Do Supercars Matter Anymore? I'm Not So Sure...

"PardonMyFlemish16" (TheCoolKid) 06/12/2014 at 12:20 • Filed to: None

0

5

Not long ago- 50 years, give or take a few years- there was no such thing as a supercar. Yes, Ferrari had some very expensive sports cars, and Lambo had the gorgeous Miura- but the term "supercar" really didn't become a lexicon until the debut of the Countach. That Countach defined an era; it pushed the boundaries of performance; it was a legitimately new and novel idea; it redefined what was possible. It was an important car and an icon.

Fast forward to today. The supercar is almost commonplace, with entries from lowly brands like Acura and Audi. The sense of wonder is gone, with the only thing remaining being small, careful, iterative changes, sales volume targets and bench racing specs. For me at least, it's hard to even get excited about a lot of these cars, which I thought was the whole point. Begs the question, to me at least...

Do supercars matter anymore?

I really want to look at modern supercars in the context of the 3 areas of impact that made supercars of the past so special. Performance, "specialness" and purpose. And I want to see what cars of the past did in these realms vs cars of today.

Performance

In the days of the Countach, F40, and even the F1, you really, really, really had to pay out of the nose for performance. To a large degree, automotive performance per dollar has followed the same trajectory as computing power, with one huge exception that in many ways has leapfrogged us right to the limits of modern street tires.

Yep.... love it or hate it (and after having driven one at a track day, I am in the hate camp), the GT-R has downright commodified performance. It has set the bar for straight line speed, with companies like Ferrari STILL scrambling to catch up. With a 0- 100 mph time of a hair over seven seconds, the bar for what is "acceptable" for a supercar has crossed over into what I would call the absurd. The latest iterations of Ferrari and McLaren's "entry level" cars are either not far off or even faster.

But even coming out of that realm and back down to "just fast"... there is a laundry list of cars well below the GT-R's ever increasing base price that would give something like a Ferrari 360 Modena a REALLY rough time, at least in a straight line. Z06, GT500, TT-RS just to name a few. I mean, a $40K Mustang GT gives you performance once limited to something like an $80K M5. Out the door with a warranty and on regular unleaded, IIRC.

And don't even get me started on the aftermarket...

So with performance once reserved for full on supercars becoming downright commonplace, does performance really mean anything in the supercar realm? In nearly any performance metric- acceleration, grip, Ring times- there is some cheapish stock car giving supercars that are not that old a rough time. However, if performance were all that mattered- and thank God it isn't, because the GT-R is boring as hell- we'd all be driving GT-Rs and Camry V6s now, wouldn't we?

Well, what about "Specialness "?

As I alluded to before, in the supercar realm, we can divide time into BC and AC- before Countach and after Countach. The Countach, specifically the cocaine fueled Pontiac body clad flavor from the 80s, made boys who didn't even know they liked cars, like cars. To call it special is an understatement. It was a defining moment in time.

Again, fast forward to the present. Now, I grew up and lived in NYC, and spent my last few years there in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where sightings like 458s and MP4-12Cs were a regular occurrence. Nobody up there cared about those cars. You know how jaded New Yorkers are. Well, all that shit goes out the window when something like an E-Type parks up. Crowds form. Men do double, triple, quadruple takes. Women blush. Children stand mouths agape. It's special.

Supercars today? I'm not so sure I can say the same. Ferrari's mid engine V8s over the last 2 decades have had the careful progression of something like a Camry. More power, more refinement, more performance, yadda yadda. It's formulaic. I have driven an F430 and a 458. Yes, the 458 feels faster and tighter, but they feel very similar- not unlike my 350Z and the 370Z that came after it. Even in the hypercar realm, the similarities between the P1/LF/918 are a little closer than I think is reasonable for what are supposed to be the ultimate expressions of brands' identity as well as their technical prowess. It seems now supercars are bound to an almost mainstream like track of careful progression, or are headed towards a singularity powered by shareholder obligations and increasing regulatory constraints.

There also seems to be a lack of purpose in the supercar realm. Let's look back on some icons, and analyze their respective purposes and contexts.

Some of the most iconic supercars were "merely" homologation specials. I don't even have to say much about them... if you are here you should already know.

Etc., etc.

The NSX was an unbridled display of Honda's genius, technical prowess and spirit, showing that a supercar didn't have to make ownership miserable and expensive, prompting Ferrari to respond with the 355 (and to a large degree continue to respond with the rest of its mid engine V8 cars).

Where is that same sense of purpose and accomplishment with today's crop of supercars? Sure, many are used to race, but I'm not quite sure I can take something like a Bentley Continental GT3 seriously. You look at most supercars today- F12, Huracan, 458, GT-R- their only "purpose" is to be faster than the last generation. Is that really a noble cause? That is kind of the automotive equivalent of this:

What's the point? More importantly, what's the answer?

Well, first we have to look at some of the fixed parameters and changes in the automotive climate driving a lot of design and product management. For starters, and again for better or worse, performance figures are important. Sadly, there are a large contingent of folks who must have the latest and greatest and cannot accept a car that is not objectively "better" that whatever it replaces. Alright. Obviously, govts are clamping down on emissions and safety- as they should. China's air quality woes are a testament to the destructive properties of pollution.

Finally, and most importantly though, the relevancy of six figure supercars with more performance than you could ever hope to deploy on the street is questionable. Like that E-Type vs all the other supercars showed me in NYC... for the most part, people don't care about modern supercars. And obviously, one should buy a car for themselves and not to impress other people. But the lack of awe for modern supercars kind of speaks to a crisis of identity. It's like the difference between Senna and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! Ok, both are race car drivers; both are very rich, etc. etc., but one is a legend while the other is a pay for play douchebag. That's not to say modern supercars are terrible or whatever, but they just don't excite the imagination like a Countach did.

So what's the answer?????

We need something that is environmentally responsible, affordable, but also high performance and exciting. The immediate and obvious answer to me is a motorcycle (which I have), but for whatever reason folks don't want to make that commitment.

OK, how about a 4 wheel motorcycle? Basically, IMO the solution to the "supercar problem" is one of these at a price a working man can afford, with plates.

As light as something like this is, it could be combined with a mild hybrid system and seriously get ~50, 60, 70 MPG around town, while still being rawer and just as fast, if not faster, than all performance cars and most supercars. It could be cheap to make as well- no need for a discontinued K series engine; anything from a Camry V6 to a Subaru FA20 would do. And it would put the performance and spectacle of something worth 5, 10, 20x the price in the hands of average Joes.

I figure, if all the things about supercars are becoming commodities- performance, technology, "manufactured spectacle" (i.e. pre-programmed engine burps between shifts, engines programmed rich intentionally to spew blue flames from exhausts etc)- why not let common folks cash in?

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > PardonMyFlemish16 06/15/2014 at 22:17

0

I have to disagree...it's basically a law of physics that prices scales exponentially with performance. A GTR may be able to almost hang with a 458 in 0-100 but the Ferrari will still beat it around a track. And it's nicer inside/more refined. I'm certainly not one of the GTR hate crowd but you can certainly see where the bargain price comes from once you step inside and actually look at the materials, use the infotainment system, or even really just look at/touch anything. Straight-line performance has always been available for "cheap" compared to purpose-built cars. The whole package, however, is not.

As to your comments about the fact that the cars aren't "special"...I feel like first of all we see this about once a week on here and I don't get it. How are the 918, LF, and P1 not special enough for you? All three are incomprehensibly fast, faster than any road legal car apart from the Veyron SS by a mile. They all make spine-tingling sounds, and communicate with you intimately as they fly around a track. All three are also absolutely the apogee of the automobile at this point in time. They're also beautiful, rare, and sold out. I don't know how much more special it can get.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment 06/15/2014 at 22:31

0

A GTR may be able to almost hang with a 458 in 0-100 but the Ferrari will still beat it around a track.

What track? 458 was faster around VIR in C&D's LL, but the GT-R is faster around the Ring than the Enzo and all Ferraris below it. And I would not be surprised if the C&D 458 was one of Ferrari's famous ringers.

Now I agree that a GT-R is pretty much nothing without its performance, but to get that level of performance and decent refinement, you have to spend at least another $50-60K. But it's far more than a "straight line" car.

And I already explained why I feel these cars aren't special. I dont know that I'd call the 918 or the P1 "beautiful"... and I don't see the relevance of them being sold out. You are measuring specialness objectively, which is precisely the problem.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > PardonMyFlemish16 06/15/2014 at 22:43

0

Well I guess I'm just trying to quantify an unquantifiable variable, which is hard of course. How do you qualify "specialness"? I know you kind of went into it, but just in a nutshell.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment 06/15/2014 at 23:02

0

Like I said... specialness can be seen in how people react to a car, what its purpose is, and how people look at it long after its release. Ferrari Fxx cars have been declining in all of those things. People care more about the F40 than the F50 or the Enzo 10-20 years after their debuts.... I'm sure it will be the same story with the LaFerrari. This trio of hypercars is too dependent on tech and performance.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > PardonMyFlemish16 06/16/2014 at 00:17

0

I don't know about that...I think people react pretty strongly to all three. I sure do. The Jalopnik population isn't necessarily a good way to measure the sentiment...half the people here hate the Enzo just because it's not old and has a paddle-shifted gearbox. Not valid reasons imo. I see what you mean, I guess I just disagree.