Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[bigjes]

I've just bought a 98 Audi 1.8T Sport for 500quid to use to get around London and not worry about the inevitable dints and scratches that come with living in the smoke. It's totally surprised me how quick it feels up to national speed limits!! bring back the 90's it just shows you don't need to be doing 150mph to have fun.......and the music was better!!

[Flashman65]

Took my 1971 mustang Mach 1 down the strip a couple of weeks ago. I was up against some souped up fiesta st which was popping and farting on the line. My car standard. Totally smoked him !!!

[300bhp/ton]

sortedcossie said:

I have a late Escort Cosworth,

We have a Focus Titanium TDCI, and the in-gear acceleration is close.

I wonder if this is just a perception thing and maybe how a diesel offers its power up. As they should be nowhere close.

Carfolio claims 220hp and 1320kg for a 1993 Cosworth. That's 167bhp/tonne.

I don't know what TDCI you have, Carfolio says a 2011 2.0 TDCI has 161bhp and 1421kg. That's 113bhp/tonne.

That's quite a difference. You also said your 197hp Clio would keep with the Cosworth to 90mph. So indirectly you are saying the TDCI is also as fast as the 197hp Clio.

[cmlhoey]

We use a Golf R on our road tours - as a 'device' its the fastest thing in the world. Interestingly I never take it out just for the hell of it though. If I had a 90s Impreza, I'd be out in it now.

Are 1990s cars still quick? Yes. But not compared to modern performance cars.

Edited by cmlhoey on Friday 25th September 09:34

[mat205125]

St John Smythe said:

Some posters just refuse to admit how good the Golf R is.

I'm afraid to say that I'm probably one of those people, however it's not exclusively a Golf thing.

This topic could be split into two sub-threads:

[b]Cars that FEEL quick

Cars that can be measured statistically as being quick[/b]

The Golf R is a perfect example of a car that is the shining star in it's class when judged in the second criteria. It's less of a star in the former criteria, however, as is common with a huge number of modern cars, they don't impress as much as hoped in the former category.

Objectively, back on topic, many 90's performance cars are not that quick at all compared to normal modern cars, whether that be on a road or track, or in a drag race or lap time.

Subjectively, I'm in the club that would lean towards preferring the older car's sensation of being involved, quick, and fun ........ not to dismiss modern cars as not being fun, however the fun tends to be accessed less frequently, with more difficulty, or at much higher ground speeds.

[LasseV]

James Junior said:

Not my sort of car but mightily impressive and cannot imagine anything from the nineties being able to shak eit off throughh the twisties.

BS. A lot of 90's performance cars can shak golf r off in the twisties.

Take a look for example Toyota Supra TT. It has almost same performance acceleration vise to the certain point (after that Supra is faster due to vastly better aero), it has as good brakes as r and it got a better roadholding (0.94 for r and 0.95-0.98 for Supra). And those Supra TT stats are with 90's tires. Equip that car with modern performance tires and the all performance stats will be much better , i think it can go very close to 1g for sideway acceleration.

Anyway, in fast speed driving Supra's much better aero and roadholding does give it a better performance in the twisties. (And i believe it has better suspension for the fast road driving too). Golf R biggest drawback it is family car hatch back body, it is too high and the center of gravity is too high. It doesn't matter if you just drag race in traffic lights, but when you go really fast it is a major drawback.

Of course Golf R is a very easy car to drive fast, cos of the electric nannies and dsg box. Driving a 90's performance car in it's limits needs a very capable driver with big balls. Many modern time drivers are not up to that task. I have a n/a Supra with a very good suspension setup and i have to say it is scary thing to try to find it's limits cos they are so high! And only safety feature is seat belt so.....

This is how you have to drive old beast in the 'ring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcIQOWEKefY

I' dont have the balls to drive like that....

Edited by LasseV on Friday 25th September 09:58

[s m]

sortedcossie said:

I have a late Escort Cosworth, the one with the smaller turbo. Standard car, although it does 240hp on the RR - it would have felt quick in the day due to no lag and 4wd, but now it doesn't really.

We have a Focus Titanium TDCI, and whilst off the line the Escort leaves it, the in-gear acceleration is close. I've just sold a Clio 172 that was modded to 197hp, and that did keep up with it until around 90mph.

Interestingly, I recently took a mate out who had a 2007 Audi S3 - I think they are 250hp? Anyway, he said that the 11 year older Escort did feel as quick as the S3.

Good topic this.

Reminds me of another old article

[e21Mark]

I confess to not knowing the first thing about a Golf R. I'm guessing that it's probably something to do with it just looking like any other Golf, of which I'm not really a fan. Now if you were talking Golf Rallye?

[leonintegra36]

Hol said:

HonestIago said:

GC8 said:

Even a UK Classic GC8 is still a quick point to point car, by any standards.

Indeed, I used to run a 300bhp classic (admittedly not a standard car) as a daily and recently had the chance to drive a DSG Golf R for comparison. I found the scoob more compliant and confidence inspiring even if maybe not necessarily any quicker in a straight line. A well set up classic Impreza will always be a very competitive B-road performer IMO.

If I remember correctly, the detuned 1999 UK2000 version of the impreza still hit 0-60 in 5.3 or 5.4 seconds?

Where as the 1999 Sti Type R/RA hit 0-60 in 4.3 Seconds and the V5/6 EVO's was just a little slower.

Both of those numbers are for boggo standard cars and both stack up quite well to the modern 2.0turbo AWD alternatives 16 years on: (Golf R, AMG A45, RS3, etc..)[/quote


golf r is amazing as an under radar q car repmobile but not as relatively quick in its era as a sapphire cosworth 4x4 in its day. I think a 125d is a far better compromise. And herein lies the problem, modern cars lack a sense of occasion. I bought a stripped out classic impreza for the sense that I could have been mcrae barring the helmet. My 360bhp cosworth 4x4 would be level with a golf r to 60 but beyond three figures the golf owner would be gobsmacked at the brutality of an old school turbo under load. Which new cars urge a person to get up early and go for a b road blast, that is the question on every enthusiast's lips.

[LasseV]

leonintegra36 said:

I think a 125d is a far better compromise. And herein lies the problem, modern cars lack a sense of occasion.

You are right! Modern car totally lacks that charisma and sense of occasion. They are too sterile. IMO.

And one thing, top speed. Most modern performance cars are made from family hatch back. So they are not that good in top speed. Usually manufacturers tell quite high top speeds for those cars, but in reality they just doesn't get there. Like new type r for example. Even old jag xj-s will outrun most modern time cars, it has recorded top speed of 154 in a year 1975.... In the 90's it did go 160 mph. I would say it is still a fast car although it's not even from the 90's....

[lostkiwi]

St John Smythe said:

Some posters just refuse to admit how good the Golf R is.

Yet the A45 Mercedes and BMW M135 will both out gun it off the line and the A45 will trounce it most other places as well. Funnily enough everyone raves about the Golf but has nothing but 'meh' for the 135 or A45.

[markcoznottz]

LasseV said:

BS. A lot of 90's performance cars can shak golf r off in the twisties.

Take a look for example Toyota Supra TT. It has almost same performance acceleration vise to the certain point (after that Supra is faster due to vastly better aero), it has as good brakes as r and it got a better roadholding (0.94 for r and 0.95-0.98 for Supra). And those Supra TT stats are with 90's tires. Equip that car with modern performance tires and the all performance stats will be much better , i think it can go very close to 1g for sideway acceleration.

Anyway, in fast speed driving Supra's much better aero and roadholding does give it a better performance in the twisties. (And i believe it has better suspension for the fast road driving too). Golf R biggest drawback it is family car hatch back body, it is too high and the center of gravity is too high. It doesn't matter if you just drag race in traffic lights, but when you go really fast it is a major drawback.

Of course Golf R is a very easy car to drive fast, cos of the electric nannies and dsg box. Driving a 90's performance car in it's limits needs a very capable driver with big balls. Many modern time drivers are not up to that task. I have a n/a Supra with a very good suspension setup and i have to say it is scary thing to try to find it's limits cos they are so high! And only safety feature is seat belt so.....

This is how you have to drive old beast in the 'ring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcIQOWEKefY

I' dont have the balls to drive like that....

Edited by LasseV on Friday 25th September 09:58

I know you love your car, but the na supra is an antiquated piece of junk. (Sorry).

[drewos]

ORD said:

I also doubt it would do 130 "all day long". I doubt it has the cooling to cope with that speed for a couple of hours, let alone 24

Back on topic, one of the reasons older casts feel faster is that they were simply less capable in all respects, not just straight line speed. Less grip, worse damping, relatively crude suspension generally, etc etc. We all love old cars, but a 1990s car would be eaten alive by the motoring press and the general public if released now. It would also get trounced on PH, to be honest, for being slow.

The MX5 is far more like a 1990s car than most, as is the GT86. Neither is well loved on here!

I don't think so, why do most motoring journalists say the E30 M3 is the finest M car / one of the best drivers car ever made?

[LasseV]

markcoznottz said:

I know you love your car, but the na supra is an antiquated piece of junk. (Sorry).

I didn't speak from my car, but the Twin Turbo version. It has the same acceleration than golf r, my car is a lot slower circa same as Golf GTI. You can swap Supra to other high end japanese performance cars from 90's and still it would be the same result. They have a better cog, aero, grip....

And yeah, my car is old and stty. But at least it has survived 21 years for daily driving duties and it gives a little bit sense of driving.

[300bhp/ton]

leonintegra36 said:

Which new cars urge a person to get up early and go for a b road blast, that is the question on every enthusiast's lips.

I'm sure lots do. It just depends which cars you are interested in.

For instance, I'm a child of the 1980's/90's. But I have ZERO interest in Mk1/2 Golfs or even an Escort Cosworth. The latter I obviously can respect for it's competition heritage, and the fact they actually made them. But I have no want or desire to own a dull Escort. And adding a turbo and 4WD doesn't alter what it looks like or that it still appears to be an Escort. Equally Pug 205's, Clio's and the like leave me completely cold. I have no interest in them at all (and frankly don't understand or see the appeal of them).


Back to new cars. Well I drove the new MX-5 recently and I think that is a hugely impressive car and would simply make you want to drive it -- a lot. And for no other reason than wanting to drive it. The GT86/BRZ is a similar story.

And then you have cars like these:






As for run of the mill cars, I think it's all relative tbh. The likes of the Golf R are no less interesting than a GTI/VR6 of years past. But they are just a normal car at the end of the day, regardless of what pace they might be capable of.

[anonymous-user]

LittleEnus said:

James Junior said:

The Golf R is preposterously quick.

The Golf R is quite an achievement and should be applauded on PH. The fact it was out dragging an RS4 is

But not at all interesting. It's just another 'fast amazing practical thing' that will be dropped by everyone the moment the next 'fast amazing practical thing' is introduced. I admire the engineering but it's a choice made with the head not heart.

[BlimeyCharlie]

If a car feels quick, then that is what it is all about.
Having a modern Golf that is 'almost' faster than an older M5 is not comparable other than for the pub bore.

You don't get people saying "Hey, my e34 M5 is on a par with your modern Golf for handling and performance" do you?

I've had some nice cars over 20 years. The one that people seemed to like most (as in stop and talk about) was a 1991 Golf GTI 8v, in Oak green, which I paid £800 for earlier this year. I've had an M3, 911 Turbo/965 and M5, Impreza (didn't like it) and so on. Looked and drove a 944 S2 a few years ago and that was lovely to drive.

I've never wanted a 'modern' performance car because they are boring, and a bit Essex for me.

To compare figures on the stopwatch is missing the point. You could say a McLaren F1 or Enzo is not as good as a modern Nissan GTR thingy on the stopwatch, but just look at one-they are massive ugly things, driven by people who wear baseball caps and think they are in a Fast 'N' Furious moviefilm.

My mate's son has just bought a new Fiesta ST and it is a blingy thingy, probably quite fast, but totally naff in my opinion. If he'd bought a used Integrale instead, for I'm guessing the same money, he'd have more fun, have more money left in 5 years, be a bit different and a lot more classy. But most people want to be like everyone else, but shout about it as well.

[LittleEnus]

yonex said:

But not at all interesting. It's just another 'fast amazing practical thing' that will be dropped by everyone the moment the next 'fast amazing practical thing' is introduced. I admire the engineering but it's a choice made with the head not heart.

It's interesting in the fact we are debating it and that it can outdrag legend cars. But agreed on the next thing that comes along comment.

[e21Mark]

drewos said:

ORD said:

I also doubt it would do 130 "all day long". I doubt it has the cooling to cope with that speed for a couple of hours, let alone 24

Back on topic, one of the reasons older casts feel faster is that they were simply less capable in all respects, not just straight line speed. Less grip, worse damping, relatively crude suspension generally, etc etc. We all love old cars, but a 1990s car would be eaten alive by the motoring press and the general public if released now. It would also get trounced on PH, to be honest, for being slow.

The MX5 is far more like a 1990s car than most, as is the GT86. Neither is well loved on here!

I don't think so, why do most motoring journalists say the E30 M3 is the finest M car / one of the best drivers car ever made?

Because it is.



No bias here.

[Leins]

e21Mark said:

I confess to not knowing the first thing about a Golf R. I'm guessing that it's probably something to do with it just looking like any other Golf, of which I'm not really a fan. Now if you were talking Golf Rallye?

I'd like a Rallye, but I'd much prefer this boring-looking one