[VS Ute 5Litre]

Truth and your posts are not two things I would normally consider as directly interchangeable.



Not thinking for yourself again? Of course the M5 isn't a sport sedan, and it hasn't been since the E39 (and the E39 was pushing the bounds of reason really hard at ~4k lbs) with the added size of the E60 just proving too much for anybody not caught up in being with the 'in crowd' to say with a straight face. Of course, in keeping with the fashion of the day the M5 is obviously still marketed as a sport sedan, but then seeing the term sport added to anything hardly surprises me at this point. I'm surprised we can't buy 'sport produce' at Earth Fare, and as is typical if that were the case we would have the requisite internet automatons nodding happily at the moniker.



Actually, I was wrong earlier, this is well and truly your problem.

Are you really saying that an M5 is not a sports sedan?

Ok

Reallly

Wow!!!

 

[germeezy1]

Are you really saying that an M5 is not a sports sedan?

Ok

Reallly

Wow!!!

He who does not own an M5, 300C, SHO nor sport sedan is the self proclaimed expert on what is , and is not a sports sedan.

 

[syr74]

Are you really saying that an M5 is not a sports sedan?

Ok

Reallly

Wow!!!

Yep, and thirty years ago a slew of others would have quietly nodded their head in complete agreement that a 194 inch long, 75 inch wide vehicle that weighs in at 4,300lb isn't really a sport sedan no matter how well it handles because, sport sedans can't be that big or that heavy. But now, so long as it goes fast and handles well, I think you could put a trunk lid on the bed of a crew cab F-150, call it a sport sedan, and people would just grin and take it in.

Put more simply, if Ford built a two seat GT500 why wouldn't that be a sports car? We can argue about solid axle drivel until the cars come home but, at the end of the day, the GT500 is ridiculously fast in a straight line and handles meaningfully better than any of the classic/proper sports cars of the golden era. So, it's a sports car, right? It goes fast, has two doors, and two seats....sounds like a sports car by the generic definition of our day to me.

Of course the truth is that it isn't a sports car because it's just too big and too heavy. If you want to get really technical about it nothing with a fixed roof qualifies in the classic sense of the term and the truly classic definition of a sports car gets a lot more particular than that, but I don't need to get that technical and I'll buy into an updated use on the term so long as it doesn't throw the baby out with the bath. However, I won't happily nod my head as the generic enthusiasts who seemingly rule our day try to broaden the term so much it includes everything short of farm implements.

Traditionally, as defined in the classic sense, sports sedans were lightweight specials meant for racing or just more spirited driving than their standard brethren and, just like the term sports car, that term was applied more loosely to a broader swath of cars over the years. Last I checked, 4300lb doesn't constitute a lightweight anything, not even in this day and age of loose definitions, unless of course the vehicle in question is a large suv, van, or pickup.

Until relatively recently, the term wasn't seriously used to cover anything genuinely large and heavy outside of over-zealous marketing departments (I suppose that would make it good enough for germeezy) to whom serious enthusiasts paid no heed. Now we're calling rolling whales sport sedans despite seventy years of enthusiast history because they look good, go fast, and the internetz said so.

 

[syr74]

He who does not own an M5, 300C, SHO nor sport sedan is the self proclaimed expert on what is and is not a sports sedan.

No germeezy1, I don't own any of those, I'm just.....well.....right. Oh yeah, read the above, consider it your free lesson on history for the day. And, you're welcome in advance.

 

[germeezy1]

Sports sedan is not utterly divergent from the term super car in that it evolves with time, and as the bar moves within the class. I was speaking to a fellow enthusiast this weekend about a beautiful Lamborghini Miura S, and we spoke about the fact that a mid level 5 series would leave it for dead on a back road. Because the Bugatti Veyron is 4300 lbs does that mean it can not be considered a super car nor a sports car?

 

[germeezy1]

No germeezy1, I don't own any of those, I'm just.....well.....right. Oh yeah, read the above, consider it your free lesson on history for the day. And, you're welcome in advance.

I am in awe that your insight is so great that you know more about my car, and the SHO which I have driven far more than you have. As a car enthusiast apparently your views are the only ones that are relevant in this discussion. Who in their right mind would take a history lesson from someone far more jaded, and far less knowledgeable than their own self?

 

[VS Ute 5Litre]

Yep, and thirty years ago a slew of others would have quietly nodded their head in complete agreement that a 194 inch long, 75 inch wide vehicle that weighs in at 4,300lb isn't really a sport sedan no matter how well it handles because, sport sedans can't be that big or that heavy. But now, so long as it goes fast and handles well, I think you could put a trunk lid on the bed of a crew cab F-150, call it a sport sedan, and people would just grin and take it in.

Put more simply, if Ford built a two seat GT500 why wouldn't that be a sports car? We can argue about solid axle drivel until the cars come home but, at the end of the day, the GT500 is ridiculously fast in a straight line and handles meaningfully better than any of the classic/proper sports cars of the golden era. So, it's a sports car, right? It goes fast, has two doors, and two seats....sounds like a sports car by the generic definition of our day to me.

Of course the truth is that it isn't a sports car because it's just too big and too heavy. If you want to get really technical about it nothing with a fixed roof qualifies in the classic sense of the term and the truly classic definition of a sports car gets a lot more particular than that, but I don't need to get that technical and I'll buy into an updated use on the term so long as it doesn't throw the baby out with the bath. However, I won't happily nod my head as the generic enthusiasts who seemingly rule our day try to broaden the term so much it includes everything short of farm implements. Traditionally, as defined in the classic sense, sports sedans were lightweight specials meant for racing or just more spirited driving than their standard brethren and, just like the term sports car, that term was applied more loosely to a broader swath of cars over the years. Still, until recently the term wasn't seriously used to cover anything genuinely large and heavy outside of over-zealous marketing departments (I suppose that would make it good enough for germeezy) to whom serious enthusiasts paid no heed.

Now we're calling rolling whales sport sedans despite seventy years of enthusiast history because they look good, go fast, and the internetz said so.

Everything is heavier nowdays mate

A small car like a Corolla used to be less than 1000kg once - now it's about 1500

But it's still a small car relative to midsizers and large cars

The definition of a Sports sedan in my book would be anything (not a BOF monstosity mind you) with 4 doors(duh!) that has close to 50/50 weight distribution and is tuned towards performance

I'm thinking

M5

C Class/E Class AMG type Mercs

G8 /VE V8 SS Commodores and HSV's

Falcon FPV's and before them XR8's and XRsixes (turbo only)

The 300 , in some guises yes and others no

It's not as good a handler as the others in that list - maybe an exceutive express?

The Taurus is a fat FWD pig IMO that needs better weight distribution and a better body before it's classed in that league

 

[syr74]

Sports sedan is not utterly divergent from the term super car in that it evolves with time, and as the bar moves within the class. I was speaking to a fellow enthusiast this weekend about a beautiful Lamborghini Miura S, and we spoke about the fact that a mid level 5 series would leave it for dead on a back road. Because the Bugatti Veyron is 4300 lbs does that mean it can not be considered a super car nor a sports car?

But sport sedan is fundamentally different from the term supercar, because supercar was not a term that inferred light weight like sports car or sports sedan, not even early on. Blue Train Bentleys, classic Chevelle SS 454 models, 427 Shelby Cobra roadsters, and Hemi powered Chryslers from the fifties were all referred to as supercars but not all were lightweight.

I get that the term has 'loosened' over the ages and now, to be blunt, means almost nothing. My argument? Don't expect me to buy into the dumbing down of the phrase or the history. Put more simply, do you think the automotive hobby is better off because every four door with a spoiler, 18 inch or larger wheels, and more than 300hp finds itself called a sport sedan in every advertisement they can muster?

As a car enthusiast apparently your views are the only ones that are relevant in this discussion.

In a discussion with an enthusiast, of course not. In a discussion with you, absolutely.

Who in their right mind would take a history lesson from someone far more jaded, and far less knowledgeable than their own self?

You do realize that calling me 'jaded' infers that I have become so knowledgeable and familiar with a subject that I'm difficult to impress and easily bored. And though it is true, I am indeed jaded, referring to me as jaded seems counterproductive given your goals.

Still, I must admit that I am a fan of your continuing use of words you don't really understand in posts within which you insist that you possess a superior intellect.

 

[syr74]

Everything is heavier nowdays mate

A small car like a Corolla used to be less than 1000kg once - now it's about 1500

But it's still a small car relative to midsizers and large cars

The definition of a Sports sedan in my book would be anything (not a BOF monstosity mind you) with 4 doors(duh!) that has close to 50/50 weight distribution and is tuned towards performance

I'm thinking

M5

C Class/E Class AMG type Mercs

G8 /VE V8 SS Commodores and HSV's

Falcon FPV's and before them XR8's and XRsixes (turbo only)

The 300 , in some guises yes and others no

It's not as good a handler as the others in that list - maybe an exceutive express?

The Taurus is a fat FWD pig IMO that needs better weight distribution and a better body before it's classed in that league

I don't completely disagree, my problem is with the increasingly larger and heavier 'mid-sized' sedans that continue to be badged sport sedans even as weight balloons well past 4,000lb, which fundamentally rules out Taurus and 300/Charger. IIRC Falcon and Commodore are still just shy of 4k lb in most trims levels and about 4k lbs in others, including high performance trim levels, so I can go along there even though I think they are pushing the limit pretty hard. That said, the Bimmer and Merc are just too heavy, even in this day of heavy cars, for me to buy into them as proper sports sedans. Four door luxury supercars? I can go along with that, but not sport sedans.

 

[Barry Badrinath]

I think the 300C's front seat will be more accommodating for your space needs. What did you think of the Ecoboost V6 in the SHO, and the ride/ handling balance.

Ecoboost was nice. Very Linear. Only other car that I have driven like that (regularly) was a N54 335. I understand that the electrical nannies can be turned off for "track mode"; however, I did not try to do that. I was; however, able to drive it on roads of my choice. I may have been expecting too much from the car, so I cannot criticize it too much.

From my point of view, it was clearly several steps back from my CTS handling wise, specifically requiring more attention (set up) when entering a series of tighter curves. The car did make me feel as though it would be predictable at its limit, though I did not drive it in that manner. I understand that this is EPA full size, but it is only @200-250 lbs more than my CTS as built. Brakes were good. The dash layout was fine, save for two things: I did not like the "lip" that protrudes from most of dash, and i did not enjoy the IP layout. I did not work the infotainment system.

I did not appreciate the scalloping on the doors at all.

Overall, it is a nice car. I have no doubt i would have liked it more if I had driven the previous year SHO, and been able to compare the improvements made. I think the Lincoln would be more my cup of tea, with the better dash, the wood and contrasting seat color availability. But there is still that IP, the improved, but still not great fascia, and the $10,000 difference in sticker for what appears to be interior materials only. Add to that, my closest dealer has two 2011 MKS ecoboost's on fire sale and still can't get rid of them, and...

I have read good things about the 300C handling wise. I know it is 4,500lbs of fun, but the suspension set-up is similar to my CTS, and from what I understand, body rigidity is excellent. So we shall see.

 

[wescoent]

Are you really saying that an M5 is not a sports sedan?

The BMW M5 is not a sports sedan. It's too big, and too heavy.

 

[syr74]

Good to know I'm not the only one who sees the automotive world slouching toward Babylon in this regard.

 

[germeezy1]

The BMW M5 is not a sports sedan. It's too big, and too heavy.

The purist in me says that but I would never be so presumptuous as to believe that I alone decide those things. I would definitely not call an M5 a super car sedan when sports sedan is a far more ubiquitous term. Many consider BMW to be a purveyor of sports sedans, and quite frankly if a base BMW 528 is a sports sedan than so is the SHO, and the 300C.

Ecoboost was nice. Very Linear. Only other car that I have driven like that (regularly) was a N54 335. I understand that the electrical nannies can be turned off for "track mode"; however, I did not try to do that. I was; however, able to drive it on roads of my choice. I may have been expecting too much from the car, so I cannot criticize it too much.

From my point of view, it was clearly several steps back from my CTS handling wise, specifically requiring more attention (set up) when entering a series of tighter curves. The car did make me feel as though it would be predictable at its limit, though I did not drive it in that manner. I understand that this is EPA full size, but it is only @200-250 lbs more than my CTS as built. Brakes were good. The dash layout was fine, save for two things: I did not like the "lip" that protrudes from most of dash, and i did not enjoy the IP layout. I did not work the infotainment system.

I did not appreciate the scalloping on the doors at all.

Overall, it is a nice car. I have no doubt i would have liked it more if I had driven the previous year SHO, and been able to compare the improvements made. I think the Lincoln would be more my cup of tea, with the better dash, the wood and contrasting seat color availability. But there is still that IP, the improved, but still not great fascia, and the $10,000 difference in sticker for what appears to be interior materials only. Add to that, my closest dealer has two 2011 MKS ecoboost's on fire sale and still can't get rid of them, and...

I have read good things about the 300C handling wise. I know it is 4,500lbs of fun, but the suspension set-up is similar to my CTS, and from what I understand, body rigidity is excellent. So we shall see.

I heavily considered the MKS as well as buying another CTS as well, and quite frankly if not for the Mrs. I would have bought a CTS-V. In my area I can get an MKS for a price that is not utterly divergent from a Performance Package SHO , and that is the main reason I considered the MKS EB. Here is a suspension walk around that will shed some light on why the 300 is so good to drive despite it being quite porcine in nature. Like your CTS below the slightly luxurious top layer there is a bit of hooligan for a keen driver to explore, and the car exhibits a surprising level of control considering its mission.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2009/05/2009-dodge-challenger-rt-suspension-walkaround.html

 

[schmallz]

The BMW M5 is not a sports sedan. It's too big, and too heavy.

I agree. The M3 is a sports sedan, and can churn out quicker lap times on a road coarse than the M5.

M5 is a performance sedan.

Oh, how I love semantices!