It hit me like a bolt of lightening. My 997TT is a piece of C*^*P so I'm getting rid of it.

 

I think evo magazine has the best categorization of cars in every issue. They call the 997 Turbo a supercar and I agree. With the most minor of tweaks, I got 0-60 in 2.8 seconds (my previous 07 TIP, now sold), as well as a top speed at Daytona of 193 mph (my wife was driving - her initials were L.B.).

And yet I can drive it everyday, park it at the grocery store, etc. I would like to see you park your 430 or Lambo in crowded DC parking garages. I have never had a scratch or issue.

Cheers - Gerry

used, 07 997 TIP, slight AWE mod, arriving today
07 GT3RS
04 GT3
08 997 TT 6 speed
07 997 TT TIP
05 GT3
02 TT X50
2 993 Cup Cars
IMSA GTS-1, partially owned
93 RSA
92 911 Turbo S2

 

Im my mind, if I ever own a 997 TT, then I own a supercar

 

I think I own a supercar based on what it does for me. When I drive it, I'm the fastest car on the road. That makes me feel great. Just look in the rear view mirror and see all of the people trying to slay the giant (and even attack it on this site!) by tempting you into crushing them. I've heard a few opinions on what a giant is...my opinion is that I'm lucky enough to drive one.

 

Supercars of the past were all fast and ruff around the edges. Now they have become more comfy and faster but the range has increased. From comparitively crude supercars like the Viper to Lambos to Zonda to Veyron. The term supercar to me applies to any car with super performance even if it isnt luxurious.

Performance was the criteria in the past. But everyone has gotten soft and as such the term supercar seems to be evolving to include luxury. Luxury seems to be of the same level of importance as performance now than it was in the past. Just check out the supercars of the recent past and compare them to the supercars nowadays and you will see what I mean. I believe one of the game changers was the NSX. Ferraris and Porsches got a whole lot better all around after that atom bomb from Honda.

 

I drive a 911 Turbo because it is a 911 Turbo and because I am fortunate enough to drive a 911 Turbo.
If I wanted to drive a Nissan, Viper or a Corvette I would have bought one.
nuf said....

 

I agree with the poster who said that it performs as a super car yet it does not look like a super car. It looks like a really nice 911, and in fact it is.

 

Yap, it is more important wut it means to you rather than the magazine or others. Drive it, enjoy it, love it, it will be your supercar no matter wut the badge is.

 

Supercar? Yes.

Exotic? No.

 

No other words when spoken to the common person with a basic understanding of Automotive history provokes more passion than 911 Turbo.
More so than Ferrari (Ferrari what? WHat Ferrari is better known than the 911 Turbo), lamborghini (it s a Audi for heaven's sake), and any other car you can think of. Its come from a scary widow maker type monster to a car that lots of people can drive well. You can drive it to the track trounce everyone in your class and have dinner and drive it home. I dont think any other car falls into the category of SuperCar better than the 911 turbo. It does everything well and unless you are a diehard racer(and even some racers want the turbo), the 911 turbo is at the top of everyones supercar list to own.
Name another car that is that Iconic.

 

the 997 Turbo is one of the finest vehicles i've ever owned. Solid as a rock; safe; technologically advanced but not dripping with annoyances. Fast as a lightning bolt.

For me, i wanted something a bit more raw and edgy since i dont drive it "daily" but when i have time in the schedule and on occassions.....

but, no quesiton about it, i think the 997 Turbo is one of the finest cars of the last decade.

 

The term "supercar" has definitely been polluted over the years. If "supercar" has any meaning left it's on a personal level not how the media applies it.

For me, again personally, labeling a car a "supercar" and not just a super car depends on several different things. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean.

1.) Ford GT:

a.) Was the recreation of a racing icon; historical significance. (+1)
b.) Developed by a company that rarely develops anything "special"; therefore this was a reach, a serious dedication to producing a car outside of their typical business and comfort level. (+1)
c.) Cannot be mistaken for any other car that Ford builds, perhaps any other car that any other manufacturer builds. (+1)
d.) Is rare, draws a crowd. (+1)
e.) Produces top level performance numbers for it's time and into the future
f.) Technologically, the engine was lifted from a Ford truck, of course with different internals but on the whole not a real technological reach/achievement. (-1)

In my mind the GT qualifies as a "supercar".

2.) Corvette ZR1

a.) This is an evolutionary car, not revolutionary. (-1)
b.) Was developed by a company that has developed "special" cars in recent times, ah la Z06. (-1)
c.) The ZR1 could, from the rear, side, or front be mistaken for a different version of the Corvette line. (-1)
d.) The car is rare now, but as we all know GM will produce as many as they can sell. (-1)
e.) Produces top level performance numbers for it's time and into the future. (+1)
f.) Technologically, some achievements were made and applied but not enough to push the boundaries of whats possible. (+/-0)

To me the ZR1 qualifies as a super car just not a "supercar".

Other examples: Carerra GT, Enzo, McLaren F1, F40, NSX, etc.

I do not think the 911 TT qualifies as a "supercar" but certainly a super car.

 

i like the definition of taking it to the track and beating most everything out there, then picking up the wife and eating dinner at mastros in beverly hills and then stopping at 7-11, picking up a 6 pack and going home. yep, that's a super car.

 

a general rule of thumb is if you have to ask- it isn't

 

There are a lot of factors that make a supercar, a supercar... But listing all the specifics would take too much time and effort... So...

I have a much more simple formula that works well... A supercar is a modern era car (not a classic muscle car, or an old 911, ect.) and usually costs around $400k and up (LP640, CGT, Enzo, Zonda, CCX, Veyron, ect.). I think it's safe to say that all the cars below that price tag are either sports cars (M3, Corvette, Carrera S, ect.), or hyper sports cars (911 Turbo, GT2, GT-R, ZR1, Ford GT, Viper, F430, 599 GTB Fiorano, Gallardo, ect.).

One side note: I'm talking about modern supercars. There are cars that were considered supercars at their time, but are now old and considered classics, which could be classified as classic supercars (550 Spyder, 250 GTO, Ford GT40), but the cars I am talking about are modern era supercars (1980s and up).

Some hyper sports cars, especially the newer ones, may preform like supercars, but they are still hyper sports cars. The 911 Turbo is definitely a hyper sports car.