A supercar should be three things.
Fast. Impractical. Pointless.
Anything else is just isn't a supercar.
Examples of the above. A Veyron. A Zonda. A Diablo. An F40. Not something you can get the shopping with.
If that be true, then my GTV be a supercar!
Tell me it's not fast!
Tell me it's practical!
Tell me there was actually a point in me buying one!
No. My boot is where the rear seats should be. My glove compartment is where my boot should be, and i unlock my boot where the glove compartment should be!
So the verdict is out, we're all driving supercars!
More seriously though: A supercar has to fall within an ever shifting performance range. Unlucky for us, 250km/h and 0-100km/h in 6.5 seconds is not within that range. The BMW M3 is not clessified as a supercar, and it's faster than ours.
(yes it is guys,
A supercar has to either make use of the latest technology available, or perfect the classic technology, to achieve it's ultimate goal of being a supercar. Two opposite points are perhaps the technology filled Ferraris, and the fairly basic Nobles. The Noble hardly uses any technology to acheive phenominal levels of grip and traction where the Ferraris use every trick in the book (of course you could turn it all off!)
A supercar just has to be something good to look at. Even Paganis and Ascari's and the like, are beautiful in their own way. The engineering, the execution, the splitters and wings and brakes and intakes and lights...
BUT: Where the GTV 3.0 does win points is that when it was designed and first produced, it was the cutting edge of technology: The bonnet was the single largest piece of composite material ever produced for a production car. The rear suspension was out of this world, the car was beautiful beyond beleif, the performance was very good for a mere 220hp and the engine sounded fantastic from day 1!