Yeah Mike, I got busted on that one!!!!

 

Mustang/Camaro/Challenger is a pony car in a sports coupe configuration. SLK/Solstice are 2 seater sporty cars and convertibles.

The car manufacturers are well aware of the sporty coupe market and its erratic sales performance, but obviously they are skeptical about making big investments here with no guarantee of long term sales results. The Japanese car makers used to have a pretty lucrative business in sporty coupes (4 seater, front and rear wheel drive, hardtop, not too small, mid-priced).

 

Toyota MR2, Supra, Mitsu 3000GT, Dodge Stealth, Mazda RX-7 were more ofl expensive sports cars/GT that were priced out of the market for the buyers of those type of vehicles, sold poorly, and some were replaced with cheaper softer cars but the SUV,pickup truck, Crossover, pretty much took over and killed the sports car/sporty car/coupe market for the type of vehicle people would get excited about and willing to spend a little extra on.

You could add the Accord coupe, Altima coupe, Miata, S2000 to your list of semi affordable 2 door sporty/sports cars but I agree it is sad all the effort is put into SUVs, CUVs, Pickups by most of the manufacturers and very little to sporty fun 2 door cars and you don't have many to chose from anymore unless you can afford expensive sports/lux coupes. At least Nissan makes and sells the GTR, 370Z, and possibly in the future a rwd 240 replacement as well as the G37 coupe.

 

Yes, they are classic, long-hood/short-deck, "pony" cars....but, as I see it, they also meet the definition of a coupe, and are reasonably-priced, at least in the V6 versions. That is why I included them in my recommendations.



Correct. And that is why I did not include them on the list. Like you, I consider a "coupe", with a non-folding hard top, to be different from either a hard or soft-top convertible.

 

Yes, " correct" as you would say (just kidding around, since these things are subject to interpretation), pony cars are coupes/hardtops. But they are viable only in the US market. They are too big for European market and too fuel-inefficient. The "sports coupes" that the Japanese pioneered were sophisticated, advanced, fuel-efficient, fast and did not have crude solid rear axles and pushrod motors. In their prime Honda and Toyota sold tens of thousands of their versions alone.

 

Umm Japanese didn't pioneer sports coupes. BMW 3 series? Hello?

 

Only the Mustang still uses the live axle (in non-Cobra versions)...and there is a reason for that. Ford knows that a large percentage of Mustang GT owners do burnouts, which places a lot of stress on the driveshaft, differential, and rear axle. A live axle is more resistant to damage or failure from this kind of abuse than an IRS, although it does not ride or handle as well. A live axle can also have what is known as "wheel hop" or "axle hop" under some hard acceleration and variable-traction conditions.

The Cobra/SVT Mustangs, Dodge Challenger, and the upcoming Camaro use IRS, but that does not mean that Ford was (or is) negligent in giving the Mustang GT a live axle. The company just didn't want to be replacing a lot of rear ends under warranty. Cobra Mustang owners, as a group, having more expensive and sophisticated cars than the Mustang GT jocks (many of who are teen-agers with their first car), tend to take better care of their vehicles, and generally don't go around doing tire and drivetrain meltdowns out of the McDonald's parking lot every Friday night.

 

The only problem is the 3 series was not affordable or mid-priced, therefore it didn't generate the volume of the Preludes/Celicas for example. But I see your point as to how the Japanese just copied a type of car.

 

Back in 1972, Car & Driver announced the arrival of the "Super Coupe". The first vehicles to wear the mantle were the Opel Manta and the Ford Capri - both imported 4 cylinder 2-door coupes with sporting intentions. They were amazingly capable cars for anything like the price, with sporting suspensions, outstanding road manners, and a surprising amount of "scoot" for a car that tipped the scales around a ton, and squeezed your wallet for about $3200 to $3400 bucks - fully loaded. They weren't luxurious, but some of the best automotive values to arrive on our shores. Other sporty coupes joined this new class in the next few years including pretenders from Renault, Volkswagen and other marques.

The rather exclusive club eventually included an SCCA class called "Showroom Stock" that limited the eligibility to a few cars and required a roll cage and fire extinguisher. Hubcaps were ordinarily removed for spectator safety, tires were shaved, and headlights taped over. A competition harness was fitted for the driver, and you were off to the racetrack with no engine/suspension mods permitted. You literally raced what brung you.

In time to bring some American cars to the track, the Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto were admitted to the ranks, but they were almost always backmarkers in the pack. The goal was to produce highly competitive racing at low cost - something the average guy or gal could get into - even if they raced the family car just in local meets. The approach used by the SCCA was to admit only inexpensive cars, not just arrange classes by engine displacement. While Porsche and Datsun (later Nissan) produced some highly competitive examples of the 914/916 and the 510, they were either too expensive or too uncompetitive in stock trim. BMW and other coupes that competed well elsewhere on the SCCA circuit were far beyond the budget of the SS class.

SS became a very competitive division in SCCA, largely because it was based on cars that were primarily sporty econoboxes. Racing mods were extremely limited which held down the cost of fielding a car for a season. Even pro-level racing could be engaged for about $18-$20K per season - including purchase, prep, and transporting your car to regional meets and a national final. That's a pretty fair price for racing for a national championship. (Multiply those costs by about 5 to see how it would compare in 2009 dollars.)
I can't help but think that something like these inexpensive but practical sports cars might find a new market today. Something in the sub-$18,000 range with minimalist options that might include a decent interior, a simple stereo, and great coordination. You'd sacrifice a lot of the electronics, including possibly ABS and other optional "safety" gear, but what you'd get is a decent urban vehicle that thanks to light weight and a fair amount of power could be interesting to drive. Think about it - there are several candidates out there that would not only be fun to drive, but something you could race on the weekend!

 

That may not be possible under the ever-increasing load of equipment, electronics, and hardware that the government now requires for all new cars sold in America....with more to come. For instance, tire-PSI warning systems are now required, and stability control will be required next year....who knows what it will be after that. Also, small sports cars in that class may not command a large enough market.....and production level....to be cost-effective. The Miata, so far, has been the most successful small sports car, and that is only because it it expanded a little in size to accomodate American-size male drivers, and added more equipment to keep up with the times....and it generally sells in the mid-20's.

 

the genre's not dead, but the coupe genre is smaller than it used to be.

I point to the GTI example. You can get a 4 door GTI. And a 4 door M3. More and more car makers are making 4 door models with higher hp output, leaving less compromise in purchasing a "sporty" car.

 

"Sports" cars don't have to be 2-seat roadsters, and they don't have to cost $50K plus. So long as the playing field is level, there is plenty of fun to be found at less than half the cost of ownership. I could live with the federally-mandated safety gear, I suppose, but it would be interesting to see some small sedans like the Mitsu Lancer GTS, Mazda3 s Sport, Sentra 2.0, and Corolla S face off as junior club racers. If you set an MSRP cap around $18K-$20K, and selected eligible vehicles carefully, you could squeeze a lot of fun out of a few little sedans in this class. A coupe division might be tougher to find a large number of contenders, but it's worth a look.

OK, they'll never blister the pavement like the real sports cars, but the point of the old SS class was never about ultimate speed, it was about inexpensive, closely-matched door handle-to-door handle racing that ordinary mortals could participate in. The cars had to be street legal with only a few safety-related mods. Tires were open to tuning as long as they remained in factory sizes. Shaving the tires 50% or a bit more was the hot tip for finding the quick way around the circuit - not much else was allowed. You couldn't strip the interior, and you even had to keep the radio and AC - if so equipped from the factory. Most participants drove their "racer" to the track, and hopefully, drove it home.

There were two effects of SS racing, first was the aforementioned affordable fun, but second was pressure on the manufacturers to offer "stock" packages that gave their little piddlers a competitive edge - like tweaked springs and bushings, bigger sway bars, stiffer shocks, and axle ratios more attuned to acceleration than economy. Showroom Stock took on some of the characteristics of NASCAR in the early years . . . and manufacturers responded by offering vehicles and options that made them more competitive within the formula.

To help level the playing field, cars had to be of the current or previous model year. This gave everyone a fairly even chance because it forced competitors to start over every two years. You couldn't get too much "experience" on your ride and sort it out completely in only two years of competition. Of course what made it all work was that the sanctioned races all had a "claiming" feature. Your car was assigned a price based on MSRP with a few hundred buck allowance for the roll cage, and safety gear required. The winner of the race had to offer his car for sale at the claiming price (he could take the money and literally replace his car with a new one, right?). That kept folks from building $40K cheater engines into their $20K car very nicely.

In time the Showroom Stock (later, Showroom Stock Sedan) class got enough technical scrutiny that it migrated out of the "club racer" category. Semi-pro racers discovered there was a LOT you could do to "get competitive" while still remaining within the letter of the formula. On the track, semi-professional drivers became a little more willing to "swap paint" in the last few laps of a race than would your family dentist - the good doctor being a bit less willing to bend the family grocery-getter in the quest for a podium finish.

In the end, SSS fell victim to its own success. I'd like to see it return - if for no other reason than its crowd appeal. Not too many of us will own a GT2 or an R8, but you could go to your local track or mall parking lot and see races between cars that were virtually identical to what you drove. The only thing I would change in the formula might be the restriction to stock exhausts. There is not so much excitement in watching what are basically economy cars wheeze their way around the circuit without an inspiring soundtrack. Ah, well.

 

I enjoyed the generalization/stereotype of the GT owners. I actually owned one when I was 40 years old. Good fun cars.

But the real reason Ford uses the solid rear axles, it's cheap. Burnouts and wheelspin are most abusive to tires than anything else. The IRS of the Cobra is actually capable of taking more abuse and rear wheel horsepower than the rear end of the GT. I've watched Cobras generate heavy wheel spin even in 2nd gear, cool.

 

You know, from my many earlier posts on the subject, that I'm not one for automotive stereotypes...and have criticized most of them. I was not necessarily trying to stereotype Mustang GT owners either. But, stereotype or not, it is no secret that many of them are owned and driven by a rather careless and aggressive-driving crowd. I've probably seen more kids and young adults killed in Mustang GT's than in any othe single car (Cobra Mustang owners are, in general, a little more mature and careful). At age 40, you were probably more sensible and careful with your Mustang than the average teen......that's my guess.


Yes and no. It's simpler mechanically than an IRS, and simpler to produce, but it uses a lot of heavy-gauge iron and steel, especially in the axle housing (hence its durability). That costs money. That is why live axles are commonly used in trucks and large SUV's that are designed for towing and heavy loads.


Not according to Ford engineers, at least what I have seen of their public comments on the subject. They put the IRS in the Cobra more for handling reasons than anything else, where, yes, it is clearly superior to an old-fashioned live axle. But there is little question that a live axle can take more abuse. That's because it uses fewer universal joints and bearings, which tend to fail and wear prematurely under stress, than a IRS. The main reason, according to them, for the Mustang GT's live axle is the lower likelihood of having to replace them under warranty. You have to remember that even if the live axle is cheaper to produce up front, on the assembly line, that will do no good if you have to keep replacing them, at factory expense, because Junior keeps tearing them up on Friday nights or trying to impress his girl friend.


Do that enough times, and, unlike a live axle, you will have U-joint parts, and perhaps bearings, scattered all over the street.

 

Yes, Ford has done a nice PR job justifying it's cheap solid axle solution. But the Camaro and Challenger engineers actually engineered a better solution. Ford was the company that tasked Firestone engineers to come up with a cheap tire solution to improve the gas mileage of the Ford Explorer, and we know how that resulted from a safety standpoint.

I like Mustang's, as long as gas stays below $3/gallon.

Who care about "junior impressing his girlfriend with burnouts" (that's a fun almost stereotypical image anyway), he bought the car used and is out of warranty anyway.

The potentially sweet car coming out soon will be the 300hp direct injection V6 Camaro.