Talk:Performance car

Sports vs performance

As it stands the article seems similar in scope to the sports car article. But that's not right. My Austin-Healey Sprite Mark 2A was definitely a sports car but I'd never call it a performance car, it was a lot slower than the Mazda 323 that replaced it in almost every respect... top speed, acceleration, handling, and particularly its ability to maintain a high speed without overheating. It did have excellent brakes!

Certainly, many sprites were developed into performance cars, but in showroom trim the 2A (1098cc, front disks, but without the extra weight of the body and chassis redesign of the mark 3) was arguably the fastest of them, and that wasn't very fast.

Probably, the lead of the sports car article needs a rewrite (currently A sports car (or sportscar or sport car [UK]) is a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for high speed driving and maneuverability. [1], based on the definition from Miriam-Webster [2] which is cited), and this article should drop sports car from its list of types of performance cars. But we'd need a source for another definition, one that allows that not all sports cars are designed for high speed driving.

Alternatively we can keep this definition and take more notice of the small, usually two seat, two door (my emphasis) part of the current definition. But that would rule out many performance cars, most grand tourers for example, and makes many traditional sports cars (such as the Sprite) borderline at best. Presumably we should in this case clean up Category:Sports cars as well as the sports car article so that both accurately reflect the definition. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose an objective definition for performance car. It covers model years 1906 and up. I understand it is common practice for actuaries to read automotive reviews and attempt to determine subjectively what is, or is not, a performance car, for premium and underwriting purposes. Here, I propose a far more accurate, consistent approach, using a math-based model.

If the public tests this thoroughly, I think the accuracy will be surprising. For the purposes of credibility, this does not (and cannot) take into account a special bias someone may have about any one particular car.

The formula is as follows.

e = 4 + 16/(2^ROUNDDOWN((y - 1906)/30)

where y = year e = maximum elapsed time [in seconds] to reach 60 mph

Example:

y (year) = 1996

1996-1906 = 90

90/30 = 3

2^3 = 8

16/8 = 2

4 + 2 = 6

Maximum elapsed time 0-60 (e) = 6.0 seconds in 1996

Note, specialized statistics such as lateral g and braking distance are avoided since they are frequently unavailable. More importantly, the prevailing consensus favors straight line performance as a bare necessity. Even a classic muscle with only straight line accolades is regarded as "high performance".

Here are some interesting results. A Mercer from the mid-teens passes the test for high performance. Obviously, a Duesenberg SJ roadster passes. A 1932 Ford V8 passes, but only if it is a lighter body style, such as a roadster. A 1949 Oldsmobile 88 passes, if it is a lighter body style. Many Camaros in the 1970s do not pass. Surprisingly, many 1980s cars *do* pass. These include Camaros and Mustangs with then-praised performance options. Not surprisingly, the 1977 and 1982 Corvette does not pass.

If a car does not pass, it could still be considered "sporty".

There is one not-so-obvious use of the formula that is quite interesting: look up any elapsed time and using a spreadsheet table with the calculation for each year, find the period in which the vehicle is considered high performance. This can be done going backward or forward.

Case in point: a 1983 Olds Hurst coupe can achieve 60 after 8.1 seconds. Looking this up in the table, the public considered it a 'fast car' up to 1965. To impress people, you'd have to take this car back in a time.

Here is a forward-looking case. A 1991 Acura NSX is good for 5.6 seconds (to 60). Scanning the spreadsheet, this car was obviously considered fast when new. The public will continue to categorize it as fast for a good three decades. In time, this notion will fade. This affect is already under way. Each year introduces cars that make 6 seconds less impressive. When performance of older models falls dramatically short of new ones, admiration for older models is based mainly on style. Old models become quaint exhibitions after 50 years, no matter how fast they seemed originally.

Note also, if a supercar can reach 60 mph in 4 seconds or less today, it will never be considered slow. This is partly due to physics, as well as the reality that "normal" non-performance will always prioritize thrift ahead of race car acceleration. If the auto industry did make 4 second cars look slow (say 50 years from now), offering 2 second cars to public with it's mediocre driving skill, every ditch would have a car thrown into it -- every other day. As a consequence, the bar is perpetually raised higher, however, the increment or "margin" is moved to a lesser extent.

There are a number of other considerations baked into the formula. But more importantly, give it a try.