Read an article in this months Autocar.

A Mr Stuart wrote -

"I was stuck behind a Metro 1.1 sport the other day. There should be a law against sticking sports badges on models with less than a certain amount of BHP".

So got me thinking (because I own a sport) how much BHP should a car have before it can be called a sport?

I think Skoda are not far off with the Octavia sport @ 140 BHP for the TDI and 150 for the petrol model. Its a nice amount of horse power without getting to close to the VRS.

Thoughts........

200

Should be a power to weight ratio IMHO - anything less than 100 shouldn't have a sport badge, although it's not all about power in truth, it should also be about handling.

Most people buy them for the look more than anything, plus I have seen so many proper "sports cars" being driven really slowly (probably because the are more conspicuous)

It's the power/weight ratio rather than bhp that matters I'd say.

Also the guy obviously didnt get the idea of 'sports' as a 'sporty looking' rather than actually high performance etc.

To take the Skoda example you've mentioned - yeah I agree, sports is probably not too far off

Similarly the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of the Fabia bearing the Sports label are firmly in the 'sporty looking' camp IMHO at the very least.

I've got a Rover 100 with a 1.1 liter petrol engine and I can vouch for the 'nope, sporty it ain't' angle

It's far more frustrating to be held up by one of those 'high performance car' owners who screams along on the straights to then virtually stop to go round corners etc. Even worse when you're making progress in aforementioned Rover

I never trust badges (or lack thereof) anyway

Read an article in this months Autocar.

A Mr Stuart wrote -

"I was stuck behind a Metro 1.1 sport the other day. There should be a law against sticking sports badges on models with less than a certain amount of BHP".

Thoughts........

I think Mr Stuart has a problem with the driving style rather than the car.

sport or sporty to me means something which is more fun to drive than a standard car. This can be a collection of things, such as looks, handling, power, fun, equipment level.

I don't think you can say a sport should be X bhp/tonne, then all performance cars would be sports, and how would we differentiate between them.

I think the Sport name should be given to a car which is considered sporty relative to the standard derivative (base model) of that car, but less sporty than the GT or GTI level.

JD

The Golf sport is only the 1.9 TDI which is a little bit weedy IMO.

Personally I think the furby would have been better with the 100bhp 1.4 16v engine in the sport so it has warm-ish performance

Should be based on the 0-60-0 time

60-0 time is about as long as the time to get up to 60 on that Rover 100

One of the reasons I got a new car

if it was based on 0-60-0 times then you would have to call the Vw Toureg v10 tdi a sports car. I reckon its the handling. A Mazda Mx5 isnt exactly a fast car (In standard form) but stick it on a twisty A or B road and it really comes into its own. Dont have to be fast or powerfull to be fun.

Dont forget that the goalposts defining "sport" "gti" etc have moved considerably... no doubt a metro or mini that weighs as much as a paper bag would be seen as being sporty.. iirc didnt they do a 100hp gti?

the power-output of hothatches has practially doubled in the last 10 years..

renault do a clio "dynamique" which is suppost to be sporty.... think its the seats lol. the red seatbelts in the metro would do the trick

I think the Sport name should be given to a car which is considered sporty relative to the standard derivative (base model) of that car' date=' but less sporty than the GT or GTI level.

JD[/quote']

:iagree:

You can't just stick alloys and a spoiler on ....