60s Sports cars
Discussion
Not sure if this should be here or the lounge...
Anyway, I was flicking through the TV the other day and there was a top gear on dave (When isnt there?) anyway they were showing how the aston martin db5 and Jaguar E type whilst lovely cars were actually not as quick as advertised and not so great a drive. Certianly by modern standards they would be a hard drive.
Not having driven such a classic I wondered something.
Modern Cars have come on a long way in both reliability and performance, and though many modern cars have a tendency to be a bit dull, IMO of course how would a modern but normal car fare against a 60 classic on a track.
I suppose it depends on the car in question but i'm thinking, something mid range and average, so say something like a modern focus, astra or golf, that sort of thing.
How do you think they would perform against each other? would it be a good match. Or not even close? Performance is more than bhp or weight... they have different tyres, brakes etc.
Anyway, I was flicking through the TV the other day and there was a top gear on dave (When isnt there?) anyway they were showing how the aston martin db5 and Jaguar E type whilst lovely cars were actually not as quick as advertised and not so great a drive. Certianly by modern standards they would be a hard drive.
Not having driven such a classic I wondered something.
Modern Cars have come on a long way in both reliability and performance, and though many modern cars have a tendency to be a bit dull, IMO of course how would a modern but normal car fare against a 60 classic on a track.
I suppose it depends on the car in question but i'm thinking, something mid range and average, so say something like a modern focus, astra or golf, that sort of thing.
How do you think they would perform against each other? would it be a good match. Or not even close? Performance is more than bhp or weight... they have different tyres, brakes etc.
I've driven a fully restored from the ground up E type. Lovely to look at but not nice to drive.
The steering wheel appeared to have some connection with the way the front wheels pointed.
Likewise if you stood on the brakes then after a while the car started to slow down.
More show than go. My 535d Touring would outperform it in every way imaginable other than the looks department, which I have to admit were stunning.
The steering wheel appeared to have some connection with the way the front wheels pointed.
Likewise if you stood on the brakes then after a while the car started to slow down.
More show than go. My 535d Touring would outperform it in every way imaginable other than the looks department, which I have to admit were stunning.
996TT02 said:
Fastdruid said:
Would be slaughtered by a GT40 
And by a diesel Golf.
There is the common belief that a diesel golf is the fastest thing known to man innit bruv but I maintain that a 335hp car weighing 1080Kg with a 0-60 time of 5.1s, a top speed just shy of 200mph and the grip from 250 wide fronts and 325 wide rears with 292mm brakes will just about manage to beat it.
Fastdruid said:
996TT02 said:
Fastdruid said:
Would be slaughtered by a GT40
And by a diesel Golf.996TT02 said:
Fastdruid said:
996TT02 said:
Fastdruid said:
Would be slaughtered by a GT40
And by a diesel Golf.I've driven a nice original SII E-type DHC. It was a lovely thing with precise steering, great ride, decent brakes, easy gear-change & clutch, and a good slug of performance accompanied by a glorious noise. I'd happily jump in one and drive 500 miles.
By contrast the DB5 and DB6s were trucks, and a Healey 3000 an asthmatic mess. At least a MGB has little in the way of pretension and you can enjoy it for what it is - although the FIA racers can embarrass some much quicker kit.
SS7
By contrast the DB5 and DB6s were trucks, and a Healey 3000 an asthmatic mess. At least a MGB has little in the way of pretension and you can enjoy it for what it is - although the FIA racers can embarrass some much quicker kit.
SS7
To add alittle perspective. I have a 1996 840CI its a range topping flagship £60k ish when new, Bmw with a 4.4 V8. And it couldn't hold a candle to most modern hothatchs or mid size diesel rep mobiles.
In fact there's plenty of shopping cars that have more than my tiny 280bhp. And its only 18 years old, technology moves fast.
Andy
In fact there's plenty of shopping cars that have more than my tiny 280bhp. And its only 18 years old, technology moves fast.
Andy
Surely nobody is going to purchase a 60's sports car as anything other than a second or third car? As stated above, most modern stuff that is even lukewarm will perform most tasks better but that's not really the point of owning them I would have thought.
Reliability aside, if I thought it would get there and back, I would much rather take a trip through France or similar, in an E-type roadster or similar than a modern hatch. The look, smell and sound of the thing is like nothing you get with a modern vehicle.
It does show what several decades of progress gives you though when comparing cold hard stats.
Reliability aside, if I thought it would get there and back, I would much rather take a trip through France or similar, in an E-type roadster or similar than a modern hatch. The look, smell and sound of the thing is like nothing you get with a modern vehicle.
It does show what several decades of progress gives you though when comparing cold hard stats.
FreeLitres said:
very cherry picked, but a good watchInterestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
There are good E-Types and bad E-Types. Much depends on the particular car and who's worked on it. A fresh restoration can be a dog of a car if done badly.
Racing modern cars is absolutely not what makes classic sports cars attractive.
Apart from a disinterest in hot hatches and rally reps, I consider myself a well-rounded car enthusiast and can see the good in most types of car from classic to modern daily transport to modern super car.
Classic sports cars are about the immense feel-good factor from driving one. In your own little world it's the sights, sounds and smells. The little nuances of a classic car which have been engineered out for convenience in modern cars. When driving in public there's a sense of goodwill reciprocated whenever I've driven a classic - quite the opposite of the reaction you can sometimes get from driving something modern and obviously expensive.
I said on another thread recently that if your sole metric for judging cars is laptimes, then your interest in cars is rather 1-dimensional and I will reiterate that here. Engineering has moved on a long way, but that in no way diminishes the enjoyment of driving a classic sports car. For me, at least.
Racing modern cars is absolutely not what makes classic sports cars attractive.
Apart from a disinterest in hot hatches and rally reps, I consider myself a well-rounded car enthusiast and can see the good in most types of car from classic to modern daily transport to modern super car.
Classic sports cars are about the immense feel-good factor from driving one. In your own little world it's the sights, sounds and smells. The little nuances of a classic car which have been engineered out for convenience in modern cars. When driving in public there's a sense of goodwill reciprocated whenever I've driven a classic - quite the opposite of the reaction you can sometimes get from driving something modern and obviously expensive.
I said on another thread recently that if your sole metric for judging cars is laptimes, then your interest in cars is rather 1-dimensional and I will reiterate that here. Engineering has moved on a long way, but that in no way diminishes the enjoyment of driving a classic sports car. For me, at least.
jamieduff1981 said:
There are good E-Types and bad E-Types. Much depends on the particular car and who's worked on it. A fresh restoration can be a dog of a car if done badly.
Racing modern cars is absolutely not what makes classic sports cars attractive.
.
Heebeegeetee's MX5 rule applies here.....Racing modern cars is absolutely not what makes classic sports cars attractive.
.
heebeegeetee said:
( from a thread on MX5s )
I do get the idea that nobody seems to realise that no two cars are the same. Brand new cars might be and should be but might not always be, but once the car is more than 2-3 years old, forget it.
Thus, people shouldn't pronounce upon a model of car based on just their one example.
I do get the idea that nobody seems to realise that no two cars are the same. Brand new cars might be and should be but might not always be, but once the car is more than 2-3 years old, forget it.
Thus, people shouldn't pronounce upon a model of car based on just their one example.
CR6ZZ said:
Interestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
So your mates economical 1300kg 2l coupe with its 140mph top speed and 11gallon tank would have a chance of beating a 7litre Mk2 GT40 with 480bhp, 1100kgs, >200mph top speed and a 40 gallon tank? No even if my mum was driving it - it would probably struggle against the winning 2litre GT car - a 1000kg/200bhp Porsche 911S.
SS7
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff