BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

Is the E9X M3 a "Supercar"?

  • Yes, explain why.

    Votes: 33 20.5%
  • No, explain why.

    Votes: 128 79.5%

Is M3 a "Supercar"?

31K views 131 replies 44 participants last post by  adc 
#1 ·
The question I have is: is the M3 a Supercar?

What do you guys understand by "supercar" and is the M3 one?

Is it exclusive enough?
Is it high performing enough?
Is it exotic?
Does it have the required pedigree?
etc.

Sure one does think about Lambos, Ferraris, Zondas and the Veyron as supercars. There is no question about that. Even if you don't consider the M3 being up in that league. Still, is it one?
 
#2 ·
No. BMW has made two supercars in recent years. M1 and Z8

The M3 is simply the benchmark for performance sedans, nothing more.

The older versions make terrific club racing cars. The newer versions are wonderful combinations of luxury and performance. But the aren't now and never were supercars.
 
#97 · (Edited)
No. BMW has made two supercars in recent years. M1 and Z8

The M3 is simply the benchmark for performance sedans, nothing more.

The older versions make terrific club racing cars. The newer versions are wonderful combinations of luxury and performance. But the aren't now and never were supercars.
My thoughts exactly, friend! :thumbup:
-

Does not mean it's not a great car!
I agree. It isn't necessarily bad that the M3 isn't a supercar. The M3 is a car you can use every day. The cars closest to the supercar range but not there yet are designed by Porsche (and I know this because I've had many). :bigpimp:
 
#3 ·
I've often referred to the entire M lineup as "the world's most liveable supercars." What I mean is that these cars:

1) Perform better than 99% of cars on the road
2) Are relatively affordable to buy and to own
3) Are very reliable given their performance envelope
4) Offer a significant amount of practicality, versatility and comfort

Some would argue that supercars, by definition, need to be ridiculously expensive, mechanically temperamental and high maintenance, and purpose-built to a degree that precludes them from being anything more than a weekend track toy.

I would disagree.
 
#5 · (Edited)
No, but like phillipek said, the M3 is as close as you're gonna get in a practical and comfortable daily driver. If you look at the Nordschleife lap times, the E92 M3 is only 7+ seconds off of cars that I would consider supercars, which is not shabby for a 13 mile course.

The other day I had a little fun with a buddy who has an '05 Gallardo. The M3's performance was not far off at all, especially accelerating from a moving start.
 
#112 ·
I drove a Gallardo when I was in Italy this summer. Yes it was faster, but only marginally so. Dininishing returns. The egear transmission was noticeably slower shifting then the M-DCT transmission. It really made me appreciate the performance of the M3. I would say the M3 is as near to to a supercar as you can get, but certainly not an exotic.
 
#6 ·
NO, but very close to supercar status I think.
 
#7 ·
M3 is a 3 series with a sport package.

Frankly, over priced heavy car anymore.

Currently, BMW does not make a super car. The only one was the M1. Z8 never came close especially with the lawsuit on the chassis supports.

Super cars do 0-60 in 3 second range. 4-6 seconds is so common even for a mustang.
 
#16 ·
M3 is a 3 series with a sport package.

Frankly, over priced heavy car anymore.

Currently, BMW does not make a super car. The only one was the M1. Z8 never came close especially with the lawsuit on the chassis supports.

Super cars do 0-60 in 3 second range. 4-6 seconds is so common even for a mustang.
I don't think the M3 is a supercar, but I think you are dead wrong about it being a 3 series with a sport package.

It has one of the most technologically advanced engines in the world and the only part it shares with the regular 3 series is a rear suspension arm. There's a little more to it than you suggest.
 
#8 ·
You can't put baby seats in a supercar.

Supercars are extraordinary, M3s are not.

Supercars don't have a 9 pound per HP weight to power ratio.

You'll never hear a supercar owner say: "I commute everyday plus regular weekend chores (including occasional trip to IKEA to haul furniture)."
 
#9 · (Edited)
You can't put baby seats in a supercar.

Supercars are extraordinary, M3s are not.

Supercars don't have a 9 pound per HP weight to power ratio.

You'll never hear a supercar owner say: "I commute everyday plus regular weekend chores (including occasional trip to IKEA to haul furniture)."
While I agree with your final conclusion that the M3 is not a supercar, I would think that the Nissan GTR is in supercar territory, at least in terms of performance, and you could make 3 out of 4 of your comments with respect to it as well.

I completely agree with your opinion (and the previous poster's) that the M3 is simply too heavy. It's my one real complaint with the car. Of course, I did buy one with a sunroof, so I can't complain too loudly.
 
#19 · (Edited)
I think it's a supercar for having over 400hp and revving to 8400. Supercharge that bad boy and you've got something really serious.

NASCAR vehicles are 3600 pounds and they are supercars too. I think the Audi R8 is the most affordable exotic car, which I define as something that is necessarily a super car AND also has a unique shape. The M3 is not an exotic, but is a super car.

Realize that super car is a moving target. The M3 for 2009 would give anything a run for its money from 10 or 15 years ago.
 
#25 · (Edited)
I guess I define "super car" quite a bit different than most of the posters here.

I don't think a super car needs to be "exclusive" or "pedigree", I save terms like that for "exotic cars", although maybe I'm waxing adjectives.

If I was to define the term super car (and I think I'm going too) I would say that a super car is a high performance automobile built for the sole purpose of driving pleasure. I think under that definition the M3 qualifies. It certainly performs at about the same level as cars much more expensive, has a very nice interior (at least the newest iteration). What does it matter if the more common man can afford one?

I'd also suggest that anyone who claims that the M3 is a 3 Series with a sports package hasn't driven one. Difference is profound.
 
#27 · (Edited)
I guess I define "super car" quite a bit different than most of the posters here.

I don't think a super car needs to be "exclusive" or "pedigree", I save terms like that for "exotic cars", although maybe I'm waxing adjectives.

If I was to define the term super car (and I think I'm going too) I would say that a super car is a high performance automobile built for the sole purpose of driving pleasure. I think under that definition the M3 qualifies. It certainly performs at about the same level as cars much more expensive, has a very nice interior (at least the newest iteration). What does it matter if the more common man can afford one?

I'd also suggest that anyone who claims that the M3 is a 3 Series with a sports package hasn't driven one. Difference is profound.
That sounds more like the definition of a "sports car", which i aother definition that is hotly debated,

I think if we desribe the M3 as a "High Performace Car" there will probably not be much debate, but you never know, after all this IS Bimmerfest.:rofl:

For what it's worth (probaly not very much) here is the Wikipedia definition of "Supercar"

Supercar is a term generally used for high-end sports cars, whose performance is superior to that of its contemporaries. It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine",and stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match", "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own",but the correct usage of the term is both subjective and disputed, especially amongst enthusiasts. The use of the term can be dependent on the era; a vehicle that may have been considered a supercar in one decade may not be considered the same in another.[The term supercar may refer to factory-built, street-legal race cars. Some vehicles referred to as supercars include features required for race cars such as roll cages In recent years, the term "supercar" has been defined more specifically as any car that can attain at least 200mph and maintain reasonable control. High price only defines a car as an exotic, not necessarily a supercar.

Origin of the term
The term was first noted by Car & Track in 1917 to describe an Alfa Romeo Monza. An advertisement for the Ensign Six, a 6.7 L (409 cu in) high-performance car similar to the Bentley Speed Six, appeared in The Times for 11 November 1920 with the phrase "If you are interested in a supercar, you cannot afford to ignore the claims of the Ensign6."
The Oxford English Dictionary also cites the use of the word in an advertisement for an unnamed car in The Motor dated 3 November 1920, "The Supreme development of the British super-car." and defines the phrase as suggesting 'a car superior to all others'. The phrase did not become popular until much later and is often said to have originated with British motor journalist L. J. K. Setright writing about the Lamborghini Miura in CAR Magazine in the mid-1960s. The magazine claims to have "coined the phrase" although it was also used in May 1965 by the American magazine Car Life, in a test of the Pontiac GTO. By the 1970s the phrase was in regular use, if not precisely defined.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Supercar is a term generally used for high-end sports cars, whose performance is superior to that of its contemporaries. It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine",and stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match", "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own"
I think by this definition the M3 qualifies.

The V8 is actually located between axles, so it is, in fact, mid-engined. More to the point, the size and weight and placement of the engine was optimized to an extent that is not seen in "normal" cars.

It is very fast, there is no denying that. Consider that the difference in max speed between it an a Veyron is only ~ 70 mph. And the M3 probably outhandles the Veyron.

The M3 is eye catching. I don't care what others say in this regard. Sure it is not as sexy as a Lambo or Ferrari but, come on.

I don't care about the price argument. Price is a reflection of the quality of the car, nothing more. It is not a performance figure or even an exclusivity figure.

The M3 is not a pure racer like the ultralights: Ferraris, Porsche GTs, Zonda. It is also not a luxo/looks car like the Astons and Mazerattis. But it is something in between: it is a competent racer and has all the luxuries you could ever care about. Oh, and lets not forget I would take the M3's engine over the Aston's any day and perhaps even the Mazeratti. Doesn't the McLaren F1 use a BMW engine? There you go...
 
#31 · (Edited)
I think that an important part of being a "Supercar" is price and exclusivity. With the exception of the M1, I don't believe BMW has ever made a car that I would consider a "Supercar". Not every Ferrari is a "Supercar". The Ferrari's that I would consider Supercars would be the F40, F50, and the Enzo. The Bugatti Veyron certainly would qualify as would the Porsche Carrera GT. The Pagoni Zonda would probably also qualify. I don't think the Bentley Continental, the Maserati GT or any current Aston Martin meet the definition of a Supercar regardless of how much they cost.

Style is also a part of the equation and IMHO the M3 looks too much like the 328i and the 335i to qualify on that basis. Also I can't think of any supercars that are available as 4 door sedans or are based on $35,000 production cars. I also think that there implied level of impracticality to a so called supercar. The M3 is a very practical car and has a balance between performance and day to day practicality that few cars can match.

That being said I think that cars like the Bugatti Veyron are in a sense silly cars. They are not practical as road cars and they are not race cars. Other than the bragging rights I think in most ways the M3 is probably a better car than the Bugatti. The Bugatti is like one of those wildly expensive mechanical watches that cost a fortune but are not as accurate as a $99 quartz watch that get signals from the the NIST atomic clock and is accurate to a few thousandths of a second per day. The $99 watch may not be a "Superwatch" but if you are only interested in telling time it is probably a better watch than a $200,000 Roger Dubuis. The same analogy can be made between a so called Supercar and an M3.

A more appropriate question might be "Does the M3 perform as well or outperform some so called "Supercars".

CA
 
#32 ·
I think that an important part of being a "Supercar" is price and exclusivity. With the exception of the M1, I don't believe BMW has ever made a car that I would consider a "Supercar". Not every Ferrari is a "Supercar". The Ferrari's that I would consider Supercars would be the F40, F50, and the Enzo. The Bugatti Veyron certainly would qualify as would the Porsche Carrera GT. The Pagoni Zonda would probably also qualify. I don't think the Bentley Continental, the Maserati GT or any current Aston Martin meet the definition of a Supercar regardless of how much they cost.

Style is also a part of the equation and IMHO the M3 looks too much like the 328i and the 335i to qualify on that basis. Also I can't think of any supercars that are available as 4 door sedans or are based on $35,000 production cars. I also think that there implied level of impracticality to a so called supercar. The M3 is a very practical car and has a balance between performance and day to day practicality that few cars can match.

That being said I think that cars like the Bugatti Veyron are in a sense silly cars. They are not practical as road cars and they are not race cars. Other than the bragging rights I think in most ways the M3 is probably a better car than the Bugatti. The Bugatti is like one of those wildly expensive mechanical watches that cost a fortune but are not as accurate as a $99 quartz watch that get signals from the the NIST atomic clock and is accurate to a few thousandths of a second per day. The $99 watch may not be a "Superwatch" but if you are only interested in telling time it is probably a better watch than a $200,000 Roger Dubuis. The same analogy can be made between a so called Supercar and an M3.

A more appropriate question might be "Does the M3 perform as well or outperform some so called "Supercars".

CA
Great post, sir.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Interesting that the Bugatti Veyron, the Lamborghini Reventon and the Porsche Carrera GT are all Volkswagen products as is the Audi R8 (which could possibly be characterized as "Supercar Light".) There is some very impressive automotive enginering happening at VW.
 
#39 ·
heck compared to the SUVs and minivans some friends drive my 330i is a supercar. Going back to topic, the m3 is my ideal car and I eventually will end up with one. For me its a supercar, better performance than anything Ive owned. For me it will be the perfect fit, because I envision it being my daily driver and for daily drivers in this class its the best.
 
#41 ·
heck compared to the SUVs and minivans some friends drive my 330i is a supercar. Going back to topic, the m3 is my ideal car and I eventually will end up with one. For me its a supercar, better performance than anything Ive owned. For me it will be the perfect fit, because I envision it being my daily driver and for daily drivers in this class its the best.
:rofl: to some dude out there, this chick is hawt.

 
#42 ·
on the topic of supercar, no the m3 is not a supercar. it's a compromise car. ... it's not a true sports car either. it's more of a grand touring (GT) car as it has extra seats, luxury bits and all the creature comforts.
 
#44 ·
Sports Car, GT Car, Exotic Car, Super Car. All of these definitions are rather vague.

In the 1950's during the classic sports car era in the United States it was much clearer what was a sports car and what was not. Sports cars were almost always two seat open cars that offered performance well above what a "luxury car" was capable of. Luxury cars had power steering, power brakes, power windows and seats, air conditioning etc.

Now that luxury cars have become better performers and sports cars have become more luxurious there are a number of cars that stradle both categories.



 
#45 ·
Sports Car, GT Car, Exotic Car, Super Car. All of these definitions are rather vague.

In the 1950's during the classic sports car era in the United States it was much clearer what was a sports car and what was not. Sports cars were almost always two seat open cars that offered performance well above what a "luxury car" was capable of. Luxury cars had power steering, power brakes, power windows and seats, air conditioning etc.

Now that luxury cars have become better performers and sports cars have become more luxurious there are a number of cars that stradle both categories.
sport car

 
#47 ·
A better standard

I submit to you all that a "supercar" could be defined "track standard". That is, by a car's speed around the track (i.e. performance). But there are some criteria I would like to see:

- The track has to be challenging. That is, it cannot be a freaking nascar oval. It has to have a good amount of straights, fast turns, hairpins, chicanes, etc.
- It has to be timed under comparable conditions. That is, it should be, ideally, the same driver, it should be a professional driver, same course, same weather, etc. This is very difficult to achieve.

The N-ring, despite being the most famous track in the world (arguably), is not a good standard because all cars have been tested by different drivers, so it reflects the driver's skill as well as the car's performance.

I would submit that the Top Gear track tested by The Stig is a good standard. The only problem is the occasional wet test that cannot be taken for it's face value, really. Here are some power lap times and some boundaries (more or less arbitrary) that I would consider separate the "supercar" from the "regulars". But I think there is also a "gray area". Here it is:

======= supercars
1:17.1 - Gumpert Apollo S
1:17.3 - Ascari A10
1:17.6 - Koenigsegg CCX (with The Top Gear Wing)
1:17.8 - Pagani Zonda F Roadster
1:17.9 - Caterham Seven R500 (cold tyres)[6]
1.18:3 - Bugatti Veyron 16.4
1:18.4 - Pagani Zonda F
1:18.9 - Maserati MC12
1:19.0 - Ferrari Enzo
1:19.5 - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4
1:19.5 - Porsche 911 GT2
1:19.5 - Ariel Atom 2 300 [7]
1:19.7 - Nissan GT-R
1:19.7 - Ferrari 430 Scuderia
1:19.8 - Lamborghini Murciélago LP640
1:19.8 - Porsche Carrera GT
1:20.4 - Koenigsegg CCX (without Spoiler )[8][9]
1:20.7 - Ascari KZ1 (damp)
1:20.9 - Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
1:21.2 - Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
1:21.9 - Ford GT
1:22.3 - Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale
1:22.3 - Porsche 911 GT3 RS (996 mk.II)
1:22.4 - Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06
1:22.5 - Noble M15
1:22.9 - Ferrari F430 F1[10]
1:23.2 - Ferrari F430 Spider F1[10]
1:23.7 - Lamborghini Murciélago (retested)+
1:23.8 - Pagani Zonda C12 S 7.3 (partly damp)
1:23.9 - Aston Martin DBS
1:23.9 - Koenigsegg CC8S
1:24.0 - Ariel Atom 1 220[11]
1:24.2 - Veritas RS III
1:24.3 - Prodrive P2 (concept)
1:24.4 - Audi R8 (damp)
======== below this is what I call the "gray area"
1:24.6 - TVR Sagaris
1:24.8 - Mitsubishi Evo VIII MR FQ-400
1:24.8 - TVR Tuscan Mk.II
1:25.0 - Noble M12 GTO-3R
1:25.1 - Lotus Exige S
1:25.3 - BMW M3 E92 Saloon
1:25.7 - Audi RS4[12]
1:25.7 - Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder
1:25.8 - Lamborghini Gallardo (wet)
1:25.9 - Morgan Aero 8 GTN[13]
1:26.0 - Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black series
1:26.0 - Mitsubishi Evo VIII MR FQ320[14]
1:26.2 - BMW M5[15]
1:26.2 - Porsche 911 Carrera S (997)
1:26.2 - Brabus S Biturbo Roadster
1:26.4 - Lotus Exige (mildly moist)
1:26.7 - Porsche Cayman S[16]
1:26.8 - Chevrolet Corvette C6 LS2
1:26.8 - Ferrari 575M Maranello GTC[17]
1:26.9 - Lexus IS-F
1:26.9 - Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG
1:27.1 - Aston Martin Vanquish S
1:27.1 - Aston Martin DB9
======== below here are the "regulars"
1:27.2 - Tesla Roadster (mildly moist)
1:27.2 - Porsche 911 GT3 RS (996) (WET)
1:27.3 - Spyker C8 Spyder[18]
1:27.5 - TVR T350C
1:27.9 - Wiesmann MF 3[19]
1:28.0 - BMW M3 CSL (DAMP, near-slick tyres)
1:28.0 - Roush Mustang
1.28.2 - Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X FQ-300
1:28.2 - Marcos TSO GT2[20]
1:28.2 - Lotus Elise Sport 190
1.28.2 - Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1:28.5 - Dodge Viper SRT-10 (very wet)
1:28.6 - MG XPower SV
1:28.7 - Porsche Boxster S
1:28.7 - Audi TT MTM Bimoto (cold tyres)[21]
1:28.9 - Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR FQ-300
1:28.9 - Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) (wet)
1:29.0 - Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG
1:29.0 - Lamborghini Murciélago (partly damp)[1]
1:29.0 - Alpina Z8 Roadster
1:29.4 - AS One
1:29.4 - Subaru Impreza WRX STI WR1[14]
1:29.6 - Volkswagen Golf GTI W12-650 Concept
1:30.0 - Autodelta Alfa Romeo 147 GTA 3.7
1:30.0 - Ford Shelby GT500
1:30.1 - Subaru Impreza WRX STi
1:30.1 - Vauxhall Monaro VXR
1:30.4 - Aston Martin DB7 GT
1:30.4 - Volkswagen Golf R32 mk.V
1:30.9 - Audi S4 quattro 4.2
1:31.0 - Porsche 911 Turbo (996) (very wet)
1:31.3 - Vauxhall VX220
1:31.3 - Vauxhall VXR8 (wet)[5]
1:31.4 - Audi TT Mk.II 2.0T
1:31.6 - Honda NSX-R[22]( very wet)
1:31.8 - BMW M3 E46
1:31.8 - BMW 535d
1:31.8 - Nissan 350Z
1:31.8 - Mazda RX-8
1:31.9 - BMW 130i
1:32.2 - Ford Focus RS
1:32.2 - Mazda 6 MPS

So, actually, the definition of a "supercar" could be any car that The Stig laps around the Top Gear track faster than the most current M3. I choose the M3 because it has the pedigree and consistency throughout history to serve as an evolving standard. As the bar moves up with technology, so does the performance of the most current M3, thus moving the standard up as well. Note that there are two Lambos, two Astons and one Ferrari that are SLOWER than the M3, so it is not a weak standard at all.
 
#52 ·
The biggest advancement in the M3's engine is the mating of very lightweight metals with very strong metals to make a very durable but light engine, which isn't an easy task for a number of reasons. To do so with such exacting tolerances is even more impressive.
 
#53 ·
I've enjoyed reading this thread in terms of defining exactly what a supercar is, but frankly, no matter the exact definition, the M3 isn't one. If one insists on classifying the M3 in that league, then you'd also have to admit the C63, IS-F, CTS-V, RS4, any 911, any Vette, etc. - and that's just silly.

The M doesn't even stand out against its peers, performance wise. The RS4 is the only car it can consistently outrun in a drag race, and on a road course, the CTS-V, 911S and Vette can outlap it.

What makes the M3 a terrific car is even though it's not a standout in any given category, it does nearly anything very well indeed. It's a more well rounded high performer than anything else in its class.

Supercar? Not even close. Do it all high performer? Absolutely.

Bruce
 
#56 ·
Like I said before in this post, I consider the power laps by The Stig a pretty consistent and thorough way to test a car's performance. Lets see again where the E9X M3 stands shall we? It is the 41st fastest car (out of over 150 fast cars).

1:23.9 - Koenigsegg CC8S <----- just 1.4 seconds slower than the K!!
1:24.0 - Ariel Atom 1 220[11]
1:24.2 - Veritas RS III
1:24.3 - Prodrive P2 (concept)
1:24.4 - Audi R8 (damp) <-------- 1 second slower than the R8 (and most people would consider the R8 to be an unquestionable supercar
======== below this is what I call the "gray area"
1:24.6 - TVR Sagaris
1:24.8 - Mitsubishi Evo VIII MR FQ-400
1:24.8 - TVR Tuscan Mk.II
1:25.0 - Noble M12 GTO-3R
1:25.1 - Lotus Exige S <----------- Exige
1:25.3 - BMW M3 E92 Saloon <----- 1 second faster than the M5 AND the 911S you mentioned.
1:25.7 - Audi RS4[12]
1:25.7 - Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder <--- Lambo
1:25.8 - Lamborghini Gallardo (wet) <- faster than two lambos

down here one will find a Ferrari Maranello

The CTS-V you mentioned clocked a very slow 1:33 but in the wet, sure but still...

Not even close?!?!?! Think again...
 
#71 ·
As mentioned, I'm a little fuzzy on the concept, which is why I haven't participated in trying to define the genre - yet here I am, being sucked kicking and screaming into the maelstrom. :)

I personally love the Fiorano, and the only reason I have mentally excluded it is because of the Enzo, if that makes any sense. Ferrari surely knows how to build supercars (and I hear they're looking at another offering), but they haven't positioned the 599 that way, so I haven't either.

On another related front, I think of the Gallardo as meeting the entry-level supercar standard (whatever that actually is), all while excluding the Fiorano, because one is simply beautiful, while the other is simply outrageous. A few months back, I had pulled away from a toll booth on route 78, a couple of hundred yards out and doing around 75, when a Gallardo went whistling by me doing triple digits, all glinty in Screaming Atomic Saffron, making noises that would wake a dead guy (fully erect :)), and he just motored away into the distance, gone and out of sight in what seemed like a few seconds.

The image remains.

Yeah, one might argue that the Gallardo doesn't quite make the cut (while nobody would argue the Murcielago) - but the image remains.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not confusing suprcar status with desirability, and I would personally prefer the Ferrari, but back on topic. I think the M3 is a terrific car, and I have written lush words about its engine in another venue, but it just isn't in supercar territory.

Bruce
 
#67 ·
A few weeks ago there was an R8 parked on the street near my home. Halfway up the block there was a Porsche Turbo. The Porsche went completely unnoticed but the R8 drew a crowd.

I think it takes more than performance to qualify as a Supercar. It takes exclusivity, unattainabiltiy and head turning styling.

CA
 
#78 ·
A few weeks ago there was an R8 parked on the street near my home. Halfway up the block there was a Porsche Turbo. The Porsche went completely unnoticed but the R8 drew a crowd.

I think it takes more than performance to qualify as a Supercar. It takes exclusivity, unattainabiltiy and head turning styling.

CA
After reading these four pages of excellent debate, I think that CA has come closest to what defines a super car.

I shall swim my vote. While an amazing car, the M3 is no super car.
 
#72 ·
I hear ya, Bruce. I've been providing more questions than answers of my own in this discussion.

In some ways, the Fiorano is something of a Ferrari step-child, but it qualifies in my mind based on performance (top speed > 200 mph; 0-60 in only 3.4 seconds, which is faster than the Enzo), exclusivity (I've only ever seen one in person), and the groundbreaking technology that Ferrari incorporated in it. I also happen to love its clean lines, which are more reminiscent of the legendary Ferraris of yore, so I'm admittedly biased.


TauronMaikar, despite your fairly ridiculous hypotheticals (i.e., $10 Enzo), I agree with you that price sholuld be discounted as a factor. To include price as a factor in and of itself would probably knock out cars like the Corvette ZR1; it would also include cars that don't belong. Also, to a large extent, price is already factored into exclusivity.
 
#76 ·
Great performance cars like the M3 get attention from passing enthusiasts and gearheads. Supercars turn everyone's heads, especially the ladies.

My M3 gets lots of looks and compliments from dudes. Rarely do members of the opposite sex give it a second look. My wife finds it amusing. :(
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top