Is your car on this list? Sport Compact Car's top 100

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:34 pm

George Bright wrote:

I have owned several Datsun 510s #9 over the years. After the 510 and 240Z years Nissan made a lot of crap. The 260Z does not belong on the list because it was heavier and slower than my Dad's 71 240Z.

George,

Not necessarily. I beat a LOT of 240Z's over the years with my 260Z including the time I won D Stock at the 1977 Solo II Nationals. (Screwed up and finished second behind an Alfa in 1978).

Having a stiffer stock supension and more torque may have compensated for the extra weight.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

I didn't see the 1964 Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt in the list. Fairlanes were compact cars back then, and any small car with a 427 and a fiberglass front clip has got to be a sports car.

Karl Kauffman, is the hair on the back of your neck standing straight up yet?

Art
FFOOA, NCDIV

John Hines · **Posted:** Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:09 pm

Honestly....The 240Z should be in the top 5....there were more of those things made than you can count....sure they got heavier through the first decade up to the 79 280Z....but the things are still a dime a dozen....you can pick one up and make a track monster out of it for under $8000. Most of the weight increases are removable....(door reinforcement, floor braces, super bumpers are all replaceable...unless you run stock.) Besides a stock 240/260/280z handles like crap...go try to find a set of fresh "factory" springs....you can't even align them without the camber bushing sets....they all need the common mods.
There is not one single other car that ^is or was^ as easy to "track" than the S-30 Z cars. You can purchase every moving part from Autozone...STILL ...and in stock every time.
I can even get the stock air/smog pumps from autozone($69.95/$20 core). I had called some junk dealers that said $1000 for an air pump and related brackets...I told them they could hook em up to their hineyholes AutoZone had em in stock...all I wanted was the $20 core....
People ASSUME they are old classics and hard to find parts for....THEY ARE WRONG!
not to mention 35 years of racing has heaped a whole lot of "performance" parts on the market. Ebay has THOUSANDS of parts listed any given day.

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:14 pm

Guys, this is Sport Compact Car we are talking about here. We should be happy that they didn't just put every variation of the Civic and Integra on the list and call it a day.

No REAL sportscar (e.g. Vette, Viper, Ferrari, Porsche) had a chance of making that list.

Chris Brown · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:26 pm

so what should the list look like?

...oooo, i can't wait to see how this turns out :twisted:

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:41 pm

It would be tough to narrow it down to only the top 100 of all time if you include all SPORTS cars not just sport COMPACT cars. Using the sports car definition you would have to include the Shelby Cobra, the Allard, the Sunbeams, early Jags, Triumphs, Fiats, Alfas, Mercedes, etc from the early years. You would have to include the pony cars of the 60's. You would have to include turbo cars of the 80's and 90's like the GLH, 323 GTX, the DSM cars. Then you have all of the cool, high tech sports cars of today like the WRX/STi. the EVO, and the S2000.

See what I mean? It would be way too difficult to narrow it down to only 100 cars.

Karl Shultz · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:51 pm

Chris Brown wrote:

so what should the list look like?

It should have no Subarus or Volkswagens on it :wink:

--Karl, ducking...

Kevin Hoff · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:51 pm

Not to mention the Quattros. Without Audi's domination in DTM and Trans Am it's unlikely we'd have any AWD performance cars.

--Kevin H.

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:05 pm

How could I forget the Audi Quattro?!?!?!?

There are just too many great sports cars out there!!!!!

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:34 pm

Chris Brown wrote:

so what should the list look like?
...oooo, i can't wait to see how this turns out :twisted:

I guess I'm old "school":

Sports cars have two doors and no (real) back seat. (i.e. cars like 911's with fake back seats are sports cars). Some folks (not me since I've never owned one) say sports cars must be convertibles.

Cars like Mustangs, Bimmers, etc. with 4 doors and/or back seats are sports sedans. I don't care that their performance/fun factor/value, etc. against current sports cars is better . . . they still aren't sports cars.

Logic be damned.

HOWEVER, "my" definition is no longer applicable once the car is used by its current owner for any sort of time/speed competition. Then that particular car (by specific VIN) is a sports car.

To answer your question: The list would be too long if you included all eligible cars (by my definitions) over the history of automobiles.

Obviously I have far too much time on my hands!!!

Rob Keehner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:30 pm

Reading that list was a waste of my time.

THSCC Forums

Is your car on this list? Sport Compact Car's top 100

Who is online