I left them originally because I was already cutting a lot of stuff out and didn't want to go OTT. So that's the 360 and 430 gone. I'm on the fence with regard to the 612. On the one hand, it is an "ordinary Ferrari" but on the other hand, it represents the peak of their technology to date - at least what is available for sale to the public. I strongly object to the claim below that a GT can't be a supercar. The Lamborghini Murcielago knocks that theory on the head. There's also no rule that says supercars can't be practical. The McLaren F1 knocks that theory on the head. As regards the 512 and Testarossa, I think they should both stay. In their day, they were what the Murcielago is today. The 512's flat-12 engine and the Testarossa's signature side-trakes are iconic supercar accessories.

So, to sum up, I vote we dump all the V8s apart from the GTO and F40 but leave all the V12s. --JonGwynne 23:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that. --SFoskett 13:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Ferrari-chat members (F-owned) considers supercars

(moved from below)

Ferrari supercars undisputed: 288 GTO, F40, F50, Enzo

Not supercars:

Ferrari 456/612: a grand touring car can never be a supercar, it is a grand tourer 2+2. (a supercar must be useless in practical terms, which the the 612 is not)

Ferrari 550/575: not a supercar, because Enzo is the supercar of the marque and there can be only one supercar per brand any time, obviously.

Ferrari 348/355/360/430: not a supercar because only 12cyl Ferraris are considered "true" Ferraris by the disgustingly rich.

Ferrari 330P4: no matter how much sex godess she is, a racing car is not a supercar, a supercar is a racing car made for the road legal status.

I agree with the 612. It is not a supercar and it is on the list. I vote fot it to be removed. --Cirilobeto 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler ME 4-12

Moving the following cars from the "Bona Fide" list to the "Disputed list for the following reasons:

• Chrysler ME 4-12 - Not in production. If and when the Chrysler announces a delivery date for this vehicle the issue can be revisted.
• Jehle - no information curently available.

[edit] Honda NSX

Since reference to it being a "supercar" were removed from the original NSX page, I'll go ahead and remove it here.

Erm, reference to the Honda NSX being a supercar still exists on that article. I know that there is disagreement on the subject but surely that's what the "disputed/questionable" section is for? I'll reinstate it if you agree. SamH 15:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's one definition of a Supercar that is quite accurate:

Low, wide, made of exotic materials, very fast, handles, rare, very expensive, image, breaks down a lot. The NSX does all of that except the last one (and possibly the one before)

Sure, if you want.--JonGwynne 00:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, it has dropped off again. I'll reinstate the Honda NSX as a supercar. All the NSX and other car club drivers I have spoken to consider it to be as such. --RolandG 02:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Honda NSX lacks originality, because its bodies has always been Ferrari Pininfarina bootlegs (Ferrari F348, F360 and Enzo respectively) and copycats do not deserve supefcar status. Look here and be ashamed. There is reason that people of the world commonly consider the japanese a bunch of stealers, who never created anything original in industry.

The NSX was designed in the late 1980's as an alternative to the Ferrari 348 which was almost never considered to be a supercar. At less than 300 hp, the basic NSX is very slow next to the supercars of today. Actually it is more or less outperformed by the likes of modern Corvettes Z06s. Thus, questionable supercar at best. Shawnc 01:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There's question about the NSX, but no questions about the S2000 being a supercar? While light weight, it still doesn't have very impressive P/W. A Boxster S for example will have better P/W. Shouldn't that be removed! --70.112.75.114 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Shawnc is very correct with his point about the 348. The NSX was designed to compete against a car that wasn't even a supercar. The NSX sold for almost 15 years, yet during few of those years was the car even considered to be a competitor to any supercar. Though still somewhat worthwhile in performance by today's standards, it remains just an overpriced vestige of Japanese motoring.

The NSX, even on its last days, was very capable. It taught Ferrari a lesson. In its introduction, the NSX performed better than the 348. It set new standards with day-to-day driving and reliability for all supercars and most sports cars. The last and most aggressive iteration of the NSX, the NSX-R, was a track star. It was a great handling car, and while not having the tremendous horsepower of a Lamborghini Murcielago, it was capable of giving it a hard time in a racetrack. Best Motoring made several videos where the NSX-R raced many of today's sports cars and supercars, and the NSX-R showed very good reasons why it should be considerer an exotic. Besides that, the NSX has been named several times by magazine editors as an exotic. Cirilobeto 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When the NSX was introducued group road tests were held which typically included Ferrari 348 (definitely not a supercar), Lotus Esprit (definitely not a supercar), and Porsche 911 (definitely not a supercar). The NSX often won, but not always. It is a fine sportscar. It is not a supercar. I find all this angst rather amusing, supercar is not, in my book, automatically a compliment. Few of the modern ones even strike me as especially desirable. From about 1990 onwards many seem to be track cars in drag, which seems to be missing the point to me. (Mid engine Ferraris especially). Greglocock 23:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota 2000GT

OK, so is the Toyota 2000GTa supercar? I'd say it's as close as Japan ever got, bar a Dome or something really exotic. I say "bona fide". --SFoskett 14:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

From what I know about the model, I would certainly categorize it as such. It's "bona fide" in my book. I wouldn't say it's as close as Japan ever got though. I'd call the Nissan R390 GT1 the top Japanese supercar, but that's just my opinion. --Jagvar Apr 4, 2005

Not even close to a supercar - the 2000 GT in my opinion. Barring Dome and the like is quite the opposite of what we're trying to achieve, is it not? Agree with Jagvar. Obviously the Yamaha OX99-11 and Jiotto Caspita must feature in any list of supercars. --Zaktoo 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Indeed no, too E-type to be seen as one, even though Shin Yoshikawa did a book called Toyota 2000GT: The Complete History of Japan's First Supercar, which I own.

Willirennen 15:21, 18 September 2006 (utc)

[edit] Panther Solo

I moved the Panther Solo to the list of questionable supercars. I don't think a car with a standard Cosworth YB engine (i.e. 204 bhp) should be on the list. --Pc13 08:27, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

It was the first mid-engined all wheel drive sports car produced. It was featured on a number of car mag covers at the time. It's an important exotic car, and performed quite well! --SFoskett 15:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, but even for the time, 204 bhp wasn't much, compared to the likes of Ferrari 288 GTO (400 PS), Porsche 959 (450 PS) and Ferrari F40 (478 PS). And AWD isn't relevant whether a car is a supercar or not. You could even argue the Ford RS200 (1985) and Audi Quattro S1 (1983), which predate the Panther Solo II (1987), are actually the first AWD sports cars (although somewhat based on "saloon" models and homologated for rallying, they were mid-engined two-seaters with two-doors). And that goes back to the NSX discussion - what makes a supercar, just power, or power/weight ratio? Does the Caterham deserve to be here? --Pc13 16:31, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

[edit] Porsches

[edit] 911 Turbo SE

On what basis would the Porsche 911 Turbo SE not be considered a supercar, especially in light of the fact that it was of similar performance to the Ferrari Testarossa (which is), was made in small numbers, was significantly changed from the standard Porsche 911 Turbo (both in looks and mechanicals). It cost almost twice as much as the standard Turbo and was significantly more expensive than a Ferrari TestarossaNasty 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Any opinions on this, or will I add it back? Nasty 10:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911 GT1

This is probably not a supercar in light of the fact that we are not allowing homologation specials, or race cars such as the Ferrari P4. If we were to add the P4 as a supercar, the Porsche 904 Carrera GTS would also be a contender. Nasty 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911 GT2

Why would this car not be considered a supercar? It is not an homologation special and it seems to me that if the Mega Track, Spectre R42 and Venturi Atlantique are included, so should this as it is significantly faster. Nasty 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes-Benz

[edit] Mercedes-Benz 500E

Some joker keeps adding this one to the list of 90's supercars. Am I missing something about it that somehow makes it a supercar when the likes of the Porsche 911 Turbo and Ferrari F355 are not? Nasty 10:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corvettes

[edit] Z06

What about all the performance 'Vettes over the years? Especially the current C6 Corvette Z06. With a 6.3 lb/hp, 505 horsepower, 470 lb-ft of torque, it outperforms even the Ferrari F430 with a 0-60 of 3.5 vs 4.1. Is this not supercar material?

• Statistics from Car and Driver, September 2006

Supercars aren't *just* about performance but are also about being exotic and cutting edge in technology. That leaves out the Corvette... with its pushrod engine and leaf-spring suspension. --SpinyNorman 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delorean?

A remarkable if ill fated car, no? Certainly media attention and place in popular culture contibutes to supercar status. And "Back to the Future" is more than even the Countach got. BTW, can we get rid of these crappy, UGLY boutique "supercars". I mean Ultima GTR, wtf? The Vector, OK, it's kind of rad, but Lister Storm?! Hideous. Not well known. Not a supercar.

No. 140hp V6 and a top speed of barely of 100mph is simply not supercar material. In fact, it is a questionable sports car even by 1981 standards. The Ultima GTR is slightly questionable due to its availability as a kit car. However, it is also available as a factory built vehicle, and it is extremely fast. The Lister Storm is obscure with only 4 built, but it was conceived and built as a production supercar, and it was rated at 208 mph. Shawnc 01:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As a former Delorean owner, I should say a few words in defense of the car. Even though it isn't a supercar by any stretch of anyone's imagination, it is a fine car and there is nothing "questionable" about its status as a legitimate sports car. Its performance was adequate (though not astonishing) but its handling was superb (provided the car's suspension was returned to the original factory settings and not left in the ridiculous "raised" state imposed on Delorean by the feds). The gullwing doors were not only ultra-cool but extremely practical. It was reliable (provided it was driven regularly), easy to drive and even somewhat practical if you could live with a two-seater. The stainless steel body was easy to keep clean provided no one actually touched it - it showed fingerprints like mad. Also, I'd like to defend the Ultima against the "kit car" slur. It is available as a kit car primarily so it can get access to the North American market without having to jump through stupid and expensive bureaucratic hoops. It is also available as a factory-built "turnkey" vehicle in those market that permit such vehicles to be sold.

[edit] S2000

Are you joking? Quit adding it.

[edit] Buick Reatta?

Why is this in here?

This was a front wheel drive V6 with 165 or so HP. It sold for around $30,000 (1990). What on earth is it doing on this list???

I couldnt agree more!!!

I'm not sure why the Reatta is a "disputed supercar". Yes, it is a very nice car (I've driven one more than a few times) and it has a special place in Buick history, but never-the-less it is not supercar material as per the critera listed on the supercar page. And while I'm on the subject, I'm moving the Subaru Impreza WRX STI from the list to disputed. I don't see how this can be listed directly under a Saleen S7. Yes, it too is nice, but it just doesn't meet many of the above criteria. fruitofwisdom 02:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

For NPOV and verifiability, I suggest we find citations that use the term "supercar" in direct reference to the cars on this list. Shawnc 08:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pantera

Why is this kit-car wannabee in the list?

Greglocock 11:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Atom??

Should the Ariel Atom be put under "disputed"?? A 300 BHP Honda Civic Type R Engine on a half-ton frame. And could me mistaken for a go-cart. However, the auto programme Top Gear has proven the car is in the realm of such supercars like the Maserati MC12, Ferrari Enzo Ferrari, Koenigsegg CCX and the Pagani Zonda F--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. A supercar is more than just a fast semi-circuit car with an eye-catching design. After all, if fast lap times are your aim then a Westfield would probably qualify, albeit with rather less style. I think the fundamental reason why I wouldn't put the Atom on the list is that it is not a bloated piece of excess. Very few of the supercars are to my mind anything much more than bling. Greglocock 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be considered to be a bloated go-cart. --293.xx.xxx.xx 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koeniggsegg CC and derivatives

Nothing wrong witht his being on the list, but do we really need all 4 derivatives? Are they really sufficiently distinct to be worth listing separately?

Greglocock 11:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we remove "Potential supercars that never entered production"?

As SpinyNorman seems determined to do, should we remove this section en-masse or leave it for its informational value? Nasty 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to lose it. Greglocock 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to Keep it as Supercar projects that died still counts as one

Willirennen 15:21, 18 September 2006 (utc)

The cars in question are mentioned elsewhere, I don't see why they need to be listed here. --SpinyNorman 05:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we trim the disputed supercar list?

The disputed list is growing and as so many cars are going to be considered by some to be supercars, we should either place criteria or remove the list altogether. I propose the former with very simple criteria:

1. All cars on the list must have a verifiable and reputable source which claims that it is a supercar. Reputable sources should include internationally available publications that are neither marque nor country of origin (of the car) specific. Also, publications which cater for a very narrow genre should be excluded, especially where that genre is not described as "supercar". This will remove magazines such as "Fast Ford" and "Banzai" and books about tuned muscle cars.

2. Any source which describes the car as being a supercar must not be of the same country of origin as the car itself. This is to reduce any claim of bias.

I'm sure that other criterias can and will be added. Nasty 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad start but I think you are taking this list far too seriously. FWIW I think the definition on this page "cutting-edge technology for the era of initial production, extreme power, exclusivity, rarity, and extravagant styling." is sufficient, and would argue that the definition on supercar concentrates far too much on performance. I also think that a shorter list is better than a shopping list of bloated glassfibre lookalikes with big tires. Greglocock 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANQUISH

The Aston Martin Vanquish S is NOT a supercar..

I agree. It is far too slow, looks too much like its cheaper V8 predecessor, and lacks any technological edge. Mind you at least it doesn't look like yet another Ferrari, yawn. Greglocock 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Aston Martin Vanquish S is NOT a supercar..

The Aston Martin Vanquish S is NOT a supercar..

I also agree. In fact Astons are, they are all grand tourers, too heavy for instance, to ordinary as well. Greglocock 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reply to all the above

I like to say before you all start arguing, would it be more simpler if this list and any definition on supercar is be deleted, so you all can have your own definition to what a supercar is.

Remember, and I MEAN anybody who have been to the Goodwood Festival of Speed since 2000, even if you have visited the Sunday Times Supercar paddock, don't be misled into thinking even a 350Z or a 911 GT3 is a supercar, SO read the definition carefully

Willirennen 15:21, 18 September 2006 (utc)

=haha, nissan 350z a supercar??? NEVER! not even a 911 GT3