Date:         Mon, 31 May 2004 14:32:45 -0400
Reply-To:     tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Subaru Engines (NVC) Sports Cars
Comments: To: Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <26F49CDF-B10C-11D8-AA50-0030657C6ABA@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

My 78 Datsun 280Z coup has roll up windows and GEICO refused to insure
it because they do not insure "sports cars" so I went to State Farm.
TEMiller

Kim Brennan wrote:

> HAHAHAHA.
>
> Yep, my Lotus Esprit isn't a sports car. Yep, no doubt about.
> I have never yet seen any "definition" for sports car that doesn't have
> an exception that completely blurs the lines to invisibillity.
>
> 2 seater? Nope, there are plenty of sports cars (Porsche's JUST to name
> ONE brand) that have 4 seats.
> Ragtop? Nope...Oops, there is that damn Porsche brand again with hard
> tops.
> Capable of 150mph or more? Nope. Plenty of the older sports could
> barely do 120 let alone 150.
>
> There is no one thing (doubters to the contrary) that says VW has never
> made a sports car. They redefined the image by making hot hatches and
> then morfed it into sports cars (ala the Scirocco and Corrado). They
> weren't completely first on the block either, as Cooper had made the
> Mini a pretty sporty beasty too, but (and here things get pretty darn
> nebulous) I don't think anyone would consider a Cooper S (old one) a
> sports car. I wouldn't consider the Rabbit/Golf GTI a sports car. I do
> consider the Scirocco and Corrado Sports cars.
>
> But the killer is...for ANY definition that those "authorities" care to
> put on what constitutes a "sports car", the Karman Ghia fits  if the
> definition can accomodate MGBs, triumphs, X 1/9s, Porsche 356s (and
> Speedsters).
>
>
>
> On May 28, 2004, at 7:52 PM, Al Knoll wrote:
>
>> AHIP!  REAL sports cars don't have roll up windows or built in hard
>> tops.
>
>
>