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.

Though, you have to admit, the discussion that we're having now is so much more interesting than the root article.

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.

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.

3) The S-10 is 20 years dead.

So? Saber Tooth tigers are extinct. Doesn't mean they're no longer mammals. ;)

4) You're arguing that an f'n Mustang is a sports car, which means your opinions about automobiles are officially null and void. ;-)

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. :P