Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
St John Smythe said:
James Junior said:
4second 0-60 standard spec cars were all over the place when the grey markets did open up though. Easily enough to hold back the 2015 Golf R mentioned earlier.
The numbers only tell half the story with the Golf R as I found out recently.The Golf R is preposterously quick. A few weeks ago on one of the Petrolhead Nirvana tours the boys in the Golf R were nipping at the heels of supercars all week through the Alps. Hats off to the drivers too of course as it wasn't just about the car, but still a very very fast car in all respects that is quicker than even the numbers suggest. It was accelerating harder in a straight line than the RS4 that was on the same trip, which made all of our heads hurt as it simply should not be possible.
Not my sort of car but mightily impressive and cannot imagine anything from the nineties being able to shak eit off throughh the twisties.
Friend's DSG car has been unofficially pegged as being almost identical in acceleration from 20-120 as my (stock, 18y.o.) NSX. Which makes sense - NSX bhp/tonne just under 200 with a slippery shape, Golf-R similar bhp/tonne but with more torque and better gearing / instant shifts. So if a leggy old NSX can keep pace with a Golf-R, a modern supercar should be able to romp all over it.
...which suggests in the example above either the (236 bhp/tonne) RS4 was suffering from a fair amount of coking, or the Golf had been chipped.
The instant, low-down torque of modern turbo'd engines has a noticeable impact on 'step-off' acceleration and in-gear acceleration, but that doesn't make them necessarily quicker in the real-world (only in give-and-take situations where the driver doesn't have time to select the correct gear). It also makes them far more boring to drive...
Leins said:
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 
I Own a 1997 MR2 (The NA , not the Turbo)
It Sounds great , drives great and looks great!
It produces 170Bhp (When new anyway!) and does 0-60 in just over 7 seconds.
Then there is my Colleague who has a Diesel Seat Estate from 2011 which has very similar performance figures.
Mine is more Fun , but by modern standards I wouldn't call it fast anymore.
It Sounds great , drives great and looks great!
It produces 170Bhp (When new anyway!) and does 0-60 in just over 7 seconds.
Then there is my Colleague who has a Diesel Seat Estate from 2011 which has very similar performance figures.
Mine is more Fun , but by modern standards I wouldn't call it fast anymore.
some of the cars mentioned from back in the day would have been hailed as fast or stonking or whatever- just look back at old car magazine or test reviews. that was then not now. times change and yes some of the cars can still cut the mustard today against their modern counterparts but do not forget that these days almost everything has a turbo bolted onto it so id suggest few cars you can buy new today are going to give anything less than peppy performance and even mildly tweaked cars like the fiesta 1.0 triple 140 zetec S could probably frustrate the driver of an old peugeot Gti etc.
id also suggest that for those cars that remain pretty pokey by comparison that poke may only work in straight lines against modern equivalents that turn in stop and corner with minimal driver input.
not sure about this B road talk though. ive never witnessed any B road heroics. i think most cut and thrust is done round town and out on the A roads not rallying through forests or swinging around hairpins so the B road analogy is a bit pretentious really. thats not where its at unless youre the type to park up on a B road and wait for your "prey" to come along.
id also suggest that for those cars that remain pretty pokey by comparison that poke may only work in straight lines against modern equivalents that turn in stop and corner with minimal driver input.
not sure about this B road talk though. ive never witnessed any B road heroics. i think most cut and thrust is done round town and out on the A roads not rallying through forests or swinging around hairpins so the B road analogy is a bit pretentious really. thats not where its at unless youre the type to park up on a B road and wait for your "prey" to come along.
lostkiwi said:
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. ToothbrushMan said:
some of the cars mentioned from back in the day would have been hailed as fast or stonking or whatever- just look back at old car magazine or test reviews. that was then not now. times change and yes some of the cars can still cut the mustard today against their modern counterparts but do not forget that these days almost everything has a turbo bolted onto it so id suggest few cars you can buy new today are going to give anything less than peppy performance and even mildly tweaked cars like the fiesta 1.0 triple 140 zetec S could probably frustrate the driver of an old peugeot Gti etc.
id also suggest that for those cars that remain pretty pokey by comparison that poke may only work in straight lines against modern equivalents that turn in stop and corner with minimal driver input.
not sure about this B road talk though. ive never witnessed any B road heroics. i think most cut and thrust is done round town and out on the A roads not rallying through forests or swinging around hairpins so the B road analogy is a bit pretentious really. thats not where its at unless youre the type to park up on a B road and wait for your "prey" to come along.
Good points and I agree. The B-road part I disagree, it depends on where about in the country you live. I live 40 miles north of Aberdeen, and most of the fun I have with mates are on B-Roads, there are no duel carriageways or motorways anywhere near me. The B-road chat is very valid becuase to us, that's what matters.id also suggest that for those cars that remain pretty pokey by comparison that poke may only work in straight lines against modern equivalents that turn in stop and corner with minimal driver input.
not sure about this B road talk though. ive never witnessed any B road heroics. i think most cut and thrust is done round town and out on the A roads not rallying through forests or swinging around hairpins so the B road analogy is a bit pretentious really. thats not where its at unless youre the type to park up on a B road and wait for your "prey" to come along.
James Junior said:
Exactly what sprang to my mind when I read the headline article!
Even a standard MR2 Turbo remains a very quick car and in acceleration terms is pretty eye opening.
That said, they take a lot of skill and balls to hustle through the twisties at speed.
Stop.It, you're making me want to bunk off work! Even a standard MR2 Turbo remains a very quick car and in acceleration terms is pretty eye opening.
That said, they take a lot of skill and balls to hustle through the twisties at speed.
NelsonP said:
LittleEnus said:
The Golf R is quite an achievement and should be applauded on PH. The fact it was out dragging an RS4 is 
...all whilst doing around 1000mpg. Or does it? er, hang on.....neil1jnr said:
lostkiwi said:
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. 300bhp/ton said:
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.
You need to drive both a mk1 Golf GTI and a 205 1.9 GTI. They are fantastic fun.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.
St John Smythe said:
Never said any of those cars are bad. What I did say is that some refuse the admit the R is a great car.
I think, as well, if your benchmark of quick is the Golf R upwards speed, then not many 2015 performance cars are 'still quick' ( as per the original question ).If it is, 'can it beat a 4-door diesel saloon?', then even the Golf has to concede.
Personally, my benchmark of 'is a car still quick', is a lot slower than the 2 examples above but it varies from person to person
Isn't it a bit pointless to go on about whether nineties cars are quick enough? It's just about what's fun and/or exciting, that you can afford to run.
Progressive grip is probably easier to find on a nineties car, as they're softer sprung with lower limits. Body control, power and brake fade are usually worse, but driver control feel and balance are usually better.
On track I guess the modern equivalent would understeer more, but be faster everywhere. There are exceptions, and cars like the Clio 172-200 and Fiesta ST have a reputation for being nicely balanced.
Progressive grip is probably easier to find on a nineties car, as they're softer sprung with lower limits. Body control, power and brake fade are usually worse, but driver control feel and balance are usually better.
On track I guess the modern equivalent would understeer more, but be faster everywhere. There are exceptions, and cars like the Clio 172-200 and Fiesta ST have a reputation for being nicely balanced.
Leins said:
It's a Golf Limited Mark, only instance of a 16v G60 motor being used that I know of, resulting in 210hp. And with Syncro 4wd like the Rallye
Only made 71 of them, and the last one I heard of was sold a few years ago for, I believe, in excess of €30k
I drove one around Cobham test track in about 1992. It was on loan to Car and Car Conversions and was seriously quick and really held on! I think they were all LH drive.Only made 71 of them, and the last one I heard of was sold a few years ago for, I believe, in excess of €30k
Leins said:
e21Mark said:
Tell me more?
It's a Golf Limited Mark, only instance of a 16v G60 motor being used that I know of, resulting in 210hp. And with Syncro 4wd like the RallyeOnly made 71 of them, and the last one I heard of was sold a few years ago for, I believe, in excess of €30k
Weight and size is what spoils most modern stuff for me and are 2 of the elements that contribute to making cars like the E30 M3 feel so special. Modern stuff just doesn't sound special enough either. They made a big fuss about the GT86 being like the cars where driver involvement, nimbleness etc were important, yet it sounded just like every other Toyota. Jumping into an M3, 205Gti, Renault 5GTT etc, it feels a bit special, like a bit of an event. I simply cannot get excited at the prospect of driving the modern equivalents.
Edited by e21Mark on Friday 25th September 15:31
I'll happily admit that I'm no lover of the Golf R but for reasons that are entirely put down to 'car enthusiast snobdom'.
I appreciate it for it's engineering, performance and (double edged sword) pricing.
I hate it for its accessibility to the masses. There, I've said it. I'm not happy because any tom, dick or harry aho doesn't give a diddly squat for the joy of motoring, can own one.
As with all of these things, what are the main drivers behind our passion for something? One of the biggest things is rarity.
A lot of the 90's cars that have been mentioned and defended vehemently (I share a lot of these views too) are being looked back on with a romantically rose tinted glasses. Most of them were intrinsically flawed in one way or another, but in true British style, we route for the underdog and the older we get the fonder the memories become of these era defining items....we crave for the old times but only because the luxury of recent times is so boringly achievable....especially with cars (and leasing deals).
That's the kicker....yes, we want advancement of technology but not at the detriment of the 'soul' of the vehicle. Having said that, a good number of us run 2 or more cars per household....one for fun and one for glum (i.e. everyday life).
If this was 1996 and pistonheads existed, I imagine everyone would be slating the new wave of turbo'd ricers flooding the market. The only difference being the scale of production vs 2016 production figures, was lower
Times they are a changing....unfortunately the Golf R, M135i and A45 are just too damn competent and well made so I don't think we will lose that many to tin worm or hedges/ditches/trees. It will still be interesting to revisit this topic in another 10 years to see what the 'poor old' Golf R is having to put up with against the new hybrid or electric pretenders.
I shall wait with baited breath!
I appreciate it for it's engineering, performance and (double edged sword) pricing.
I hate it for its accessibility to the masses. There, I've said it. I'm not happy because any tom, dick or harry aho doesn't give a diddly squat for the joy of motoring, can own one.
As with all of these things, what are the main drivers behind our passion for something? One of the biggest things is rarity.
A lot of the 90's cars that have been mentioned and defended vehemently (I share a lot of these views too) are being looked back on with a romantically rose tinted glasses. Most of them were intrinsically flawed in one way or another, but in true British style, we route for the underdog and the older we get the fonder the memories become of these era defining items....we crave for the old times but only because the luxury of recent times is so boringly achievable....especially with cars (and leasing deals).
That's the kicker....yes, we want advancement of technology but not at the detriment of the 'soul' of the vehicle. Having said that, a good number of us run 2 or more cars per household....one for fun and one for glum (i.e. everyday life).
If this was 1996 and pistonheads existed, I imagine everyone would be slating the new wave of turbo'd ricers flooding the market. The only difference being the scale of production vs 2016 production figures, was lower
Times they are a changing....unfortunately the Golf R, M135i and A45 are just too damn competent and well made so I don't think we will lose that many to tin worm or hedges/ditches/trees. It will still be interesting to revisit this topic in another 10 years to see what the 'poor old' Golf R is having to put up with against the new hybrid or electric pretenders.
I shall wait with baited breath!
crispyshark said:
I'll happily admit that I'm no lover of the Golf R but for reasons that are entirely put down to 'car enthusiast snobdom'.
I appreciate it for it's engineering, performance and (double edged sword) pricing.
I hate it for its accessibility to the masses. There, I've said it. I'm not happy because any tom, dick or harry aho doesn't give a diddly squat for the joy of motoring, can own one.
As with all of these things, what are the main drivers behind our passion for something? One of the biggest things is rarity.
A lot of the 90's cars that have been mentioned and defended vehemently (I share a lot of these views too) are being looked back on with a romantically rose tinted glasses. Most of them were intrinsically flawed in one way or another, but in true British style, we route for the underdog and the older we get the fonder the memories become of these era defining items....we crave for the old times but only because the luxury of recent times is so boringly achievable....especially with cars (and leasing deals).
That's the kicker....yes, we want advancement of technology but not at the detriment of the 'soul' of the vehicle. Having said that, a good number of us run 2 or more cars per household....one for fun and one for glum (i.e. everyday life).
If this was 1996 and pistonheads existed, I imagine everyone would be slating the new wave of turbo'd ricers flooding the market. The only difference being the scale of production vs 2016 production figures, was lower
Times they are a changing....unfortunately the Golf R, M135i and A45 are just too damn competent and well made so I don't think we will lose that many to tin worm or hedges/ditches/trees. It will still be interesting to revisit this topic in another 10 years to see what the 'poor old' Golf R is having to put up with against the new hybrid or electric pretenders.
I shall wait with baited breath!
Enjoyed that, good post!I appreciate it for it's engineering, performance and (double edged sword) pricing.
I hate it for its accessibility to the masses. There, I've said it. I'm not happy because any tom, dick or harry aho doesn't give a diddly squat for the joy of motoring, can own one.
As with all of these things, what are the main drivers behind our passion for something? One of the biggest things is rarity.
A lot of the 90's cars that have been mentioned and defended vehemently (I share a lot of these views too) are being looked back on with a romantically rose tinted glasses. Most of them were intrinsically flawed in one way or another, but in true British style, we route for the underdog and the older we get the fonder the memories become of these era defining items....we crave for the old times but only because the luxury of recent times is so boringly achievable....especially with cars (and leasing deals).
That's the kicker....yes, we want advancement of technology but not at the detriment of the 'soul' of the vehicle. Having said that, a good number of us run 2 or more cars per household....one for fun and one for glum (i.e. everyday life).
If this was 1996 and pistonheads existed, I imagine everyone would be slating the new wave of turbo'd ricers flooding the market. The only difference being the scale of production vs 2016 production figures, was lower
Times they are a changing....unfortunately the Golf R, M135i and A45 are just too damn competent and well made so I don't think we will lose that many to tin worm or hedges/ditches/trees. It will still be interesting to revisit this topic in another 10 years to see what the 'poor old' Golf R is having to put up with against the new hybrid or electric pretenders.
I shall wait with baited breath!
The trouble is now that quick cars are so quick and competent, you can't enjoy them without being illegal and often downright dangerous.
I run a 90's SL320, not quick, fun and about right, I enjoy it. I could have had the SL500 but would so rarely use the performance that it didn't seem worthwhile.
So 90's cars not actually "quick" but who can actually use a quick car?
I run a 90's SL320, not quick, fun and about right, I enjoy it. I could have had the SL500 but would so rarely use the performance that it didn't seem worthwhile.
So 90's cars not actually "quick" but who can actually use a quick car?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff