I call the Camaro, a sports car.... and BOOM! Instantly got pushback from a couple guys.
Ok, not EVERY Camaro is a sports car! BUT, I don't think about every one of them. I think about the cool ones. Life's too damn short to give a shit about the lousy cars.
I have a 68-69 Z 28 in mind when I think of Camaros, and the newest Camaros, on the track in the Optima Challenge.
When someone commented that the Camaro was, at best, a Pony Car, maybe a muscle car... well, damn, I'm not the only one who has a specific car, or year of the car, in mind. Reggie Jackson knows they are muscle cars, he owned at least 1 ZL1 Camaro, and Don Yenko knew they were muscle cars. No one denies they are pony cars. That's not even this conversation.
So, why deny they are sports cars? Just to wind me up and see if I'll vent? Ok
Don't tell Don Yenko, Roger Penske, Mark Donohue, and the SCCA that a Camaro isn't a sports car.
There's not a lot of difference between the C7 Corvettes and the last gen of Camaros, and I think you'll agree that seriously makes the recent Camaros sports cars, else why else would so many of them be at the Optima Challenge?
But no, the 70s Camaros, the 80s and 90s Camaros? Not so much, not unless they were track prepped like the IROC racers
You might argue that if it has to be track prepped and race ready to be a sports car than it isn't one, well, that's going to blow the argument that some have made that just being a British, Italian, or German 2 seater drop top or roadster, built with greater breaking and suspension, they are automatically a sports car.
There are simple too damn many hundreds of thousands of mediocre cars made by sports car companies that prove that having the manufacturer Lotus Porsche, Mercedes, Jaguar, etc etc, name plate doesn't make their cheap junk a real sports car.... so, yeah, being a car made by a sports car company doesn't automatically make a car a sports car, and being made by Chevy, Ford, Dodge, etc doesn't automatically exempt their cars from being a sports car.
So, getting back to the Camaro. If it's not a sports car, then why is Mark Donohue in the SCCA Hall of fame? Hell, the SCCA has an award NAMED for Mark Donohue!
That is BECAUSE in 1968 Donohue had an unprecedented 8 race winning streak, and Chevrolet won 10 out of 13 races. That's just one example of why I am stating that the Camaro, especially the 67-69 Z-28 is a sports car.
So then the guy argues with me that the Camaro was racing in the sedan or other class... well, I reply, in WHAT EFFING RACING SERIES? Oh, yeah, the SPORTS CAR CLUB of AMERICA (SCCA) ergo, to race in the SCCA, I'll just take a stab in the dark and say that to get a membership/racing number/accepted on their series/race tracks/championships/Gran Prix, it's a damn sports car.
Here's the argument I'm responding to
"SCCA does not have a class called "Sports Cars'. A Camaro could run under Sedan or Touring though. I assume you mention Penske and Donohue for their participation of racing Camaros in Trans-Am back in the day. But the TA series was originally known as the Trans-American Sedan Championship. The sedan word was dropped from the title, but sports car was never added."
Yes, let's take a moment.... and focus on that, that Trans Am Championship? THAT WAS THE SCCA's race, god damn it.
The 1968 Trans-American Championship was the third running of the Sports Car Club of America's Trans-Am Series.
So your argument about the mistake you made about the Trans Am races? Clarified now that you have been informed that THOSE were SCCA races.
So, I repeat, Camaro = sports car.
Also - if you skipped past what the letters SCCA stand for, and go right to the classes, then, maybe you missed that they are all SPORTS CARS.
More of the argument I'm responding to:
To me a sports car has only 2 seats and a top that drops. Otherwise it's a GT or something else.
Anyone else instantly think they've just read a statement that wasn't thought about first?
So, my response?
Then to you it's not a sports car if it's a hard top? Really? So, no hardtop Corvettes are sports cars, to you? No Porsches, BMWs, Jaguars, Mercedes gullwings, Abarth Fiats, NSX, AMX, Aston Martin, Audi R8, Callaway Corvettes, Vipers, Panteras, Ferraris, GT 40, Lamborghini, Lancia Stratos, Lotus, Maserati, McLarens, Morgans, Fiero, Spyker, and Toyota Supra are sports cars if they have a hardtop? Really?
Did you want to stand by that ridiculous definition?
He... well, I imagine he regretted his earlier hasty statement about a top that drops. Not that he backed off the denial of the Camaro as a sports car.. but here is his latest...
what the letters in SCCA stand for is really not important.
(I shit you not, I am not making that up, that's either stupid or ignorant, am I right?)
Yes, I will stand by my statement.
Because I said, "TO ME a sports car has only 2 seats and a top that folds down". I realize that most people don't agree with this.
But that's ok, they don't have to. I like this traditional definition from way back when.
But I can compromise my definition. Some of the cars you mention:
Corvettes - soft top or hard top - ok, sports car.
Porsche - depends on the car. 911, Cayman, Boxster - yes. The 924, 944, 928 - no, those are GTs. I think it's obvious about their SUVs.
Not obvious to you, the Macan or Cayenne outperformed the 911, I remember posting about it a long time ago
Jaguar - only the drop tops and definitely not any of the sedans. An E-type convertible is a sports car, but a E-type coupe is a GT.
NSX - ok, yes a sports car
AMX - no. Muscle car
Aston Martin - really? They were always marketed as a GT car. ( I don't car how the car was marketed. You're telling me that James Bond wasn't driving a sports car? Really?)
R8 - ok
Ferrari - depends on the model. They make GT cars and sports cars. I would contend they have made more GTs than sports cars.
Morgan - most all of them are 2 seat drop tops so not sure why you mention them. (their new Aerocar)
Fiero - LOL... really? That's what they promised, but the early ones were just commuter cars. The sportiest versions were actually called the GT as I recall. (Again, I don't care what a car was called, or marketed as, what a car IS matters, NOT what the advertising and marketing department called it to make sales happen. If it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, if it doesn't, it don't matter what color the racing stripes are. )
Anyway, back to the subject of the Camaro. I love Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs, 442s, GTOs, Chargers, Challengers, etc.
They can be fun and fast. They can be raced. I've even owned a few. But they are not "sports cars".
In my opinion. (I didn't ask what your opinion was of the 442s, GTOs, Chargers, and Challengers, I pointed out that a hardtop Viper is indeed a sports car. Just admit it. )
Someone else emailed me to say that a mass marketed car wasn't a sports car.
AND that "In order to race them thy had to build suspension that would keep them on the track but most people wouldn't like in their daily transportation."
Really? So, again, you're sure that you thought about that before hitting send? The Corvette, 911, etc are all mass marketed.
No, they didn't build better suspensions to race them... anything can be raced. Fred Flinstones vehicle can be raced, Amish horse buggies can be raced.
They built better suspensions to WIN races. And THAT is why all the sports car companies have RACE cars and gen pop cars. They DON'T take the gen pop cars to the ring to achieve impressive results, they only bring the race prepped cars. Same with the Vipers, Corvettes, BMWs, Porsches, Mercedes-AMG, Lamborghini, GTR, etc
And getting back to the Shelby GT 350 Mustang, which seems to annoy both those guys that it's called a GT, and it's a hard top, and a 4 seater... and I like this part the most, it proves that a Mustang could be a sports car. The GT 350 was the B Prod champion 3 years in a row. And it qualified as a sports car to the SCCA by tossing the back seat and putting in a spare tire in that place.
Summed up, I think anyone that prefers to define what some term is, rigidly, screws up. Hot rods, Muscle cars, and Sports Cars all have too damn many variations to be defined in a short couple sentences... but, guess what? I was emailed all the dictionaries definitions of "sports car". Here's what a bunch of desk bound admin types who can't use a clutch think a sports car is:
WEBSTER;
a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response,
easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving . CAMBRIDGE;
a fast, low car, often for two people only.
DICTIONARY DOT COM;
a small, high-powered automobile with long, low lines, usually seating two persons.
OXFORD;
a low, fast car, often with a roof that can be folded back.
COLLINS;
A sports car is a low, fast car, usually with room for only two people.
BRITANNICA;
a low, small car that seats two people and that is made for fast driving
I'd like you to keep in mind, these are just as likely to be the definitions of Hot Wheels, Matchbox, toys, and race cars. Hell, these definitions allow for those automobile sto have a pickup bed... you know, like a truck, El Camino, Ranchero, and that cool old Hudson truck that looked like a car with a bed, as the Webster and Dictionary.com definitions didn't mention "cars" just automobiles, as, to define something has to cover the whole category. Like the earliest "sports cars" which I'll say include the Stutz Bearcat, and most websites and writers will agree with me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stutz_Bearcat https://silodrome.com/stutz-bearcat-car/
Anyway, I've had my say, time for any of you who choose to, to say if a Camaro is a sports car, or not. use the comment section please, not my email. Most of you have had a couple more decades than I have to have formed an educated and experienced opinion on the Camaro's viability, or status, as a sports car
Just a few comments from someone who raced in the SCCA in the `970s. I raced a Pinto in the B Sedan class along side of Paul Newman in his Datsun 510 so the SCCA certainly had classes other than sport cars. Sports cars raced in the Production classes, they were not specifically named "sports cars". Corvettes were A Production, Porsches were B Production, Triumphs and MGs were D and E production while bugeye Sprites were F production (I think). As for the reader's comment about the sports cars having to have their suspension modified - wrong. Production classes had to use the factory suspension geometry. You could change spring rate and shock absorbers . Sedans, however, were allowed to move the suspension mounting points, use different length control arms, etc so they could , indeed, "stay on the track". You could open the Datsun racing catalog and buy a completely new front cross member and control arms for your Datsun 510. Nobody did it better then Datsun. Pinto pilots had to do the same thing all by ourselves at some effort. But as much as I like Camaros and Mustangs, they were not sports cars. They were "pony cars" a name coined specifically for those mighty steeds. And they raced in the A Sedan class.
ReplyDelete