Was the 512 TR ever considered a "Supercar"? - Ferrari Life
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 10 Old 09-28-2007, 07:25 PM Thread Starter
Owner
 
silvergts1998's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Ferrari Life Posts: 116
Was the 512 TR ever considered a "Supercar"?

Not sure what makes a "super car" in the automotive world?

1992 Black Lamborghini Diablo
1992 Red Ferrari 512TR
silvergts1998 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 Old 09-28-2007, 10:40 PM
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Francisco
Ferrari Life Posts: 6,320
I wouldn't think the 512 would classify as a super car. An Exotic Sports Car yes, but not a super car.

I think the following could help define super car:

1. Shatters some major records for its time as it relates to performance
2. It is very rare (less than 500)
3. It is very expensive (not that the 512 isn't expensive)
4. The company making the car pushes their own limit

Cars that come to mind that fit the above:

Ferrari: Enzo, F50, F40, 288 GTO
McLaren F1
Jaguar XJ220
Pagani Zonda
Saleen S7
Maserati MC12
Porsche: 959, Carrera GT
Andrew is offline  
post #3 of 10 Old 09-29-2007, 03:21 AM
 
Sandy1903's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scotland
Ferrari Life Posts: 37
Great Answer
got me thinking tho , no Bugatti Veryon ?
No Lambo at all ?
The name supercar is overused i think
Same as " World Class " for Sportsmen
Gerrard , Lampard , Rooney , Give me a break !!!!!!
Porsche 911 , Supercar i think not

Rant Over

P.S. McFadden Goal against France DEFFO World Class
Sandy1903 is offline  
 
post #4 of 10 Old 09-29-2007, 10:17 AM
Owner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South West England
Ferrari Life Posts: 7
I would certainly have considered the TR a supercar in the mid 80s, same with a Countach. With a bit of perspective though I guess not.
John J. is offline  
post #5 of 10 Old 09-29-2007, 12:47 PM
Owner
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Ferrari Life Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by John J. View Post
I would certainly have considered the TR a supercar in the mid 80s, same with a Countach. With a bit of perspective though I guess not.
I agree, back in the 80's when the Testarossa was launched with a top speed of 186mph and 390 horses it would have been a supercar in it's day or at least in supercar territory if production numbers ruled it out. OK it sounds lame by todays standards, but who knows what supercars will be capable of in 20 years time? My guess is 300 MPH or 500 KM/H will be the benchmark.

Other than the 288GTO and Coutach what else was there to compete with in the mid 80's, I can't think of anything?

In the late 80's and early 90's, the 512TR had tougher competition, with the McLaren F1, Zonda, XJ220, F40, Bugati EB110.

Most motoring pundits refer to the non turbo V8 Ferrari's as junior supercars and the V12's/Flat 12's and V8 turbo's as supercars.

Archie
archiegibbs is offline  
post #6 of 10 Old 10-03-2007, 12:23 PM
Owner
 
JazzyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Ferrari Life Posts: 6,397
The term supercar is not very exact at all. For instance, if we say it should be rare (less than 500 according to Andrew), then the F40 doesn't even qualify.

For me, if it is an outrageous car, and the top of the range of an established sportscar manufacturer, it is a supercar. What qualifies as outrageous? If it has been made for pure performance and has looks that can kill at a hundred paces (either through beauty or sheer shock!). Some cars compensate for the lack of performance through dramatic looks (such as the Stratos), and some the other way around (such as the McLaren F1).

For instance: for me, my own 550 doesn't qualify (even though it was the Ferrari with the most performance you could buy for a short time) as it is built to be practical. It's even a bit of a Q-car - a lot of people don't even notice me until they see my badge on the boot.

With this definition, cars like the TR definitely qualify. It was the car that kids put up over their beds, which is good enough for me. The same with the current Murcielago for instance.

But as I said before, it's a vague term and people experience it differently.


Onno



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
JazzyO is offline  
post #7 of 10 Old 10-03-2007, 01:27 PM
Owner
 
Saint Bastage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Essex Connecticut
Ferrari Life Posts: 1,839
While researching my 348 I came across an article that called the 348 a Supercar. It was very controversial because Honda NSX owners felt slighted believing there car was a step above the 348. This led me to assume that the term "supercar" was coined by some media outlet (like car and driver or the like) and was voted on each year allowing only 1 recipient. I was personnally surprise to find the 348 called "supercar" because the term should mean more than some political statement and should not necesarily be assigned in years where no true "step up" in performance exists.

Using the terms that called a 348 "super", I would say that the TR should have been a supercar at some point in its career.

Lane

Lane

Previous owner of 348ts SS #64, Now Ferrariless

Last edited by Saint Bastage; 10-03-2007 at 01:41 PM.
Saint Bastage is offline  
post #8 of 10 Old 10-03-2007, 01:42 PM
Owner
 
Saint Bastage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Essex Connecticut
Ferrari Life Posts: 1,839
My Mistake...The 348 was dubbed "junior supercar". Parts of the article I read were repeated in the QV500.com info page

Lane

Previous owner of 348ts SS #64, Now Ferrariless
Saint Bastage is offline  
post #9 of 10 Old 10-03-2007, 09:14 PM
Administrator
Owner
Elite Member
 
Boxer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK & Texas
Ferrari Life Posts: 15,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyO View Post
The term supercar is not very exact at all. For instance, if we say it should be rare (less than 500 according to Andrew), then the F40 doesn't even qualify.
In general I do agree with the production number limitation. However I would make an exception for the F40 (originally only 400 were planned but when demand far exceeded the 400 units, Ferrari kept the line running basically because they needed the sales). It definitely qualifies on all the other attributed (speed, looks, performance, cost).

In addition, given the propensity of many owners to misjudge right foot pressure and turbo boost level, the 500 unit level may be achieved in the not to distant future
Boxer is offline  
post #10 of 10 Old 10-04-2007, 10:29 AM
Owner
 
JazzyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Ferrari Life Posts: 6,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxer View Post
It definitely qualifies on all the other attributed (speed, looks, performance, cost).

In addition, given the propensity of many owners to misjudge right foot pressure and turbo boost level, the 500 unit level may be achieved in the not to distant future
Could not agree more! BTW, I think the Enzo is decreasing at a much quicker rate still.


Onno



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
JazzyO is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
Copyright 2012 ONE Media, Inc.
FerrariLife is independently run with no affiliation with Ferrari SpA
Ferrari for Sale | Maserati for Sale