motor trend calls it very bad luxury wide. but overall nice and quick.

 

Think the original Cobra--uncompromised performance. No one bought a Cobra to carry their golf clubs or to enjoy the "rich Corinthian leather", they bought it to drive it. Same with the S. You buy it to drive it. If you want luxury in your sports car, then you either have to sacrifice the driving experience, or you're gonna pay thousands or tens of thousands more. I can't afford an original Cobra. I can't afford a Porsche Turbo or Ferrari. My S is luxurious enough for me.

 

Nice!

I like it!

 

Red MX5:

I don't know if anybody will agree with my definition of "sports car" or not -- but it's mine, and here it is.

A sports car is a two seater or 2 + 2 convertible, roadster, our coupe that is designed to obtain times and speeds on road courses, auto cross courses, and the like that are comparable to or better than similar cars with similar engine displacement.

Also as a Mercedes fan and an officer in the Mercedes Benz Club of America, I take no offense at your comment that Mercedes roadsters over the years just may not be true sports cars. Indeed, they were built to design criteria somewhat different than are true sports cars. So today, that is why I have an S2k AND a Mercedes roadster. They are two totally different driving experiences.

 

LUXURIOUS?! LUXURIOUS?!
I would hope that it wasn't considered luxurious at all. This car is more about the drive, not the ride. If anyone considers this luxurious they haven't been in too many cars. Crap, my F150 is more luxurious and it is going on 9 years old.

 

I'm not a member of MBCA, but I probably should be, because I'm really more of an MB fan than I am a Honda fan. I guess what I mean by that is that I find more "interesting" cars in the MB line than I do in the Honda/Acura lineup.

Brock Yates (or at least I think it was Brock, but it was so long ago I'm not absolutely sure, but in any event, it was someone I felt should know ) once defined a "sports car" as a two seat roadster that puts fun above all else. He classed all 2+2 and hardtop two seaters as GT Cars, "designed primarily to get from point A to point B in minimal time with maximum comfort."

That was probably back in the 60's, and I think the definition changes over time (as does our preception of luxury). When I was a kid, a sports car was a car that you could drive to work all week, then drive to the track and race on the weekend, without changing so much as a tire. You "drop the windshield" and you're ready to race. And back then, I tended to classify cars like the two seat Benz cars as "sporty cars." Haha, and it struck me funny when Detroit started using the term to describe their "pony cars." Things were (or seemed) more black and white back then.

I do not think it is possible to define "sports car" today, at least not in a way that will satisfy everyone. Just as an example, we had a 9C1 Camaro that we autocrossed during the '76-'77 season. This car was a 2+2 coupe and was designed to perform on twisty roads, tracks, and autocross courses, and there was not a single import in the area that could get close to the Camaro's autocross times. Seems to me that a '76 9C1 Camaro fits your definition, but I do not see any way to considerf a Camaro a true sports car. It's just too big and too heavy, and it's just not a sports car. I can't define what a sports car IS, but I know that a Camaro doesn't qualify.

Heck, we can't even agree on the definiton of "race car," so I'd be really amazed and impressed if someone came up with a definition of "sports car" we could all agree on.

Don't remember who said it, but it has been said that, "Real race cars don't have fenders." I always felt that a "real race car" was a car that was being raced, but even that is debatable. I'm started to think that the classification of cars is like beauty, and is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

I remember when a sports car was a 2-seater with no side windows, not even side-curtains and a had to have a fold-down windshield.

I remember when a sports car was a 2-seater that did not have roll up windows but side-curtains were "allowed".

I also remember when a sports car was strictly a 2-seater convertible but it could have roll up windows.

The sports car definition changes with every generation, I personally will never consider a hard top car (coupe) a sports car and I will never consider a 2+2 a sports car, some are dammed good handling cars but not sports cars, they are GT cars.

And no, I am not that old (although I might not be as young as I was 50 years ago) but I just have happen to own a sports car from each generation mentioned above.

 

Well, I missed the generation where the side curtains weren't allowed.


LOL, and real sports cars still have side curtains.

 

So you're saying a Porsche Cayman, Lotus Exige, and Ferrari F430 aren't sports cars? I'm sure they are as much of a sports car as the S2000.

 

A well squeezed turd (attractive in taper and density) on a bed of white rice, sitting on a plate of plastic "Sam's Best" dinnerware, sitting on a table sculpted from compressed soiled disposable diapers, resting on Pergo (pricey) flooring, on waterproof pressed board (std issue), on a superior engineered foundation (the gold). With a palatable sugar coated body skirt.

That is the S.

Hard tops are NOT sports cars. They are GT. If not for the ragtop, the S would be one of my last choices. There are lots of hardtops out there more appealing than an S with a hardtop. Lots and lots with more value, more features, more power, etc. The market is FLOODED. There are few (or none at market value) ragtops that beat the S.

I don't get the S hard top crowd.