Just the oldest classic guidelines I could find.
Of course, but we're not most people, right? We are enthusiasts, and as such have better definitions for these things. I mean, if we go by the general public's definition then there is no need to even have the words Muscle Car or GT Car, as both fit into the general Sports Car category.
By the earliest definition yes, the car would need to be a manual, but maybe I wasn't clear earlier. Just because it's available as an automatic doesn't mean it's not a Sports Car if fitted with a manual.
More clearly, an automatic NSX cannot be a Sports Car, but a manual NSX could (depending on the other criteria).
It's precisely the fact that the automatic has less driver involvement that excludes it from the Sports Car definition. And remember, "fun" doesn't care how fast you are, so the lightning-fast shifts of today's automatics are meaningless.
I love your attitude, you sound like a very cool guy
Yes, that's exactly it. And exactly why the Miata is the closest thing we have to a real Sports Car, as it doesn't take itself too seriously. Muscle Cars are serious. Most GT Cars are serious. But the idea of the Sports Car is to be fun.
I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm only saying that by the earliest definitions of a Sports Car it would need to be fun.
I actually forgot to mention that it's required to be a 2-seater as well, but Frupal reminded me of it.
Sports Car:
- manual trans
- radio
- 2 seater
- open top of some sort
- focus on handling tossability (not ultimate race-car grip)
- light-weight
- power is not a focus
- generally skinny tires
Muscle Car:
- automatic trans
- coupe or sedan
- focus on straight line quickness (not top speed)
- weight not a consideration
- handling not a consideration
- focus on power
- focus on ease of modification for more power
- generally wider tires
GT Car:
Generally not as fun, or well-handling as a Sports Car, and not as powerful as a Muscle Car, but seeking to give the customer a good middle-ground between the two.