I'm unconvinced. "Roadster" has always meant "something with an open top and not enough seats." "Sports Car" has always meant "something with not enough seats." "Convertible" is something with a top that comes down. "Coupe" is something with two doors. "Sedan" is something with four. "Hatchback" is something where the trunk and the rear glass form part of the roof and part of the trunk. "Station wagon" is a sedan with a glass-enclosed trunk that continues the roofline. These are not controversial definitions, and they have never been assailed by any manufacturer, trade group or journalistic organization. So if you're going to be pedantic about definitions, be pedantic and RIGHT. So sure. Bitch that the Mustang isn't a "sports car." It's not. It's not by any stretch of the definition, at 3800 lbs with a back seat. But it's also not a sedan, dumbass. It's a coupe. Unless it's a convertible. And the reason R&T gets pushback (aside from neglecting the "&Track" half of their masthead) is that the Mustang has always been a coupe, unlike the Thunderbird, which started and ended life as a roadster/sports car. SUVs are station wagons. They have limited utility and aren't sporty at all. Like "Crossover" it's a marketing term. The DMV still calls them "station wagons" and they're right.
Eh. The only thing I'm trying to convince you of is that when it comes to cars, semantics start to get kind of crummy. Now, I'm not pulling these words to pick a fight or anything, but just to show how in depth definitions can become and how our common understanding and acceptance of what something is or isn't can change over time. Sedans are any car that has an A, B, and C pillar. Two door sedans exist and if we were to go by the author's argument that the Ford Mustang is a sedan, by the definition Wikipedia gives us, he's technically right. Just look at this picture of an S-197. Right there, in bright red, is a B Pillar. Though if we were to start fretting, I'd worried about whether or not it'd be appropriate to actually call it a sedan because it's very easy to argue that it doesn't have “adequate passenger space in the rear compartment for adult passengers.” I'm not a very big man. Even I feel cramped in the back seat of a Mustang. Similarly, coupes also have their own elaborate definition and criteria and while it takes a bit of scrolling, towards the bottom of the article you can see that there are four door coupes in existence. Here's where I think semantics start to get crazy and a little silly. I'd honestly and with a straight face call a Mustang a sports car. Just like a lot of people would argue that whether a car should be called a sedan or a coupe rests soley on the number of doors its rocking, I'd say that any car that is built solely for performance can be called a sports car. Not a roadster, but a car built for sport. Both the S-197 and the S-550 Mustangs were built from the ground up with performance in mind. Unlike prior generations, they do not share any underpinnings with more pedestrian cars such the Falcon or Fairmont. In my mind, that makes them sports cars just like I think my FR-S is a sports car. Am I technically wrong? Yeah. Colloquially speaking could I be right? Arguably. I hope you don't think of me as a dick for what I'm about to say, but even this is arguable. The Chevy Blazer was based off the S-10. It's arguably a truck. The Vista Cruiser was built from the same chassis as the Oldsmobile Cutlass. It's arguably a car. No matter how the DMV would want to classify them, the DNA for those two vehicles are very different. If I were to buy a fifth gen El Camino tomorrow and register it with the DMV, they would make me register it as a truck, even though it shares the same chassis as the Monte Carlo. I think one of the best examples that I can think of off the top of my head would be the PT Cruiser, which as far as CAFE standards are concerned, is classified as a minivan. What really messes everything up, at least from what I can gather, is that different people want to use different terms to suit their needs. Marketing companies will call cars one thing in hopes of gaining sales. Engineers will call them something else, because to them being technically correct is not only the best kind of correct, but communicating the correct terms is an essential part of their job. Somewhere in between, you have the lawyers, regulators, and bureaucrats, erasing one shade of gray and filling in the gap with something slightly grayer to suit their needs. Then there's a guy like me, who would be more than happy to debate that the latest two generations of Mustangs deserve to be called sports cars because of how they were designed, while the Ford Focus ST and Fiesta ST don't deserve to be called sports cars, all because they're performance variants to standard commuter models. That guy two towns over that is chomping at the bit for the Ford Focus RS to hit the dealer though? He'd probably argue otherwise."Coupe" is something with two doors. "Sedan" is something with four.
SUVs are station wagons. They have limited utility and aren't sporty at all. Like "Crossover" it's a marketing term. The DMV still calls them "station wagons" and they're right.
1) This is an article in which the author (who whinges that "road & TRACK magazine" can't find track time) lambasts his readers for semantic disagreements while making a number of factual inaccuracies in his definitions. 2) This is an article in which the author (who is one of those assholes who makes motorcyclists look bad) argues that a Ford Mustang is a sports car... but a 240Z isn't. 3) The S-10 is 20 years dead. 4) You're arguing that an f'n Mustang is a sports car, which means your opinions about automobiles are officially null and void. ;-)In some cases, the "sports car" name was used for something that was meant to be an antidote or alternative to traditional sports cars—see "911, Porsche" and "240Z, Datsun."
Though, you have to admit, the discussion that we're having now is so much more interesting than the root article. Actually, he's arguing neither are sports cars. I'm arguing that both are. Also, everyone makes their demographic look bad sooner or later, especially if they're willing to use print as their own personal journal. I actually haven't read that article yet, but since you've pointed it out, I might dive into it. So? Saber Tooth tigers are extinct. Doesn't mean they're no longer mammals. ;) Do I have to go the semantically neutral route of calling it a "performance car?" It's a performance car. Used for sport. That makes it a sports car. :P1) This is an article in which the author (who whinges that "road & TRACK magazine" can't find track time) lambasts his readers for semantic disagreements while making a number of factual inaccuracies in his definitions.
2) This is an article in which the author (who is one of those assholes who makes motorcyclists look bad) argues that a Ford Mustang is a sports car... but a 240Z isn't.
3) The S-10 is 20 years dead.
4) You're arguing that an f'n Mustang is a sports car, which means your opinions about automobiles are officially null and void. ;-)
Sports cars lack back seats. Period. Full stop. This is why an AMX was a sports car but a Javelin was a coupe. Look - I drive a Stealth. It ain't a sports car. It's fast, it handles well and it looks racy but my cousin's Brabus Mercedes shits all over it and always will. I had a TR-7. It's a sports car. It wasn't fast, it handled poorly and it looks like a doorstop but it lacks a back seat. Mustangs are just an embarrassment.