[FrankHudson]

Yup, supercar is a kind of loose and subjective category, and I'm not sure if anyone has ever written an objective definition that is widely accepted.

It is swoopy, impractical looks?

Is it slightly tuned down race technology?

Is it top speed well above the rate of mortal cars?

Is it rarity and high price tag?


Does a car need all of the above to wear a S on it's leotards?


I think Ken Purdy made the case (without using the word) that the Stutz Bearcat was a supercar of it's time. Duesenberg could make a case, but almost all street versions were oversized and had no bodies that referenced current race car practice.


The Mercedes 300SL would certainly qualify. Some other pre-1964 or so cars would also qualify as street-legal versions of contemporary race cars. Ferrari's, Jaguars, Porsches, but none of them were American. I thought of Cunningham of course (a personal favorite), but the street versions while handsome were not particularly racy or extrema in looks. A case could be made for the top of the 1960's Corvette line, though they don't meet the cost factor.

Lance Reventlow/Traco produced at least one street legal Scarab. That so completely meets the rarity rule that it may rule it out.

There's nothing in the Ford GT40 street-legal version that doesn't make it an American supercar before the Vector, unless you write some codicils like must have supercharging, multiple overhead cams, gullwing or scissor doors, etc.

Counter our globalized world, I suppose someone could object to the GT40 based on it having international roots from it's original design onward (based originally on an British design). In my mind that would be like claiming the Marshall guitar amp is American, but....