Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[AudiSport]

300bhp/ton said:

AudiSport said:

Funnily enough I was thinking about this the other day. Back in the 90s a friend of a friend had a Sierra
Cosworth, and we all marveled at what talent he had to keep such a beast of a car in a straight line on public roads. There was stories of how he would 'never floor it' unless he was on the motorway facing in a straight line etc etc. And while all this maybe true, the reality is my 60-year old next door neighbor's TT has more bhp. I'm not taking anything away from the Cosworth, but things have certainly moved on. What will the future hold...

But aren't you missing several points here.

1. The TT weighs more.
2. The Power to weight figure won't be as dramatically different.
3. The Cosworth was NEVER that powerful FFS! It made the same HP as a Jaguar XJ6, just in a lighter car.
4. There have been plenty of faster & more powerful cars that can pre-date the Cosworth by 20 years or so.

Yes, I did miss several of 'your points' from my comment. I wasn't taking it all that seriously really, just joining in on a subject I had only been thinking about myself recently.

[ORD]

Unless you don't give a damn about the car, dumping the clutch at 4,000 revs is a pretty stupid thing to do, so autos almost always win 0-60 sprints and the traffic light GP, surely?

[300bhp/ton]

Gandahar said:

Escort RS turbo 132bhp in 1984
Focus RS turbo 350bhp in 2015.

Golly.

The Focus is a segment higher these days though. So size, price and market placement is more Sierra than Escort. Still a big power difference. But less so.

1987 RS500 - 224bhp - 1207kg - 186bhp/tonne

I don't know the specs of the RS. Google says 345hp and suggests 1500kg. So that's 230bhp/tonne.

[Cotty]

ORD said:

Unless you don't give a damn about the car, dumping the clutch at 4,000 revs is a pretty stupid thing to do, so autos almost always win 0-60 sprints and the traffic light GP, surely?

Almost always? At one point I owned a BMW 325i auto and an Elise S2 111S. Im pretty confident the Elise would have destroyed the auto BMW 0-60 without even trying that hard.

I will admit to sidestepping the clutch in a Vauxhall Chevette and snapping a halfshaft

Edited by Cotty on Thursday 17th September 21:53

[derin100]

e21Mark said:

Robert Elise said:

e21Mark said:

Barely 90bhp. Great fun though (especially through the lanes) and plenty quick enough to keep with modern traffic despite being 40+ years old.

lovely.
what does it weigh?

Around 940kgs I think? 0-60 in 10.2 secs, although the 130bhp injected version could manage high 7's to 60 and 120+mph.

They certainly could! My very first car back in '82 was a 1974 2002tii. Someone had fitted hotter cams to it before I got it and I regularly saw the speedo hit 130mph (even though the official figures suggested only 118mph for the top speed). I hit that through the Blackfriars Underpass once...and the front wheels left the road on a bump at the exit of the tunnel!

[e21Mark]

derin100 said:

e21Mark said:

Robert Elise said:

e21Mark said:

Barely 90bhp. Great fun though (especially through the lanes) and plenty quick enough to keep with modern traffic despite being 40+ years old.

lovely.
what does it weigh?

Around 940kgs I think? 0-60 in 10.2 secs, although the 130bhp injected version could manage high 7's to 60 and 120+mph.

They certainly could! My very first car back in '82 was a 1974 2002tii. Someone had fitted hotter cams to it before I got it and I regularly saw the speedo hit 130mph (even though the official figures suggested only 118mph for the top speed). I hit that through the Blackfriars Underpass once...and the front wheels left the road on a bump at the exit of the tunnel!

I had a hot tii when I was about 22. (I've had one for pretty much all of the 27 years since) It used to pull through to an indicated 130 with ease too. They must have blown the competition into the weeds when BMW introduced them?!

[300bhp/ton]

ORD said:

Unless you don't give a damn about the car, dumping the clutch at 4,000 revs is a pretty stupid thing to do,

Depends on the car. A big V8 you'd probably not need that many revs on road tyres, as you'll roast them. As for durability, again depends on the car. There are guys in the U.S. Who go to drag strip one or two times a week in their daily driver and beat on. Yet they might have 150,000 miles on the clock and still be fine to drive to work the next day.

ORD said:

so autos almost always win 0-60 sprints and the traffic light GP, surely?

Depends. Getting the best 0-60mph in an auto isn't just about flooring it.

[s m]

e21Mark said:

derin100 said:

e21Mark said:

Robert Elise said:

e21Mark said:

Barely 90bhp. Great fun though (especially through the lanes) and plenty quick enough to keep with modern traffic despite being 40+ years old.

lovely.
what does it weigh?

Around 940kgs I think? 0-60 in 10.2 secs, although the 130bhp injected version could manage high 7's to 60 and 120+mph.

They certainly could! My very first car back in '82 was a 1974 2002tii. Someone had fitted hotter cams to it before I got it and I regularly saw the speedo hit 130mph (even though the official figures suggested only 118mph for the top speed). I hit that through the Blackfriars Underpass once...and the front wheels left the road on a bump at the exit of the tunnel!

I had a hot tii when I was about 22. (I've had one for pretty much all of the 27 years since) It used to pull through to an indicated 130 with ease too. They must have blown the competition into the weeds when BMW introduced them?!

They were indeed pretty fast - even now, 60 in 8.3 isn't slow, back in the early 70s it was very rapid for a small saloon.

There's a nice red K-reg tii not far from me Mark - looks well looked after and no slouch on the road when I've been following it

Edited by s m on Thursday 17th September 23:11

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

300bhp/tonne is really far too much on the public roa
200bhp/tonne is the sweet spot/minimum for full on POWER fun.

250bjp/tonne is verging on not really possible to use very much of the power before your well over the speed limit.



Sure you can have fun in cars with vastly lower Bhp and Bhp/tonne but that's not everyone cup of tea.

That's all bullst, again. It depends on the car and gearing. 200/ton might be the sweet spot in certain cars but in others it'll feel weak, others more than enough. That is why I would happily pin the throttle in a 620 Caterham but have little opportunity do so in a Veyron on the roads I generally spend my time on. Power is only half the story, I think you're missing the point tbh.

[B'stard Child]

skeeterm5 said:

Welshbeef said:

11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!

I can't find any times for the new M3/4 but the gap between the E92 M3 and LC from 0 - 140 mph is only about 2 seconds, and the LC went on to 175mph....

Also bear in mind that the LC has no launch control, or even traction control, and the closeness of the numbers is even more staggering.

Whilst not launch control in the modern sense the LC does have variable boost maps

For a standing start and ~30 secs after moving off it gives a full 1 bar of boost (around 420 bhp)

After the 30 secs the boost is dialed back to 0.7 bar ~377 bhp

After 10 mins of driving it drops the boost down to 0.5 bar ~320 bhp

Whilst I am not recommending this at all The quickest way to launch an LC is to engage the full boost map, hold the rpm at 3500 side step the clutch and bury the throttle at the same time - it'll barely chirp the rears dig in an gather speed very rapidly (have to feather the throttle on second gear after the initial change or it will light the rears)

After that you can keep the loud pedal buried

That's how the road tests achieved the times they did

skeeterm5 said:

Cornering however is a different thing all together, and I am not a driving god so any hot hatch is prolly quicker on any non straight road...... But I know who,is having more fun.

S

I always had a lot of confidence in mine in the dry (wet conditions are a different ball game) but it had a few years off the road and I overhauled the rear suspension - the void bushes on the trailing arms had collapsed so I replaced all the rears for poly and it really improved the back end but earlier this year it became a right handful - front bushes (no longer avaliable from Vauxhall) when I stripped it down were utterly shot to bits.

Front is now all Poly like the back and it's back to how it was when I got the car 15 years ago - it'll always have a slightly vague feel due to the recirculating ball steering but it goes exactly where you point it and doesn't fight you.

Thread with pictures is not so much fun - Mine at Shelsley Walsh a few weeks back

Edited by B'stard Child on Thursday 17th September 23:44

[E24man]

H

e21Mark said:

derin100 said:

e21Mark said:

Robert Elise said:

e21Mark said:

Barely 90bhp. Great fun though (especially through the lanes) and plenty quick enough to keep with modern traffic despite being 40+ years old.

lovely.
what does it weigh?

Around 940kgs I think? 0-60 in 10.2 secs, although the 130bhp injected version could manage high 7's to 60 and 120+mph.

They certainly could! My very first car back in '82 was a 1974 2002tii. Someone had fitted hotter cams to it before I got it and I regularly saw the speedo hit 130mph (even though the official figures suggested only 118mph for the top speed). I hit that through the Blackfriars Underpass once...and the front wheels left the road on a bump at the exit of the tunnel!

I had a hot tii when I was about 22. (I've had one for pretty much all of the 27 years since) It used to pull through to an indicated 130 with ease too. They must have blown the competition into the weeds when BMW introduced them?!

Another previous tii owner here; round rear lights, verona red and lhd. I bought it in 1986 when the first GTi's were breaking free from their shells - it continued to scare them and keep them honest for another 10 years before succumbing to years of accumulated rot. Through all the arguments of the Kugelfischer injection system being unreliable (and despite buying some twin/twin Webbers and ti manifolds as a backup) mine stayed perfect and true. I miss the simplicity, light weight and easy handling..... as well as the looks with shiny chrome hubcaps on skinny steel wheels.

[s m]

neil1jnr said:

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!

That's the comparison I was thinking of as well Neil, a few posts above yours.

I wondered if the sedate looking Golf could match or beat the old EVO 6 from the late 90s.

It weighed in at 1365kg and had around 280bhp whereas the 3-door Golf R with DSG tipped the scales 35kg heavier as specced below
The Golf was figured on a wet day but even with the DSG shifting it couldn't quite match the in-gear times - the Golf has a 6 speeder but even so, the first 4 gears in both are close enough in max speed to make a comparison













Interior noise at full acceleration and average fuel economy are the big gains for the Golf though ( the touring route mpg wasn't as marked although not sure if it has remained the same )

[matsoc]

300bhp/ton said:

I think there is some confusion here. I'm not saying about what feels quick. I mean a 747 jet will cruise at 500mph+, but it hardly has the sensation of speed.

I'm talking about what is quick. A car capable of 0-60mph in 7 sec, is IMO a car that is still pretty quick. It's far faster than man can travel with out a machine, it's enough to push you firmly in the seat.

The fact less interesting cars can attain this, doesn't mean it isn't still quick.

For instance, 100 years ago, lifting a tonne would be a great feat. Not so today, lots of cheap machinery can accomplish it. Doesn't mean 1 tonne isn't heavy any more though.

I think I got your point but I am still not totally convinced, feelings are important when we are talking about acceleration.

Speed is another issue because what we feel about speed is mainly visual and mental, not physical. Driving at high steady speed does nothing to our body, just some high frequency vibrations but assuming a smooth surface and a car good for autobahn abuse 150mph does not give any physical feeling, what hits us are what we see (the road sliding under the car quicker) and the knowledge that a crash could be devastating.

Back to acceleration knowing that 2 car can do 0-60 in 7s doesn't necessarily mean than the 2 cars push us toward the seat with the same force. Because acceleration is not constant, to get to 60 we just need that the average acceleration is above certain value but different gearing and power delivery could result in significantly different maximum instantaneous acceleration, and so we get a different feeling.

I don't think there is an absolute value that defines what is quick to go from 0 to 60. There are relative ones. A cheetah can do 0-60 under 4s, it seems quick, certainly quicker than a man but from the cheetah prospective is the man that looks slow

0-60 in 7.x seconds makes a car a faster than the average but there are so many there are faster to 60 around that the 0-60 no longer strongly defines the car.

Let's look at the Elise, I owned 3 of them plus an Exige over the years. When it came out in 1996 the s1 claimed sub 6s 0-60 made the headlines, the s2 1.6 CR which is the last I owned is a fantastic car, extremely fun to drive, but the 0-60 was almost not mentioned anymore, a 0-60 in 6.x is no longer something to write home about.

[skyrover]

This plodding MPV will do 0-60 in 7.0 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.2 from the factory with no modifications



This lumbering 3 ton pickup truck will do 0-60 in 6.0 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds straight from the showroom floor.




I understand what 300bhp/ton is saying and 7 seconds is still reasonably nippy, however fairly mundane vehicles can reach that benchmark fairly easily today.

Our expectations have changed.

Edited by skyrover on Friday 18th September 07:31

[JonoG81]

s m said:

I'd say "yes, some of them still are".

Are they the quickest? No, but then mine wasn't the fastest car back when it was new either. I can easily keep up with 95% of traffic on the roads today plus it is great fun to drive - hence I've kept it

Nail. Head.

[neil1jnr]

Rod200SX said:

neil1jnr said:

I'd wager a remapped Golf R As much as I am not a fan of them at all they are quite quick, I've seen some of them do 12.8/12.9 quarter miles as standard... Although the VAG lot love boasting the 1/4 miles times with their launch control and DSG.

On a serious note though, I think 0-60 times aren't really relevant (1/4 mile with standing) as they don't give an indication of how quick a car will be on the move. Double clutch gearboxes and 4wd to a lot for 0-60 times. Out of interest, someone should compare the 0-60 times of a manual 2wd 911 and 4wd PDK 911, it would be intereting to see the difference.

There was a german day at Crail last weekend (I can't think of a worse event to attend for me, so i didnt go ) and everything on the strip bar a few were just DSG, TFSI, REVO stickers etc etc. Annoyingly quick, but so dull.

Likewise. My mate was down with his mapped S5 but I just have no interest. He postted a video of him doing a 12.4 sec time while decimating a EP3 Type R. Who cares!

[JockySteer]

300bhp/ton said:

ORD said:

Unless you don't give a damn about the car, dumping the clutch at 4,000 revs is a pretty stupid thing to do,

Depends on the car. A big V8 you'd probably not need that many revs on road tyres, as you'll roast them. As for durability, again depends on the car. There are guys in the U.S. Who go to drag strip one or two times a week in their daily driver and beat on. Yet they might have 150,000 miles on the clock and still be fine to drive to work the next day.

ORD said:

so autos almost always win 0-60 sprints and the traffic light GP, surely?

Depends. Getting the best 0-60mph in an auto isn't just about flooring it.

You love a 'depends' don't you! Why don't you just explain the 'correct' answers for us all?

[300bhp/ton]

JockySteer said:

300bhp/ton said:

ORD said:

Unless you don't give a damn about the car, dumping the clutch at 4,000 revs is a pretty stupid thing to do,

Depends on the car. A big V8 you'd probably not need that many revs on road tyres, as you'll roast them. As for durability, again depends on the car. There are guys in the U.S. Who go to drag strip one or two times a week in their daily driver and beat on. Yet they might have 150,000 miles on the clock and still be fine to drive to work the next day.

ORD said:

so autos almost always win 0-60 sprints and the traffic light GP, surely?

Depends. Getting the best 0-60mph in an auto isn't just about flooring it.

You love a 'depends' don't you! Why don't you just explain the 'correct' answers for us all?

But it does depend, that's the thing.


For instance, I have a Subaru Impreza Turbo. I know that the magazines back in the day clocked 5.x sec 0-60mph in them. I've tried it a couple of times, although didn't time it. But you have to be brutal!! It'll bog if you don't have enough revs. And I know doing that doing this often will only end in a world of pain.

My brother has a Rover BRM and we've both had MGF's. Doing a fast start in these runs a huge risk of slipping the weak clutch they all have. An upgraded clutch solves this, but is an additional expense. So you simply don't do many proper launches in them as a rule.

My TR7 however and Camaro. Do it loads in both. Completely different transmission and drive line setups.


As for auto's. Well there is still a technique to get them off the line as quickly as possible. I did quite a bit of testing in my Camaro. Just flooring it wasn't the quickest way and it was very very easy to get a 7 sec+_ 0-60mph time from it. And too much wheel spin would mean while you had a hoot and thought it was rapid you'd look down and see you'd clocked 9 seconds to 60!

Adapting different techniques resulted in a best run of 5.3 sec, a massive difference.

[s m]

B'stard Child said:

I always had a lot of confidence in mine in the dry (wet conditions are a different ball game) but it had a few years off the road and I overhauled the rear suspension - the void bushes on the trailing arms had collapsed so I replaced all the rears for poly and it really improved the back end but earlier this year it became a right handful - front bushes (no longer avaliable from Vauxhall) when I stripped it down were utterly shot to bits.

Front is now all Poly like the back and it's back to how it was when I got the car 15 years ago - it'll always have a slightly vague feel due to the recirculating ball steering but it goes exactly where you point it and doesn't fight you.

Thread with pictures is not so much fun - Mine at Shelsley Walsh a few weeks back

Lovely car - that is still extremely rapid today

Edited by s m on Friday 18th September 10:35

[Barronmr]

gavsdavs said:

Just to add a bit of reality. Young JimGTS over on the imoc/mr2oc has a "12.8second quarter rev2turbo". It's a whole lot more modified than an MBC, filter and exhaust. (Forged, injectors, chargecooler, watermeth, you know the idea). I would say it's around 320bhp.

So no, you can't make a stock car run 12.8 quarters with light mods (MBC, exhaust, filter).
A stock turbo is pretty fast, but there aren't many of them left, they're either scrapped or well maintained.

You'll find many instances of faster, slower Mr2's. Hence why I'm only quoting times from instances where I was there and knew the car. If it was my car I'd have the slip lol

I went and bought a mr2 Rev2 turbo with a mate, who ran it at York, it did a 12.8s... To the eye, it was modified as described (without pulling it apart).

I realize why your surprised, I was at the time also as my mk1 only did a 13.3 But that's the truth of the matter from memory lol.

gavsdavs said:

Come across a 300+bhp one and yes, they're quick. An SLK is quite a heffer by comparison.

Can't a Rev3 Ct20b do over 300hp?