Toyota gets ready for a stoush with Mazda...interesting.

by **NitroDann** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:10 pm

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah right.

Car built for enjoying motorsports like driving.

Car- motorsports.

Sports car.

Dann

by **Smokinscotty** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:16 am

miata wrote:
NitroDann wrote:A lot of people feel how I do.

They feel that this is the first proper Jap sports car in years, and that there will be an entire aftermarket for it, for whatever part they desire.

Dann

Not a Sports Car, doesn't come close to Sports Car by any definition, it has a fixed roof! Sporty, Sports Coupe, it's a 2+2!

2+2 coupe not a sports car?

What about Skyline, Monaro, 944, E-Type, Espada, RX-7 and the 911....

What exactly is a sports car then? Needs to have no roof?

by **PaulF** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:19 am

miata wrote:Not a Sports Car, doesn't come close to Sports Car by any definition, it has a fixed roof! Sporty, Sports Coupe, it's a 2+2!

"By any definition"? Really?? How many people have you asked? That's such a ridiculous thing to say. It's kind of like saying that an MX-5 isn't a sports car - by any definition! - because it doesn't have carburettors.

The 86 is designed from the outset with driving enjoyment and motorsports in mind - as a pure drivers' car. I will accept that it is not a roadster, but to suggest that it isn't a sports car is just silly.

by **Hjt** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:21 am

This reminds me of a family guy episode, a person kills a guy in his sports car. Peter griffin asks what car it was, then argues with the guy that the Miata isn't a sports car, ignoring the fact he ran someone over..

I'm.going to search for it.

by **Hjt** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:26 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73nRapBJ ... ata_player
Enjoy

by **Jeo** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:34 am

Pretty sure there's precisely zero other threads on here arguing about the definition of a 'sports car' so lets turn this in to one!

by **PaulF** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:52 am

Fair call I suppose.

Miata's still wrong though.

Back to the 86, has there been any solid indication as to when we're going to see these things hit showrooms in Australia?

by **GP14** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:32 am

To put you out of your misery, here you go courtesy of google:

"The Houghton Mifflin dictionary defines a sports car as: "An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds." This dictionary definition does not seem to capture the general perception of what the public sees as a sports car.

The Houghton Mifflin definition of the "two seat rule" seems out-of-date. Many sports cars today offer small back seats (sometimes referred to as 2+2 seating) and there is a current movement underway to increase the seating room in models long considered sports cars by most automotive experts.

Insurance companies use their own formula in classifying automobiles and often the presence of two doors automatically makes any car a "sports car" in their eyes. This perspective, of course, is as overly simplistic as the standard dictionary approach to defining a sports car. One can certainly think of any number of two door vehicles that fall far short of being an actual sports car. Economy cars and even larger two-door vehicles that are not built with power and performance in mind should not qualify as true sports cars.

Some car buffs will refer to high-performance muscle cars and other larger vehicles as sports cars. Others, however, draw a distinction between these vehicles and "true" sports cars. These individuals will claim that a car can be a "sporting car" or simply "sporty" but still fall short of being a true sports car. Thus, "regular" cars may be outfitted with a "sports package" and/or accessories to make the car sportier, but may not fit a strict definition of a sports car.

Not all automotive enthusiasts, however, embrace this restrictive view of sports cars. In many circles, a sports car is any car offering greater performance or power than more standard offerings. This school of thought will consider muscle cars and other larger vehicles designed with performance in mind as sports cars.

Others will maintain that the distinction between a sports car and any other type of car lies in how the car's suspension and handling are addressed. Technical debates rage over whether various suspension packages qualify as belonging to true "sports cars."

Some will argue that a sports car can be defined by its intentions. If the car is designed for performance more so than for utility, they say, it is a sports car. This intent-based definition, however, provides little guidance in determining whether a car is a sports car or not. Particularly in the modern era, the notion of designing a car of any sort without significant consideration of its feasibility and utility seems unlikely. Any commercially viable vehicle, regardless of its performance, must retain significant utility.

Road and Track, a leading automotive publication, summarizes the sports card definition debate with a simple observation: "Ask five people the exact definition of a sports car, and you'll likely get five different answers."

There is no clear-cut definition of what really is a sports car. The restrictive definitions of the past seem ill suited to categorize today's' diverse automotive offerings and common usage of the term runs contrary to most long-held definitions.

There is, however, a common thought that seems to run through almost all of the outlooks on the meaning of "sports car." If a car is designed with high performance or race-like capabilities in mind, it can probably be safely termed a sports car. Some purists may balk at such a liberal perspective, but alternative definitions fall far short of accurately distinguishing sports cars form regular production models."

by **015CAR** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:03 pm

Here's two more bob on several bits...

The last post from google prob covers it.- sports car in my feel is really based on intention more than anything- there's plenty of scope to argue- it's like claiming a girl is pretty... Unless you are looking at a supermodel (where some dick head will still argue anyways) the rest is down to opinion.

Some posters here are clearly missing the point. The 86 will be bought by several different types of people. One core sector are those who did or aspired to buy an ea86. For them the Suby could be twice as good- they will buy the Toyota... Many of those guys are on the income required to buy new. Many are like me and will entertain one later in the car's life. Dann's right on the money- these will be, and are designed to be one of the most modified cars in recent history- they have even toyed with/ may be releasing a down spec model with unpainted delivery bumpers and steel wheels...

Either way it is a competitor for the MX5. It's not the same as the Mazda, and it's best if it isn't to go head to head. Hell a Clio cup trophee is a competitor in many ways- trust me the bloke (best mate) who owned that will most likely own an 86 shortly...
As for MX5's needing more power? i just sold my na8 to buy a nb8a turbo'd. Two more different cars you can't imagine. Although I love the turbo'd monster I have now, the stockish na is sooooo much more accessible and therefore fun...

The 86 is hitting the same mark the mx5 has for years. Faster isn't alway as much fun, and certainly it is cheaper to buy, run, and fewer speeding fines in a ballanced, agile, light 'sports' car ...

Anything is better than more camrys

Ps- the market didn't move on from Honda- they just lost the spirit, and stopped making fun cars people wanted to buy in those categories. Just like Toyota... Welcome back Toyota- Where's Honda? ...More than the NSX please- affordable too!!!

by **slimx** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:11 pm

86 is a sports car?

And the roadster version is coming out to isnt it??

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk

by **toppertee** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:20 pm

You guys are all wrong,
Any thing a hairdresser can drive is not a sports car.

IMO.
1.Clutch must be so heavy you knee hurts holding it in.
2.Doesn't idle
3.Ride is unbearable.
4.More horse power than you need.
5.Stearing so heavy, you need to be pop eye to park it.
6.Hot as hell in summer, cold as sh*t in winter.
7.Leaks when it rains.
8.Shifts like a bitch.
9.Brakes don't bite when cold.
10.You knock your head when you get into it.
11.Must do 0-100kph under 6 seconds.
12.Can't drive over supermarket speed humps.
13. ......... the list goes on.

by **NitroDann** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:22 pm

My car is EVERYTHING on that list except the gearshift isnt bad.

Dann

by **Aussie Stig** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:34 pm

I share a quote from a 'Suburgatory' recent episode....

" I'm coming out of the closet, so now you all will have to get used to me driving a miata from now on. "

Did I laugh.

by **015CAR** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:33 pm

Hairdresser cars... haha. indeed.
It's the reason I now tell the unfamiliar that mine has a hairdryer fitted... :roll:

Big gay Rich- right up till I blow the doors off your boganodore... :evil:

by **ako** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:52 am

I decided to put a deposit down on an 86 last week. From what I can gather, the 86 will sell for $38K +ORC for the base model.

I've have previously owned an NA and currently an SE. I absolutely love the MX5 driving experience but i'm not sold on the NC or ND. When you look at the new car market it's difficult to find a car that will offer the same pleasure as my MX5.

The 86 seems to have the right ingredients for a fun car that I can drive through the week and track on the weekends. I think it's set to be the next "cult" car, hence resale value should be good.

I'm struggling to let go of my SE so I might keep it in the garage and put the wife's car out on the driveway...