Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
I'd like to see a track comparison of the old Lancer EVO 6 and a new Golf R manual - just for fun - the manual box in the Golf would mean they'd both be having to juggle 3 pedals and a stick.The EVO is a bit lighter but the in-gears are a bit in favour of the EVO against the Golf with the DSG
JockySteer said:
Barronmr said:
swerni said:
i know and you said
"Seriously, off a roundabout and full on foot to the floor acceleration very little will outrun it in the legal zones"
I was pointing out that this was wrong, lots will
I disagree. A manual boost controller bypasses the stock mr2's ECU's boost limits, (peak limit and 1st/2nd gear limits). So 0-60 is now 4.5s and 1/4mile is 12.8 "Seriously, off a roundabout and full on foot to the floor acceleration very little will outrun it in the legal zones"
I was pointing out that this was wrong, lots will
.I don't know how you define lots, sure odd GTR etc... but I wouldn't say lots that can go from 20-70 much quicker unless your counting bikes.
Even the SLK would struggle.
SonicShadow said:
Seeing a cheap, nasty MBC in an MR2 says a lot about the owner. It's a nice red flag that says 'do not buy' though!
Indeed MBC's are crude. But it can, has and will continue to be done that way by some. Done right with a reputable part it'll not cause a headache.SonicShadow said:
Now, a Blitz Dual SBC, Gizmo IBC, Apexi AVCR or similar 
If I was buying an MR2, I'd prefer no boost controller. 
Still going
Having thought a little more about it, I've reached a personal conclusion. It's a hugely personal thing and everyone will find their sweet spot somewhere slightly different depending on their own preferences in numerous areas.
For me the 1990s was perhaps the pinnacle of road going performance cars for a hands-on driver. They mostly had fuel injection and simple ECUs so the engines don't need constant fettling. Most 1990s performance cars have more than enough performance to satisfy on real roads today and get past normally driven normal cars. Most 1990s performance cars still had manual gearboxes and minimal driver aids. They were still stuck in the era of large displacement and lots of cylinders to make their power.
All these things appeal a great deal to me, and therefore for me the performance cars of the 1990s are where most of my car desires originate from. Diablos, XJR-15, 512, 355, V8 Vantage 550/600, Wheeler era TVRs and so on are right up my street.
I'd still love the modern V12 Vantage however, as for me it represents the passing of the V12 manual roadster. Whether or not something else is faster point to point or round a track, or whether the V8 is the better all round package is completely and utterly irrelevant to me. I just like the idea of a taught, compact coupe/roadster with a big V12, 3 pedals, a gearstick and a steering wheel.
Having thought a little more about it, I've reached a personal conclusion. It's a hugely personal thing and everyone will find their sweet spot somewhere slightly different depending on their own preferences in numerous areas.
For me the 1990s was perhaps the pinnacle of road going performance cars for a hands-on driver. They mostly had fuel injection and simple ECUs so the engines don't need constant fettling. Most 1990s performance cars have more than enough performance to satisfy on real roads today and get past normally driven normal cars. Most 1990s performance cars still had manual gearboxes and minimal driver aids. They were still stuck in the era of large displacement and lots of cylinders to make their power.
All these things appeal a great deal to me, and therefore for me the performance cars of the 1990s are where most of my car desires originate from. Diablos, XJR-15, 512, 355, V8 Vantage 550/600, Wheeler era TVRs and so on are right up my street.
I'd still love the modern V12 Vantage however, as for me it represents the passing of the V12 manual roadster. Whether or not something else is faster point to point or round a track, or whether the V8 is the better all round package is completely and utterly irrelevant to me. I just like the idea of a taught, compact coupe/roadster with a big V12, 3 pedals, a gearstick and a steering wheel.
I think manufacturers are missing an opportunity, by not building some cars that hark back to the performance models of the 80's and 90's. I know Toyota had a bit of a half-arsed attempt with the GT86 and the new MX5 is deliberately as light as the MK1 version, but modern cars are heavier, bigger and have lost any sense of fun and driver involvement. I know cost means most manufacturers share parts, floor pans etc, but there is very little character or individuality in modern cars. Even where attempts have been made, with the Mini or Fiat 500, they've got bigger, heavier and more bland within a few years of their release. On paper, modern cars are certainly quicker, but I'd rather go a little slower in something with more grin factor.
GC8 said:
Classics feel faster because theyre insubstantial compared to New Age cars.
When the new age came out back in 2001, it was estimated by most owners on SN that you needed an extra 30bhp for like-to-like acceleration, due to the extra weight over the classic.They feel faster, because they are lighter.
AntiLagGC8 said:
plenty said:
Hol said:
Its interesting that you prefer the Twin Scroll.
I had a V5 TypeR with V-limited 5th gear between 2000 and 2004 and a Twin Scroll 2003 between 2005 and 2009.
If I am honest I actually preferred the TypeR - as it felt quicker and more fun to drive, despite the twin scroll having over 400ibs of torque.
I don't actually say I preferred my twin-scroll - just that it is quicker I had a V5 TypeR with V-limited 5th gear between 2000 and 2004 and a Twin Scroll 2003 between 2005 and 2009.
If I am honest I actually preferred the TypeR - as it felt quicker and more fun to drive, despite the twin scroll having over 400ibs of torque.
Pedanticism aside, I do actually prefer my JDM blob, but I also am still very fond of my classic and can certainly understand why others prefer the GC8. When at the helm of my RA there is no question that it *feels* faster: the manic gearing, light weight, tin-can build and the surge as the single-scroll kicks in all contributing to the sensation of speed.
However the question OP was asking was not about fun or preference but about objective pace, and I have some fairly convincing empirical evidence of the newer car being quicker across the ground and with a significantly larger ultimate envelope having benchmarked both cars extensively against others (add obligatory disclaimer about doing so responsibly in appropriate conditions).
The kick in the back of the single scroll is exhilarating but requires more gear-stirring to keep on the boil (which can be fun of course but saps pace). By contrast the torquey twin-scroll feels like a brawny six and there is less need to change down to keep a brisk pace going - 4th is a devastating all-purpose ratio in a twin-scroll car that is effective for all but the tightest corners.
Ultimately though a classic Impreza is still a fast car by modern standards and anyway 10/10ths pace isn't really that important for most drivers. As often mentioned when it comes to newer versus older cars, you have to drive the newer car quicker to get the same thrills, an important consideration given congested roads and speed limits.
I converted my classic to a twin scroll (Spec C VF37+OEM headers+Sump etc) and it spools very well, although not as early as the Spec C as the car doesn't have the AVCS heads although I'm considering adding them with some other work. Still it gets going at just over 3k and tails off at 7.4k so the power band is pretty easy to exploit!
It's very lively and was dyno'd at 344bhp last week. Although I'd like a twin scroll SC42.
I actually don't drive it very fast on public roads but I'm readying it for track day fun. I'm getting old I think and its just too fast to make the most of on public roads. Still I love the rawness of it, the way it drives and the sounds when driving it on the road!
Considering the fact that my Blob was Bob Rawles old personal drive and hence 'perfect' in so many ways compared to a standard example - its probably a little strange to some.
But, when you consider the additional fact that, at the time, Bob himself had the choice to either keep his either his Blobeye or his Classic STI - he choose to sell the Blobeye. Maybe not so strange??
But then, the sale did fund a brand new GT2 Porsche in the vacant garage slot.
I think in short the answer is yes. Of course there are 90's cars you could drive today and are quick. Are 90's cars as quick as modern ones? That is a tough one to answer and it isn't going to be yes or no.
Take the Golf R and an Evo VI for example, both very similar on paper. I have driven the Golf and I have recently acquired the Evo. My money would go on the Evo but I don't think the Golf would be far behind. With that in mind I'd say that yes 90's cars are still quick but I think the modern cars are much more confidence inspiring and allow the average driver to push them harder than they would an older car.
Regardless of what is quicker, I know which one I'd chose to go for a blast in and it isn't the German one!
Take the Golf R and an Evo VI for example, both very similar on paper. I have driven the Golf and I have recently acquired the Evo. My money would go on the Evo but I don't think the Golf would be far behind. With that in mind I'd say that yes 90's cars are still quick but I think the modern cars are much more confidence inspiring and allow the average driver to push them harder than they would an older car.
Regardless of what is quicker, I know which one I'd chose to go for a blast in and it isn't the German one!
Edited by neil1jnr on Wednesday 16th September 13:52
Cotty said:
TO be honest how many people actually achieve or try to achieve their cars 0-60,
I would think the answer to this would depend on what group of people you direct the question too.For instance if you asked "Jo Public", then I suspect very few. However if you asked a petrol head, then probably quite a lot. I would hope most PH'ers have at some point tried to attain a 0-60mph timing on their car.
Cotty said:
im assuming it would put huge strain on the components involved.
Depends entirely on the car in question. Some will be fragile, some won't mind at all.300bhp/ton said:
Regardless of what you compare it too, 7.x to 60mph is still pretty rapid IMO. Sure more mundane cars can achieve it today, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's still pretty darn quick.
No, I used to think that but now I don't think so. I experienced faster than 7.x 0-60 in so many cars, many of them not sporty at all. For instance a n automatic F30 BMW 328 doesn't felt fast to me, maybe it is because of linear power delivery but it is certainly in the low 6.x 0-60 time without feeling quick.I would put the bar around 5s to 0-60 to feel quick despite there are especially older cars that in the right situation, at the right speed and gear DO feel quick but aren't capable at all of 5s 0-60.
But if I have to judge if a car is quick ONLY looking at 0-60 stat without driving it and knowing anything about the mass and engine type and power than it has to be around 5 seocnds to be sure.
matsoc said:
No, I used to think that but now I don't think so. I experienced faster than 7.x 0-60 in so many cars, many of them not sporty at all. For instance a n automatic F30 BMW 328 doesn't felt fast to me, maybe it is because of linear power delivery but it is certainly in the low 6.x 0-60 time without feeling quick.
I would put the bar around 5s to 0-60 to feel quick despite there are especially older cars that in the right situation, at the right speed and gear DO feel quick but aren't capable at all of 5s 0-60.
But if I have to judge if a car is quick ONLY looking at 0-60 stat without driving it and knowing anything about the mass and engine type and power than it has to be around 5 seocnds to be sure.
Over 240bhp/tonne and 470bhp should be the minimum in a road car for people who are into cars. This is the level where you can have a lot of fun. I would put the bar around 5s to 0-60 to feel quick despite there are especially older cars that in the right situation, at the right speed and gear DO feel quick but aren't capable at all of 5s 0-60.
But if I have to judge if a car is quick ONLY looking at 0-60 stat without driving it and knowing anything about the mass and engine type and power than it has to be around 5 seocnds to be sure.
Cotty said:
300bhp/ton said:
Regardless of what you compare it too, 7.x to 60mph is still pretty rapid IMO. .
TO be honest how many people actually achieve or try to achieve their cars 0-60, im assuming it would put huge strain on the components involved. A far more interesting question is 'are cars from (name your decade) still fun to drive ?' The answer being a resounding yes - depending on the car. One of the older cars I drove was a 1959 Giulietta Spyder which sure as hell wasn't quick but god it was a lovely little thing , even though it wouldn't keep up with an achingly dull 2015 Clio Diesel.
Like everybody else I look at 0-60 times but I suspect I do so more out of habit more than actual curiosity . When the average car did 60 in , say, 15 seconds you knew that doing it in under 8 was properly fast. But when even cars which can attract the usual derision on PH (330D say ) do 60 in under 6 then it becomes progressively more meaningless.SS 1/4 mile or better still SS kilometer are far more useful pointers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff