If an Aventador isnt a supercar, im thinking that means you must class it as what, a straightforward sports car? And by that way of thinking, a 911 would be what? A push bike?

 

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've heard in a long time.

 

> Take this with a pinch of salt.
>
> "10,441.
> There were 8,588 built between 2003 - 2008. (+ 922 in 2009 and 931 for 2010)"

The Audi financial reports says this:

year/produced/delivered
2003 933 890
2004 1294 1215
2005 972 1071
2006 1651 1610
2007 1951 1793
2008 1787 1844
2009 922 1112
2010 1064 1052

So 10574 produced and 10587 delivered by 2010-12-31.

Pretty good supply-vs-demand I'd say.

 

There are so many different ways to answer this. For this application I will say this:

The buzzword "super car" came into its own with the explosion of ultra exclusive, limited production autos from well known exotic and luxury companies. This was a time when the general public will still fairly ignorant about the variety of exotics out there. All the general public knew was the name Ferrari, or Lamborghini. If it wasn't for the movie Redline 90% of the people now aware of Koenigsegg wouldn't have a clue what it was. Now even white trash Skeeter knows what a Bugatti is.

Times have changed. With that, the trend of calling anything exotic a supercar was started. Yes the definition of a gallardo or 458 is a "super" car compared to the average vehicle on the road. But the original term supercar was reserved for only the best of the best, rarest of the rare, and radicalist of the radical. The F50, the CLK GTR, the 911 GT1, the 959.

Legends such as these created the word "supercar". It is a disgrace to such unique autos to call the corvettes of the exotic world (911TT, Gallardo, Entry level Ferrari, FGT) etc. supercars.

My distaste for people calling every exotic under the sun a "supercar" comes from my distaste for people (and the media) over-sensationalizing everything. The cars are bad ass enough on their own. There is no need to jazz them all up with child names like "hypercar". If the term "supercar" wasn't so abused these days there wouldn't be a need to create the hypercar category in order to distinguish better machines.

^ That is a window in to why I make a fuss about it. I don't loose sleep over it. I am not angry. I'm a quick typer and it's a pet peeve of mine so I've made it a point to call people out for misusing the term.

How people can even remotely compare a Gallardo/430/458/FGT/Viper/ZR1/GTR etc. to a Zonda, Koenigsegg, Veyron, CGT, F50, Enzo, F40, 959 boggles my mind.

In closing, with the exception of a few major cities, if you ever see a car more than once in your life actually driving on the road it is NOT a super car. Supercars are mythical creatures you only see in magazines.

You don't have to be filthy rich to own an exotic, you can finagle one. You do on the other hand have to be filthy rich to own (and operate) a supercar. Nuff said.

 

Right. So what makes you think the Aventador isn't a supercar?

 

edited: Unnecessary rudeness

 

1. Odds are more Aventadors will be produced than Murcielagos
2. On any given weekend I can go out in Houston and see a few Murcielagos. The same will go for Aventadors.
3. I know 2 people who own Murcielagos (LP640s) and make $250k/year or less. One of them lives in an apartment

Supercar owners have planes. They have houseS. The have miniature ****ing giraffes!

 

You all are superhyper winners in my books!

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahahahahahah
(DEEP BREATH)hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Congratulations BDP - possibly the least insightful comment I have ever heard.

And by the way - your staggering breadth of knowledge doesnt stretch to politics - sadly, British citizens aren't given the opportunity to vote for the American president

 

A Pagani Zonda owner yesterday: