gengar

In Benz, you forgot the CLK GTR. You also forgot the Carrera GT, and Porsche offers inexpensive cars what with the Boxster currently <$50k and don't forget the old 928 which even inflation-adjusted is still probably quite cheaper than today's Boxster. The CLK GTR and Carrera GT are two cars that aren't just exotics but legendary ones, which really shows how absurd it is to rule out vehicles on the basis of brand.

I mean if the Carrera GT and CLK GTR aren't exotics let's shut Club Lexus down right now and all go sell our cars and start driving AvtoVAZ Ladas and Geely Pandas.

Meanwhile, Ferrari continues to go downmarket - keep in mind that the California was originally supposed to be a Maserati . Is the California really an exotic just because it has a Ferrari badge? Well, I'm sure many Ferrari buyers would like that to be so. The fact that many Ferrari buyers are just brand snobs is demonstrated by dealer complaints that the California, while intended to be a low-performance high-margin model, has mainly served to cannibalize 458 sales.

That is not to say that brand cannot help perception of a certain car as an exotic - I don't think many people (if any at all) will disagree with that. I grew up as a huge Ferrari fan after all, which is demonstrated by my random Ferrari memorabilia/gear/books collection still exceeding my Lexus collection (although it's getting close... Lexus keeps sending me stuff). But Ferrari's recent dabbling in silliness like the California and FF not to mention their continued shenanigans with essentially fraudulent magazine reviews are certainly hurting their brand reputation in my eyes.

IMO another good example of where brand helps is the Gallardo. It's a car that doesn't even have a real V10 and also shares its powerplant with the R8 5.2, yet you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone arguing that it's not an exotic. And I wouldn't mind adding a LP550-2 Valentino Balboni to my collection at some point down the road.

Brand can be a factor in exotic consideration, but like other factors that have been discussed in this thread such as price, performance, or rarity, it certainly is not definitive.

stock_sc

iTrader: (2)

wow how standards have changed.
to me an exotic is a halo sports car. meaning...
-the platform is not shared.
- the engine is exclusive to the car and no other parts are shared.
-the fit and finish of the car is top notch.
-you should be able to customize what leathers you want to the paint job.
-not anyone can go in and order one. gotta be exclusive.
-the construction and use of materials are innovative for the time period the car was built.
-the design should be timeless that it withstands the test of time.
- the exhaust note is so beautiful that it will make girls panties drop and guys messing themselves from the sound alone.

Ice350

iTrader: (1)

Mike, no need for sadness.
I wanted opinions and that's what I'm getting. Not all are going to agree.
Most of us know the LFA is one of the most exotic of exotics there is. Everything about it was created exotic. When I encounter people who can't even consider changing their view after receiving new information, I stop talking to them.

This thread proves exactly what I thought, the definition of exotic is not always clear. The criteria is too subjective. There are no official standards attached. A diamond has standards. It's obvious why a VS stone is more valuable than a SI stone. It can't be debated. There are no opinions. Gold has standards: 24 kt, 18 kt, 14 kt and 10 kt. Can't debate that.

I may never use the term "exotic" ever again.
Instead, I like these terms better:
Performance Cars
High Performance Cars
Super Cars
Hyper Cars

Even these cross lines without standards but they seem less confusing. One thing for sure, there is no clear answer to what is an Exotic!

jpvarghese

iTrader: (1)

Rest assured guys, the LFA according to "my" formula is an exotic! LOL
- Bespoke construction and engine
- Performance focused

jaseman

Man, when I was a kid, and the term 'exotic-car' first gained popularity, it was pretty easy to say what was or wasn't one. It used to be all about exclusivity and performance (for the most part) with badging and price playing a close second.

If you had to mortgage your children's future, take it to a mechanic that spoke little or no English, the manufacturer only offered one or two models, and you rarely saw one outside of a magazine or poster on the wall, then it was usually an exotic. Countaches, M1's, DB-7's, Esprit's, and even the 'lowly' 308 all fit the criteria at the time, and little else did. That's not to say they're weren't others, just that it was very exclusive compony. Sure, even back then, there were cars in the grey area (Pantera or 911 for example) but that fuzzy line between exotic and just a pricey sportscar was much narrower.

Today, with performance being so cheap, technology making ordinary platforms extraordinary, and marques offering vast fleets of 'supercars' (often to the point of watering down the brand) there is a whole array of cars in that grey area. No longer do you have to be uber wealthy to own what 40 years ago would have been considered exotic performance and styling. Any average lawyer, wannabe starlet, mid-level VP, or third-string athlete can walk into a showroom, point to an Aston Martin, Maserati, Ferrari, Porsche, etc, and drive it home that day. These once exotic marques are no longer only within reach of the filthy rich, but are now obtainable for the moderately wealthy as well. To the point now that some of these cars have almost become pedestrian.

Adding to the confusion is the wealth of different cars that possibly qualify for 'exotic' status. Not just the traditional European marques, but mainstream brands offering cars (Viper, R8, Ford GT, GTR), and a whole host of boutique manufacturers (Noble, Koenigsegg, Saleen, or arguably even Tesla). They're are so many cars out there, that a high-end sportscar is no longer exclusive enough to automatically be considered.

So what is exotic today? Well, like beauty, that's all in the eye of the beholder.

For me, the one thing it absolutely cannot be is pedestrian. As great as the Z-06, GTR, or Viper are, they certainly don't qualify in my mind. I just see too many running around on a regular basis (at least once a week).

Badge helps some, but does not automatically grant status. At one time, any Ferrari would be considered one, but can you really call a California an exotic?

Pedigree maybe? 911's aren't really exotic, but have a very long pedigree. Noble hasn't been around that long, but should definitely at least be considered for exotic status. And few would argue Zonda

I guess what makes a car qualify today is really something very intangible then. It can't just be exclusive, expensive, sexy, fast, etc. It has to have a certain mystique to it that stirs not just the soul, but the libido, while at the same time brings out the ten year old inside of you, looking up at the poster on your bedroom wall and making vroom noises. It's an emotional thing. If not, it doesn't qualify as an exotic.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

Yes, M want to make a new M1 but corporate want to make SUV for profits instead.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....percardead.jpg

Brand name is not an absolute requirement, but it is by far the biggest factor. For many decades now Ferrari have been making very crappy cars, the Mondial is total crap but most people still think it is an exotic just because it is a Ferrari. On the other hand, the LFA is one of the most exotic car ever made by man, but just because it is a Lexus some people still don't think it is exotic.

To me, as important as the brand name is to me, as long as a car got all the right ingredients, it is an exotic car. If Tata make a top quality car out of 100% carbon fiber that weight 2000 lbs with a 2000 hp qual turbos V16, it would instantly be an exotic and a Veyron competitor.

07grIS350

^^ agree.
Also to expand on my concept of exotic from a previous post:
It's true that branding can project the image of great wealth (unattainable by most and therefore desirable), limited quantities (rarity), and performance (desirability). Therefore, it's easy for people, who are not familiar with the subject at hand, to use it as the deciding factor in determining the definition of an exotic car. What's better than relying on marketing info when you didn't want to think from a broader perspective?
Imagine that one lives in a neighborhood of millionaires and billionaires, and everyone has at least one of the mass produced Ferraris and/or Lamborghinis. The chances of seeing these cars on a daily basis are great, and that would immediately diminish the rarity value in spite of their brand being Ferrari and Lamborghini. This would also wiped out the idea of these brands being inaccessible ( to these people, only limited runs would pose issue of accessibility).

Therefore, brand alone cannot be the definition of an exotic car because it's a relative concept. To the general (uninformed) public, cars from some brands seem like sure exotics, but to some car enthusiasts, who can think in relative terms, only a limited run supercar from anywhere can qualify as exotic.

Is the LFA an exotic car? Let’s see
Rare: yes, the chance of seeing more than one LFAs in the same block is very miniscule.
Desirable: yes, at least for the people who love a supercar that drives better than the traditional ones
from Europe. Also for the people who love a great sounding F1 V10 noise.
Attainable: $400K price tag is only one barrier. A limited run of 500 is the other.

In my biased book, it is.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

It is a Japanese exotic, there are different levels.

The biggest thing the GTR don't have is sexy exotic styling, it just looks like a highend ricer, like a 370Z/G37 with a wide body kit, unique styling don't cut it, there are tons of very ugly car that has unique styling, like the Pontiac Aztek. Another thing it doesn't have is noise, turbo vacuum cleaner sounds are not sexy.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

I got it, this is the definition of an exotic:

It needs to be judge by the reaction of a person totally ignorant about cars seeing the car passing on the street.

If that person think it looks hot, expensive, exclusive and it sounds very unique, then it is an exotic.

A normal person would think all Ferrari and Lambo as an exotic, the LFA look sexy, unique and sounds crazy, so they think it is exotic. But a GTR just sounds like a turbo G37 with a big body kit, they just think some kid wasted a tons of money rice-ing it out, so it is not an exotic.

We as car guys know how fast and how special the GTR is, so we think it is exotic, but to normal folks, they just think it is some cheap Nissan sports car like a 370Z that their high school kid's buddy bought with a McDonald's pay check.

jaseman

I gotta disagree. A car is either is exotic, or it is not. We don't hold a Carrara GT and Enzo to different standards because one is a "German exotic" and the other an "Italian Exotic". Is a GTR a supercar? You could certainly argue that point. But to make a separate definition of "Japanese exotic" is no different than a corporation having to hire a certain percentage of minorities simply because of race, sex, or color, rather than actual qualifications. Basically, you're applying affirmative action to an individual car.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

I know how you are thinking, I feels somewhat the same way too, if a highend car share a lot with a much lowerend, cheaper car, it does bring down the image of the highend model.

The biggest example I always think about is the Porsche 911, the Carrera and Carrera S is certainly a very common everyday car that is not remotely link to being an exotic, which makes the 911 Turbo less special just because it doesn't look like much. But at some point though, if the styling, sounds, price and performance get to a certain point, they become an exotic like the GT3 RS, GT3 RS 4.0 and GT2 RS.

GT500? Wow that's a huge insult. I think you meant Ford GT, GT40 to be more clear. But no, the LFA is at the 599, Carrera GT level

07grIS350

As for the GT-R, it's close to be an exotic if it were not being made in such large quantities.
It's creator purposely made it so that it's accessible to pretty much anyone.
Just imagine that less than 1000 GT-R were made ever, I would over look its 'vacuum cleaner' sound and it Riced up look, since its performance can be very desirable. Also, this would have created at least a couple of issues in term of attainability .
As it stands right now, the GT-R is no doubt a supercar.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

haha..............everything is view at different level, human discrimination would always exist, even though we try to hide it because it is not politically correct now a days.

Of course people view the Carrera GT and the Enzo at different level, Italian always have a higher exotic image then the German.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

A supercar for sure, but it is missing a few key ingredients to be a true exotic car.

chikoo

Here is the answer:

Yes. the GTR is an exotic as it meets all of the above criteria.