Cars that are quicker than they look

Cars that are quicker than they look

Author
Discussion

tannedstamina

510 posts

130 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Contigo said:
I'm not getting into a debate wiht people on here as to what constitutes a sleeper.... fking tedious.
you already did!! I don't think a BMW with massive wheels and 4 tailpipes would be considered a sleeper. It's "the ultimate driving machine" which somewhat explains what people would expect from them...

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

191 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Contigo said:
I'm not getting into a debate wiht people on here as to what constitutes a sleeper.... fking tedious.
It's only tedious because you are wrong wink

Big Rod

6,204 posts

217 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
Limpet said:
Jaguar XJR V8. To this day, one of the fastest accelerating cars I have ever experienced, but you wouldn't give it a second glance.

Sorry but you'd have to be pretty dumb to think an expensive luxury Jag isn't going to be at least a bit speedy.
I disagree. Having owned one they are brutally fast where Jags prior to the X308 in general I think are considered to be driven by giffers for wafting.

Shame mine spent most of its time being fixed.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

191 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
deltashad said:
Is it really a Q-car even? It has a badge saying M5, four big exhausts, sports suspension, fat tyres, side grilles, sports bodykit.

Sorry, if I saw that, even if I wasn't a petrol head, the last thing going through my mind would be 'this is an average car'.
Exactly.

If you asked on petrol head or even non petrol head people at random:


"Are BMW's slow cars?"

Does anyone seriously think they'd get a lot more Yes's vs No's?

aka_kerrly

12,433 posts

211 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Too many cars are known by nearly everyone to be fast but it's just a matter of exactly how fast!

Everyone knows that old Jags have BIG engines so must be fast, if it's a 3.2 litre then it might not be rocket ship fast but if you tell anyone these days your car is over 3L and not a diesel it's assumed to be fast.

Likewise 330D/535D/M5s everyone assumes a BMW is going to be fast.

The OP's suggestion of a 205 XS is a good one, as was the Subaru Legacy, in similar vain the VW Polo GT is 75hp propelling <850Kgs with a really close ratio gearbox is a great little buzz.

Citroen BX MI-16 is another classic which goes far quicker than most people would want to go in one!!


TheAngryDog

12,418 posts

210 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Captain Cadillac said:
Here's one:



1958 Lincoln. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds. Stock. Upper 7s with optional dealer installed triple carbs. 7.0L V8, 375bhp/490lb-ft. 5,000+ lbs. 400bhp with triple carbs
So little power from such a large engine!

Engineer1

10,486 posts

210 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
TheAngryDog said:
So little power from such a large engine!
I believe the engines of that era where designed to turn Petrol into noise with movement as a by product, thing is they will run for ever as the engine is so un stressed.

Vladimir

6,917 posts

159 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
TheAngryDog said:
So little power from such a large engine!
Early Rover V8s were 3.5 litres but less than 140bhp...

n90acc

126 posts

177 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Datsun Cherry Turbo

1.5 turbo (114bhp) 884kg



Leagacy (280bhp)



MG Montego Turbo

150hp 0-60 7.9



Maestro turbo

150hp 0-60 6.7





Edited by n90acc on Tuesday 19th November 13:51

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

191 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Big Rod said:
I disagree. Having owned one they are brutally fast where Jags prior to the X308 in general I think are considered to be driven by giffers for wafting.

Shame mine spent most of its time being fixed.
But you are referring to a judgement call you are making on your expectation of the owner, not the vehicle itself or it's abilities.


While a 3.6 auto XJ40 is no fire cracker in today's market, it is still faster than most normal mass market cars and would make mince meat of a 2.0 Focus in a straight line.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

191 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
TheAngryDog said:
Captain Cadillac said:
Here's one:



1958 Lincoln. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds. Stock. Upper 7s with optional dealer installed triple carbs. 7.0L V8, 375bhp/490lb-ft. 5,000+ lbs. 400bhp with triple carbs
So little power from such a large engine!
The perfect idiots view wink

Big Rod

6,204 posts

217 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
But you are referring to a judgement call you are making on your expectation of the owner, not the vehicle itself or it's abilities.


While a 3.6 auto XJ40 is no fire cracker in today's market, it is still faster than most normal mass market cars and would make mince meat of a 2.0 Focus in a straight line.
I'm not so sure but c'est la vie.

omgus

7,305 posts

176 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
Contigo said:
I'm not getting into a debate wiht people on here as to what constitutes a sleeper.... fking tedious.
It's only tedious because you are wrong wink
I was going to say exactly that.

Read the sleeper threads and you will see that we have gone over this in detail. Your car is stunning, you are so wrong you deserve a Blackadder style tirade on being the Mayor of wrongville. smile

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

191 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Big Rod said:
I'm not so sure but c'est la vie.
Not so sure, what in terms of performance?

Seriously a 3.6 auto XJ6 is something like mid low 8's 0-60mph with a crappy 4 speed auto and tall gearing. But they'll top 140mph fairly easily, maybe more.

40mph - 120mph rolling sprint and a 2.0 litre Focus (non RS) wouldn't even manage to stay in your rear view mirror.


Anyone who thinks any large Jag is slow would really deserve the roll eyes. I admit a 2.9 XJ6 was a bit of a slug by comparison, but in it's day faired well with other large cars and mass market non hot hatches.

Kitchski

6,516 posts

232 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
aka_kerrly said:
.

Citroen BX MI-16 is another classic which goes far quicker than most people would want to go in one!!
Is that a mash up of a BX and a 405?!

I can understand people saying the BX is a sleeper, even with the boxy bodykit. I remember a guy at Thorney Island on a drag day saying to me that he couldn't believe mine was running 15.6secs. I said why not, that's the book time!
"But that's faster than an RS Turbo!" he said. Ermm.....yes, it is. Is it really that unbelievable?!

One of the best handling and most stable cars I've had though, so would only assume people who didn't want to drive one fast aren't confident behind the wheel of a car.

bigkeeko

1,370 posts

144 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
I saw the first car and laughed.

You could probably get out and run faster.

I`ll agree with the RS2

Edited by bigkeeko on Tuesday 19th November 20:01

Vladimir

6,917 posts

159 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Okay I shall attempt to define a sleeper.

An innocuous looking car, often fairly old with a naughty engine (NON standard or VERY tuned) fitted under the bonnet. The car has pretty much NO giveaways to it's performance.

My Dad had two - a Ford Cortina P100 with a 400bhp Rover V8 (lots of work done on it) and a BBR Mitsubishi Shogun with 240bhp.

There are some great examples such as a mk2 Golf CL with a tuned VR6, that Volvo posted a whole ago (740 shape?) with 700bhp and many many others.

A factory made car, even if much quicker than it looks, is NOT a sleeper.

Edited by Vladimir on Tuesday 19th November 20:24

matts4

1,911 posts

192 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Fiat Uno Turbo?


kiteless

11,744 posts

205 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
Gaz. said:
TheAngryDog said:
So little power from such a large engine!
50 odd bhp/litre in 1958? That isn't too shabby at all actually.
My thoughts exactly, considering the compression ratio was probably only just enough to crush a grape.



eddy02

283 posts

126 months

Tuesday 19th November 2013
quotequote all
My sons Golf VR6.
Reasonable in their day,nothing really special now,except this one has Schrick cams,tubular manifold,lightened flywheel etc,oh and a supercharger.Very nice thing to drive.