What Makes a Supercar a Supercar?

What is a supercar? It's a term these days that's so casually used it seems that nobody really knows what the true meaning is anymore. There aren't just a few brands making insanely high-performance, high-design vehicles anymore. There are cars coming out of places you rarely hear about, like Dubai (W Motors) or Croation (Rimac). And with the rise of car blogging, where anybody can say anything on the Internet, it seems that so many cars these days are catching the tag "supercar" that don't really deserve it.

So what really makes a supercar a supercar? We turned to the opinions of people we know, respect, and trust in the auto industry, whether that be writers, editors, photographers, racecar drivers, or videographers, to find the answer. To get the conversation going, we prompted them with these questions:

• How would you classify something being a supercar? How would you define a car as being "super?"

• Or what about a hypercar—where is that line?

• How do you think the term is overused/misused?

• Are there any cars that are widely considered supercars that you don'tactually think are supercars? If so, how do you determine that?

• Do you think that older supercars that have stats that aren't really impressive now should still be called supercars?

Some responded with a simple but effective paragraph, others responded by directly answering each question, and several responded with mini essays, describing exactly how this word has been shaped. See what they all had to say ahead.

[What Makes a Supercar a Supercar? is the first article of Complex Rides' "Supercar Week," seven days of nothing but features and coverage about everything supercar. Stay locked for a new feature everyday detailing the corners of the supercar world, including interviews, essays, and best-of lists.]

Jeff Glucker

Professional Title: Owner/Executive Editor/Business Development Manager, Hooniverse
Twitter: @JGlucker
Website: hooniverse.com

The term supercar has gotten tricky in the last few decades. When I was growing up, I remember seeing posters of cars like the Lamborghini Countach, Porsche 959, and Ferrari F40. Those were the first supercars my brain remembers, and they fit the bill perfectly. The outrageous performance was backed up by styling that appeared to come not from this planet. On top of all of that, the noise was otherworldly.

Today it seems people are quick to apply the supercar moniker to a wide range of cars. The Nissan GT-R is not a supercar. Instead, it's a pretty amazing machine that can do tremendous things, yet I don't think it will inspire a generation of future gearheads. I say that as a tremendous GT-R fan, mind you.

A car can't simply be exotic either, to warrant the supercar title. A Ferrari California is no supercar, but the LaFerrari certainly should be considered one. Likewise, a Lamborghini Huaracan is an exciting exotic... but a car like the Reventon is a supercar.

Supercars are mystic creatures that stalk empty backroads where they can't be bothered by lesser machines. They inhabit our hearts, our minds... and the posters of the walls belonging to our younger selves.

I don't necessarily think we need the term hypercar. What we should be doing is reducing the amount of vehicles that we call super, and there will be no need for the word hyper... unless someone makes the first street car that can break 300 miles per hour, then we need to reevaluate things.

As for the original (to me) supercars, I think they still hold a special place in the hearts of many. Additionally, the true supercars could still show the current crop of machines a thing or two. Well, the F40 and the 959 could... the Countach would just sit still while still looking badass.

Queue the Miami Vice theme song...

Noah Joseph

Professional Title: European Editor, Autoblog
Twitter: None
Website: noah-joseph.com

There are terms we use in the automotive industry that are easy to define, and those that aren't. Though the lines between various body styles and segments are getting blurred all the time by four-door coupes like the Porsche Panamera or Mercedes CLS, or pseudo-premium/near-luxury marques like Mini or Chrysler, a convertible still has an opening roof, and a pickup truck still has a cargo bed. Supercars, however, are a bit more difficult to define.

So what is a supercar? In this writer's humble opinion, it's a car that's singularly focused on performance with little regard towards other factors like accommodation or cost. It doesn't need to be manufactured by an exotic automaker, but usually is. It similarly doesn't need to be a two-door coupe or convertible, but tends to be.

They also tend to cost more than just about anything else on the road, but all that really matters is how it performs – or rather, how it performs relative to other cars of the same era. So, while even a base Porsche Boxster today might be able to run circles around, say, an original Lamborghini Countach or Ferrari Testarossa, the Lambo and the TR will forever remain supercars – more capable and exotic than most cars in the 1980s – while the Boxster, nimble and superb though it may be, never will. That, after all, is why Porsche made the 918 Spyder.

Tim Burton aka Shmee150

Professional Title: Supercar Spotter
Twitter: @MrShmee150
Website: shmee150.com

The definition of a supercar is one that has to constantly change as technology changes the playing field; a hatchback now can be faster than the Ferraris of not too long ago. Again, the quantities play a part, for example a 911 is a fantastically fast car, but there are so many of them built that it's hard to position where it sits. Likewise obviously a Ferrari 458 Italia is a supercar, but is the older F430? What about the previous 360 Modena? These cars start their lives as supercars, but over time fall out of the fray leaving it to a newer niche.

My view on the definition of a supercar covers cars from Audi R8 V10, Porsche 911 Turbo and Aston Martin V12 Vantage up; the small quantity, faster versions of their respective models. Any current model Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren sits within this fold too.

As more and more cars reach the supercar fray, where before you would have said the Ferrari Enzo, Porsche Carrera GT and so on would be supercars a decade ago, there are now so many cars with performance in reach of these that the newer term 'hypercar' has naturally been created to encompass the latest models; Bugatti Veyron, LaFerrari, McLaren P1, Koenigsegg Agera, Pagani Huayra and all. We're now in a world where the Koenigsegg One:1 that has recently been announced is being position as a 'megacar' to create a new league above these others.

The term is so varied that different people will always use it in different ways, and albeit some will overuse it, I don't see that as a problem. For example, for somebody who rarely sees a special car, a Ferrari F355 could be incredible and to them quite rare. Whereas for someone based in central London for example, you could see a constant stream of 458 Italias, which barely catch your glance any more.

Whether I personally see a car as a supercar as I say can differ vastly from someone else. To me an Audi R8 V8 isn't particularly rare, nor special, any more and equally the price has now reached reasonable levels for purchasers. It certainly looks fantastic, but the performance is lagging behind, whereas there would be many people who would class it as a supercar immediately, which is equally fine. Location and involvement in the automotive world plays a big aspect in this, because at the end of the day, it's down to how rarely you personally see a car of that class.

Regarding the 'worst supercars', I'd argue that's a title that can't really exist! Every car is built as the dream of the founder or designer, and ultimately it's down to a customer to choose to buy it or not. If there are few purchasers then the car becomes rarer and in turn that makes it more special. Take the McLaren F1, now considered one of the very greatest cars out there, but in it's day only 64 road-going models were ever made due to lack of demand.

Stuart Hayim

Professional Title: Founder, The Experience Auto Group
Twitter: None
Website: experienceautogroup.com

There are many arguments that debate the difference between the term “Supercar” & “Hypercar”. To me, both have big price tags and extremely limited production. Performance & design reach a limit where it teeters of car and spaceship. If you are lucky enough to own one, it usually means your passion for a particular brand goes above and beyond a “love of cars."

We are at an exciting time in the exotic automobile industry, where we have 3 ground-breaking supercars out or on their way out at the same time. Some would say that the Porsche 918, Ferrari LaFerrari and McLaren P1 are even hypercars. With each of these models containing horsepower that reaches almost four figures, if it weren’t for the advanced technology and safety “nets,” these cars would only be available for a professional race car driver rather than the super/hypercar enthusiast. Even if someone were able to afford one with their wallet, if it weren’t for the advanced safety features that have been so far developed over the years, it could potentially cost them their life.

The technology in these cars today compared to my younger years is unimaginable. It makes the driver smarter than they really are. If Emerson Fittipaldi had one of these cars in his garage, it’s very likely that even HE could only use it to up to 90% of its potential. My point is, comparing even the Enzo (2002) to the LaFerrari (2013) or the Carrera GT (2003) to the 918, you are looking at a world of a difference of technology and design.

Zach Doell

Professional Title: Writer, Complex Rides
Twitter: @TheTireKicker
Website: complex.com

Supercars tread that fine line between being too crazy to be a roadcar and too civil to be a racecar. They come with that special aura where just the utterance of "Hyuara" or "Aventador" send you into cold shivers. That being said, a lot of the older supercars – your Miuras and the like – don't exactly perform up to today's sports sedan standards, but there's no doubting their significance in launching supercardom.

Is the term misused? Yeah, probably. The Toyota Supra is certainly a super car, but it isn't exactly a supercar.

Douglas Sonders

Professional Title: Photographer/Filmmaker/Producer/Writer
Twitter: @DouglasSonders
Website: sondersphotography.com

The supercar is like the genetically superior "supermodel" of the automotive world. Vehicles that stand apart from the boring appliances us average mere mortals drive. They ignite our passions while scaring the hell out of us at the same time. The supercar represents the extremes of high performance technology and style.

They stand apart from our daily 4-wheeled appliances and give us something to dream about. They remind us what the open road truly represents, excitement and freedom at its extreme limits. Not always safe, let alone practical, they are the epitome of what every mere mortal car dreams to be.

Tony Markovich

Professional Title: Channel Manager/Editor, Complex Rides
Twitter: @T_Marko
Website: complex.com

There are a lot of ways to box in the qualifications a supercar should have. Exclusivity, performance, technological advancement, execution, cost, exclusivity, and branding are all aspects you could pull from. And because there are so many ways for people to judge what makes something spectacular, it has caused an enormous range of cars to be collected into this pool of what people think a supercar is.

To the general public, this range is going to be even wider, as the regular person is not used to seeing higher-profile vehicles on a regular basis, let alone getting to drive them like auto journalists do. This translates to a ton of basic sports cars getting swept into a category that they aspire to be in, but aren't quite there.

Even the rise of performance in muscle cars has somewhat brought call upon the word. The current Shelby Mustang GT500 has 662 hp, 631 lb.-ft. of torque, and can go 200 mph. The current Camaro Z/28 has 505 horsepower, can jump to 60 in about 4 seconds, and is a track-eating beast. And the newest kid on the block, the Challenger hellcat is going to have more than 600 horsepower, too. That's insane performance, and if that is the main way you judge superness, then you could have an argument for those cars. But they aren't supercars. They just aren't at that level, and muscle cars never will be.

The way Porsches are set up really are a good example, too. The 911 is one of the most iconic silhouettes in the auto world. It's a brilliant car with a ton of history that many unexposed, non-car people would likely call a supercar. But a base 911 is far from being super. It's not even close to being the best in its own family, let alone compared to all other cars. But the branding is there, and it puts this image into people's heads. That's the main issue, at times, of how people deem a car a supercar. They only look at one aspect of a car, and if it's outrageous or really prestigious, then they call it a supercar.

To me, the two main aspects of a supercar are that it has to be at the limit of capability of what it's trying to do or it has to be such an extreme, that it just blows you away. And while the word supercar is certainly rooted in sports car values, I have found myself questioning whether or not it's acceptable these days to call uber luxury cars supercars as well.

Of course you're going to have your high-performance models like the Mclaren P1, the Ferrari LaFerrari, and the Porsche 918 (please, can we quit with the hypercar thing already? The cars are evolving, as should the words we use to describe them. That means that supercar has to adapt with the standards we're upholding these days. The word hypercar was created by people who couldn't keep their pants on and wanted to make up some cool new word, when in reality, they're just the modern equivalent of what a supercar is -- that was way too long for parentheses). Those cars are all THE ULTIMATE road vehicles that the companies could create as of right now. They're absolutely cutting edge, and their abilities are what make them so extraordinary.

In the same way that those cars show the purest forms of performance, I believe that cars like the Rolls-Royce Phantom or a Wraith could, in theory, be called supercars. They're the most extravagant versions and the peak versions of that level of car. Sports car:supercar as ... ?:luxury car? There is no word for the best of the luxury. I've seen super luxury or uber-luxury. So, I think it's okay to use supercar for uber-luxe, as well.

So what is the basic point of that way-too-long ramble? It's okay to expand the use of the word, as long as that expansion is vertical or upward. In order to be supercars, the vehicles have to maintain a level of importance and significance to the auto world. Not everybody who wants to join the club is allowed.

Travis Okulski

Professional Title: Deputy Editor, Jalopnik
Twitter: @Tokulski
Website: travis.kinja.com

I think of a supercar as a maximum performance, mid-engined, high tech car that is the ultimate expression of a brand's ethos. I think Hypercar is a bullshit term made up because we're calling way too many things supercars these days and we suddenly needed another word to differentiate real supercars from sports cars.

I honestly think that basically every car that is called a supercar (458, 12C, SLS, Huracan, Z06, etc) is not a supercar. Those cars are super sports cars. Supercars are the LaFerrari, P1, and 918, cars that are the absolute pinnacle of a brand's engineering and design. I think that older supercars might not be as impressive on stats now, but that shouldn't matter. A Countach or 288GTO was the top of the brand at one point, they were the super car. They still count to me.

Sami Haj-Assaad

Professional Title: Features Editor, Autoguide
Twitter: @Sami_HA
Website: autoguide.com

To me, I'd define a supercar as something that's so far away from the ordinary that it causes people to stand up and take notice. As cars are used as tools or appliances to get from place to place, a supercar would also do that task in a manner that's truly significant. They seem to push the envelope in terms of styling and engineering and are often made with a clean sheet design, without a mold or assembly line. They exceed the known limits, pumping out more performance than ever before and sometimes they can manage to change the way we think about cars forever. To some, a supercar is when the pursuit of performance and passion create a piece of art and that's been seen again and again in history as many of the supercars we know and recognize are so drop-dead gorgeous.

However, older supercars are being matched in terms of performance by modern mainstream cars. A Lamborghini Miura could risk a loss to a V6 Camry in a sprint to 60 mph, though the Toyota wouldn't create as much of a crowd going at full tilt. I wonder if that's why the term Hypercar started being used, to stop us from thinking about the old supercars and start us thinking about the new generation of extraordinary automobiles. Though it seems kind of buzzwordy and gimmicky, I don't think anyone has been disappointed by a hypercar, have they?

You also asked if there are any cars I would disagree with being named a supercar. I have another answer – a car I'd argue that doesn't seem to get enough credit for being a supercar is the Volkswagen XL1. If you changed your metric for performance, in this case, trade speed and handling for fuel efficiency and you may find that there's a supercar in the funny little XL1. The car looks otherworldly and captures the attention of other motorists in the same way a Ferrari or Pagani would while boasting performance numbers (in terms of MPG) that seem to cross the line of what we thought was possible before.

Stirling Matheson

Professional Title: Editor, Complex Rides
Twitter: @SZMatheson
Website: complex.com

How would you classify something being a supercar? How would you define a car as being "super?"
I call it a supercar when performance is by far the primary concern in design and engineering. Comfort, practicality, cost, and the like are all a distant second at best.

Or what about a hypercar, where is that line?
Hypercar should be reserved for when an automaker throws whatever it has it can at a car in order to make it as fast as possible given today's technology. Cost is irrelevant.

How do you think the term is overused/misused?
So many people seem to confuse "supercar" with "mid-engined." An Aston Martin V12 Vantage S or a Ferrari F12 are certainly supercars, while a Porsche Cayman is too well rounded, and should be classified as a mid-engined sports cars.

Are there any cars that are widely considered supercars that you don't actually think are supercars? If so, how do you determine that?
A Ferrari FF carries too much practicality around to be a real supercar. It's not that practicality is inherently wrong, it's that it's heavy, and weight is the enemy of performance.

Do you think that older supercars that have stats that aren't really impressive now should still be called supercars?
Absolutely. A car needs to be judged in accordance to what it was intended to be. A Lamborghini Miura is a spectacular car, given the restrictions of the tech of the day.

What do you think are some of the worst supercars ever made?
Every Vector; you can talk all day about your 1,850 hp engine, but if it doesn't exist nobody gives a shit. The Ferrari Mondial, Lamborghini Urraco, and Maserati Merak were all thoroughly underwhelming as well, because the '70s sucked. The Mitsuoka Orochi makes up for its complete lack of performance by just being nightmare fuel, though.

Nelson Ireson

Professional Title: Senior Editor, High Gear Media
Twitter: None
Website: highgearmedia.com

What, exactly, is a supercar? As Justice Potter famously said of pornography: I know it when I see it.

The supercar’s super-ness has at its root so much more than four wheels, an inimitable sense of style or the potential for world-class performance. Nor are a boutique brand name or a stratospheric price tag enough. To be a supercar, it must offer something more.

Ultimately, there’s a human element to a car’s supercar status, a recognition that its creators have risen above the mundane to achieve the sacred. In that way, the supercar becomes something we, as enthusiasts, have a hand in creating.

So what is a supercar? You’ll know it when you see it.

Brian Makse

Professional Title: Racing Driver, Automotive Writer and Presenter
Twitter: @BrianMakse
Website: makse.com

How would you classify something being a supercar?
Exotic car, supercar, hypercar. Enthusiasts use these terms almost interchangeably, but historically the term supercar referred to the fastest of cars, those with extreme levels of performance, and often that included special attention to a supercar’s top speed. Ferrari F40? That achieved a breathtaking 201 miles per hour, while its archrival at the time, the Porsche 959 could only muster 195 miles per hour. Since the F40 was faster, that meant it had to be better.

Or what about a hypercar, where is that line?
In my mind, the McLaren F1 eclipsed conventional supercars with its focused engineering and groundbreaking performance. Then, the McLaren was eclipsed, at least in terms of top speed, by the mind-bending Bugatti Veyron and then later by the Super Sport version. Any car that can post acceleration or top speed numbers at or near F1 and Veyron numbers qualifies as a hypercar in my mind. Anything less and that’s just a supercar.

How do you think the term is overused/misused? Are there any cars that are widely considered supercars that you don't actually think are supercars?
Using historical performance benchmarks as a line to define what is a supercar and what is otherwise a hypercar is useful for me. In the context of supercars, I like the line drawn by the Porsche 959, Ferrari F40 and Jaguar XJ220. Anything more is unequivocally a hypercar, anything less is simply a supercar.

By those benchmarks, there is laundry list of modern cars that qualify as supercars and often represent the volume cars for their respective marques. Porsche 911 Turbo S, Ferrari 458 Italia, McLaren MP4-12C and 605S, Chevrolet Corvette Z06, Dodge Viper and the Nissan GT-R.

In particular, the Nissan GT-R seems to get a bad rap among its peers. While it undoubtedly offers on-par performance, to some enthusiasts it’s just not special enough. It’s less engaging than the others, they say, it’s a volume car, they argue.

Do you think older original supercars that might not have as impressive stats comparatively anymore should still be considered supercars today?
My three favourite supercar examples – the Porsche 959, Ferrari F40, and Jaguar XJ220 – are all over 20 years old, and the engineering and performance benchmarks must be respected for the achievements they are. That’s even despite the fact they, at least Porsche and Ferrari, are now outperformed by the modern but run-of-the-mill models. It’s a bit unfair to relegate these cars to less-than-supercar status because the biggest factor in their all-around performance – tire technology – has changed dramatically in the intervening years.

What do you think are some of the worst supercars ever made?
Perhaps one of the worst supercars is also the one I most desire, the Ferrari F40. Knowing how those cars were engineered and assembled relative to the groundbreaking Porsche 959 makes the machine from Maranello look nothing more than a hotted-up 308. You know, the car Magnum, P.I. drove.

While that’s not exactly true, Ferrari’s approach to the F40 was fairly basic - take weight out of the car and drop a big engine in it. Thankfully, they had Pininfarina style the car and when I see one, I say to myself, "damn, that’s the one I really want in my garage."