Are modern cars really faster than old ones?
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
s m said:
A 370Z is more of a modern day 300ZX - that's a closer comparison
My initial reply was more aimed at the OP though
I disagree (one hairy sports coupe other a big sporty GT?)My initial reply was more aimed at the OP though
They're in the same line of cars, hence 'Z'; they're both sports coupes/sporty GTs, there's really no point between drawing a line between one 2 seat 1500kg-ish 304bhp FE/RWD Nissan and another 2 seat 1500kg-ish 328bhp FE/RWD Nissan.
The 200SX is in the 'Silvia' line and was about 100bhp and 300kg down on the 300ZX.
456mgt said:
Quite by chance, my cars hail from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s. The difference is not really power, they're all quick, it's not really braking either, since all of them are on discs; it's everything else. From the driver's seat, what really marks out the decades more than anything else is the suspension, chassis rigidity, traction control and steering.
The 250 (1961) has a racing GTO spec engine including 6 double webers, so has plenty of power. But it has leaf springs at the rear and plenty of chassis flex. Steering is as vague as a politicians promise, and front and rear of the car may as well be on separate continents.
The BB is 1980, so not really 70s, but it didn't change much. The windscreen has to have a flexible fitment to accommodate chassis flex but the suspension is better and it's just the pendulum you have to watch. Steering is more precise, but that's comparing a surgeons knife to the prow of a battleship.
The 930 (1985) is brilliant, very tight, great steering but only in comparison to other older stuff. You have to be awake to get the best out of it, and you immediately notice the handling difference if you jump into something from the next decade.
Not sure the F50 is a fair representation of the 90s since it has inboard suspension and a carbon tub. The effects of these is vast though, mainly in that it's so predicable and that you're not correcting mid corner as a matter of course.
2000s is the CGT. What can I say? It's the pinnacle. But it has no answer to the current model RS6 with it's traction control, ABS, braking assist etc even though it has less power.
Not scientific I know, but all from personal experience and closer to the spirit of the original question than a lion in a wig.
I haven't read the whole thread but I suspect this is the best post within. The 250 (1961) has a racing GTO spec engine including 6 double webers, so has plenty of power. But it has leaf springs at the rear and plenty of chassis flex. Steering is as vague as a politicians promise, and front and rear of the car may as well be on separate continents.
The BB is 1980, so not really 70s, but it didn't change much. The windscreen has to have a flexible fitment to accommodate chassis flex but the suspension is better and it's just the pendulum you have to watch. Steering is more precise, but that's comparing a surgeons knife to the prow of a battleship.
The 930 (1985) is brilliant, very tight, great steering but only in comparison to other older stuff. You have to be awake to get the best out of it, and you immediately notice the handling difference if you jump into something from the next decade.
Not sure the F50 is a fair representation of the 90s since it has inboard suspension and a carbon tub. The effects of these is vast though, mainly in that it's so predicable and that you're not correcting mid corner as a matter of course.
2000s is the CGT. What can I say? It's the pinnacle. But it has no answer to the current model RS6 with it's traction control, ABS, braking assist etc even though it has less power.
Not scientific I know, but all from personal experience and closer to the spirit of the original question than a lion in a wig.
Good reading and and an amazing collection of cars!
braddo said:
456mgt said:
Quite by chance, my cars hail from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s. The difference is not really power, they're all quick, it's not really braking either, since all of them are on discs; it's everything else. From the driver's seat, what really marks out the decades more than anything else is the suspension, chassis rigidity, traction control and steering.
The 250 (1961) has a racing GTO spec engine including 6 double webers, so has plenty of power. But it has leaf springs at the rear and plenty of chassis flex. Steering is as vague as a politicians promise, and front and rear of the car may as well be on separate continents.
The BB is 1980, so not really 70s, but it didn't change much. The windscreen has to have a flexible fitment to accommodate chassis flex but the suspension is better and it's just the pendulum you have to watch. Steering is more precise, but that's comparing a surgeons knife to the prow of a battleship.
The 930 (1985) is brilliant, very tight, great steering but only in comparison to other older stuff. You have to be awake to get the best out of it, and you immediately notice the handling difference if you jump into something from the next decade.
Not sure the F50 is a fair representation of the 90s since it has inboard suspension and a carbon tub. The effects of these is vast though, mainly in that it's so predicable and that you're not correcting mid corner as a matter of course.
2000s is the CGT. What can I say? It's the pinnacle. But it has no answer to the current model RS6 with it's traction control, ABS, braking assist etc even though it has less power.
Not scientific I know, but all from personal experience and closer to the spirit of the original question than a lion in a wig.
I haven't read the whole thread but I suspect this is the best post within. The 250 (1961) has a racing GTO spec engine including 6 double webers, so has plenty of power. But it has leaf springs at the rear and plenty of chassis flex. Steering is as vague as a politicians promise, and front and rear of the car may as well be on separate continents.
The BB is 1980, so not really 70s, but it didn't change much. The windscreen has to have a flexible fitment to accommodate chassis flex but the suspension is better and it's just the pendulum you have to watch. Steering is more precise, but that's comparing a surgeons knife to the prow of a battleship.
The 930 (1985) is brilliant, very tight, great steering but only in comparison to other older stuff. You have to be awake to get the best out of it, and you immediately notice the handling difference if you jump into something from the next decade.
Not sure the F50 is a fair representation of the 90s since it has inboard suspension and a carbon tub. The effects of these is vast though, mainly in that it's so predicable and that you're not correcting mid corner as a matter of course.
2000s is the CGT. What can I say? It's the pinnacle. But it has no answer to the current model RS6 with it's traction control, ABS, braking assist etc even though it has less power.
Not scientific I know, but all from personal experience and closer to the spirit of the original question than a lion in a wig.
Good reading and and an amazing collection of cars!
ka 7.0 that outdragged a BRAND NEW Kia Rio so actually yes older cars ARE faster.Hungrymc said:
RB Will said:
Also broke the egos of a 911 and M3 CSL on the Evo Triangle.
In the middle of the most ego fueled post I have read in a long time.t. Diesel octavia pisding on much much better cars. Only if you drive it like you stole it and the rest were not racing at all.xRIEx said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Z-car
They're in the same line of cars, hence 'Z'; they're both sports coupes/sporty GTs, there's really no point between drawing a line between one 2 seat 1500kg-ish 304bhp FE/RWD Nissan and another 2 seat 1500kg-ish 328bhp FE/RWD Nissan.
The 200SX is in the 'Silvia' line and was about 100bhp and 300kg down on the 300ZX.
I'm no Nissan fan but I'd say this is a branding issue more than a design brief issue.They're in the same line of cars, hence 'Z'; they're both sports coupes/sporty GTs, there's really no point between drawing a line between one 2 seat 1500kg-ish 304bhp FE/RWD Nissan and another 2 seat 1500kg-ish 328bhp FE/RWD Nissan.
The 200SX is in the 'Silvia' line and was about 100bhp and 300kg down on the 300ZX.
Look at M3s or 911s through the same period and model for model power has increased significantly. I'd suggest that the headline stats are so similar 25 / 30 years apart tells you the engineers were trying to achieve very different things.
But I'm no nissan expert or fan so I accept your point on the model association / lineage.
Apologies to 300 for ruining his thread, when I used a couple of example from my past to illustrate a point about how its largely irrelevant how fast a car is and that its more about how its driven I didnt count on 2 pages of venom 
Seeing as most of the encounters were me following other people I was only going as quick as they were so they were being just as stupid and risking things just as much as me.
Also, lost an R1 and he "fell off"? You must be in a world of mario kart, drop a banana did we?
I love that you quote me saying that I would be st compared to a rally driver then get all sarcastic about me thinking I'm the reincarnation of Colin McRae
You also realise that despite them thinking they are 99.9% of bikers are not Guy Martin and cant ride for st. They think they are the fastest things around as they have a straight line rocket ship, show most of them a corner and they dont know what to do. And before anyone says it I know I would be a st biker.
Correct Your second point is irrelevant.
Your third point is pretty much the point I was trying to make that cars from the last 15 years are close enough in performance terms that it very much depends on who is driving over what they are driving as to what is "faster"
I concur. What a load of horsest. Diesel octavia pisding on much much better cars. Only if you drive it like you stole it and the rest were not racing at all.No big ego here thats why I havent crashed showing off like a number of people I know. I'm happy to be called the slow one if it means I'm staying on the road, I really dunno what you are all getting so excited about. I dont drive erratically.
I dont know why where in a thread where there is pages of people saying yes a hum drum car from today can keep up with oldersports/ supercars when I actually post an example of it happening everyone goes mental and I'm a bullstter
CorvetteConvert said:
RB Will.
Never been in a street race...you said you had...which is it?
I didnt say anywhere I have been in a street race ?? I have had a play with a few people but thats just in the name of having a fun drive. Its not a street race, there has been no organised element, no ready set go, no finish line, nothing at stake. Just the sort of behaviour that I'm sure everyone on here has and does do every now and again.Never been in a street race...you said you had...which is it?
JockySteer said:
If that is all true, (which I MASSIVELY doubt) they probably saw you as a nutter in a Skoda who was prepared to risk their licence, or kill themselves. Touch wood it's the first. You shouldn't be on the road IMO.
Sorry to burst you bubble but its all true, I dont get a boner from making stuff up. Seeing as most of the encounters were me following other people I was only going as quick as they were so they were being just as stupid and risking things just as much as me.
mercer868 said:
RB Will said:
the general public just dont realise how far a car can be pushed. Even car people. Back in my youth I knew a fair few boy racers who thought they were fast, I took them out and they crapped themselves and Im pretty confident that if I were to go out with a competent rally driver the difference in ability would be the same again.
Do we expect to see you in the WRC line up next season then RB?.. Ooh remember, bring your skoda, you want to give the rest of the pack a chance at least! Also, lost an R1 and he "fell off"? You must be in a world of mario kart, drop a banana did we?
I love that you quote me saying that I would be st compared to a rally driver then get all sarcastic about me thinking I'm the reincarnation of Colin McRae You also realise that despite them thinking they are 99.9% of bikers are not Guy Martin and cant ride for s
t. They think they are the fastest things around as they have a straight line rocket ship, show most of them a corner and they dont know what to do. And before anyone says it I know I would be a st biker. braddo said:
You make a point which is off-topic to the thread, to tell stories about how 'great' a driver you are.
You in the Exige, or CSL, or S3 or whatever would have pulled away from you in the Octavia. Which is irrelevant to the thread too.
Perhaps you make a point about the law of diminishing returns - all cars are getting so capable these days, that the relative advantage of faster cars is less than it used to be. But in any case, modern cars very much are faster than old ones.
If I had stories to tell of me being in a Lambo and having my arse handed to me by a Micra then I could have used that as an example too, I can only work with what I have. I'm not trying to say I'm a great driver, even mentioned I would be rubbish compared to a pro.You in the Exige, or CSL, or S3 or whatever would have pulled away from you in the Octavia. Which is irrelevant to the thread too.
Perhaps you make a point about the law of diminishing returns - all cars are getting so capable these days, that the relative advantage of faster cars is less than it used to be. But in any case, modern cars very much are faster than old ones.
Correct Your second point is irrelevant.
Your third point is pretty much the point I was trying to make that cars from the last 15 years are close enough in performance terms that it very much depends on who is driving over what they are driving as to what is "faster"
rb5er said:
Hungrymc said:
RB Will said:
Also broke the egos of a 911 and M3 CSL on the Evo Triangle.
In the middle of the most ego fueled post I have read in a long time.t. Diesel octavia pisding on much much better cars. Only if you drive it like you stole it and the rest were not racing at all.I dont know why where in a thread where there is pages of people saying yes a hum drum car from today can keep up with oldersports/ supercars when I actually post an example of it happening everyone goes mental and I'm a bulls
tter 
The problem with saying that you outpaced much faster cars on a country road is that there is literally only one way to do that - take the corners much much closer to the limits of grip for your car (probably much lower than those for the faster cars). In other words, the guy in the slower car needs to do one of the most dangerous things you can do in road driving - go fast into slow corners.
As for the Evo triangle, that looks to me like a route where (if you were to ignore speed limits) even a complete numpty in an M3 wouldn't be visible from a diesel Skoda after a few minutes. Long straights, fast bends and excellent sight lines mean the faster car is long gone.
And all this ignores the fact that you have to utterly take the piss with speed limits to leave any car long behind on the road, let alone 911s and M3s. One fun exemption to this is Fish Hill where more powerful cars can maintain and gain speed while others struggle. I remember watching an Atom disappear from view on that road
But I don't really care whether or not people brake speed limits. I do care about them flying around a corner barely in control because they are desperate to embarrass a faster car. A 458 S driven by a fool in a straight line at 100mph won't wipe out a family; a good driver pushing a slower car too hard around a corner to keep up just might.
I know this is all a bit Mumsnet or Daily Mail. But letting your ego or competitive streak into your driving is a bad idea, and we all suffer when an enthusiast comes a cropper, because it's just another excuse to lower speed limits and increase safety nonsense.
As for the Evo triangle, that looks to me like a route where (if you were to ignore speed limits) even a complete numpty in an M3 wouldn't be visible from a diesel Skoda after a few minutes. Long straights, fast bends and excellent sight lines mean the faster car is long gone.
And all this ignores the fact that you have to utterly take the piss with speed limits to leave any car long behind on the road, let alone 911s and M3s. One fun exemption to this is Fish Hill where more powerful cars can maintain and gain speed while others struggle. I remember watching an Atom disappear from view on that road
But I don't really care whether or not people brake speed limits. I do care about them flying around a corner barely in control because they are desperate to embarrass a faster car. A 458 S driven by a fool in a straight line at 100mph won't wipe out a family; a good driver pushing a slower car too hard around a corner to keep up just might.
I know this is all a bit Mumsnet or Daily Mail. But letting your ego or competitive streak into your driving is a bad idea, and we all suffer when an enthusiast comes a cropper, because it's just another excuse to lower speed limits and increase safety nonsense.
Leins said:
B'stard Child said:
Leins said:
Yes
Now then, can we have Vlad back too please PH? I quite miss him
If it's a request post can we have cockwomble back too as I miss him tooNow then, can we have Vlad back too please PH? I quite miss him
Like that's gonna happen
RB Will said:
No big ego here thats why I havent crashed showing off like a number of people I know. I'm happy to be called the slow one if it means I'm staying on the road, I really dunno what you are all getting so excited about. I dont drive erratically.
I dont know why where in a thread where there is pages of people saying yes a hum drum car from today can keep up with oldersports/ supercars when I actually post an example of it happening everyone goes mental and I'm a bullstter
LOL.... Keep 'em coming, it's reviving a flagging thread..... You didn't 'post an example'.... You explained how you've 'broken egos' ... On the road. I dont know why where in a thread where there is pages of people saying yes a hum drum car from today can keep up with oldersports/ supercars when I actually post an example of it happening everyone goes mental and I'm a bulls
tter I'm not judging you for driving hard. I'm judging you for being either shockingly arrogant or having a massive ego (I'd suggest that your choice of words is quite revealing) .... Terrible when in combination with quick driving. But good luck to you as you travel the country slaying egos. LOL
If you look at something mundane like a BMW 320 F30 it is almost exactly the same in weight, dimension and power to weight ratio as a BMW 528 E39 yet is 1.5secs to 60 quicker and almost 50% more fuel efficient.
Times have changed and the previous good is now the current average.
Given there's chap on here with a Merc A45 that with a few easy tweets runs to 100 almost as quick as a McLaren F1 tells us all we need to know about how times have changed.
Times have changed and the previous good is now the current average.
Given there's chap on here with a Merc A45 that with a few easy tweets runs to 100 almost as quick as a McLaren F1 tells us all we need to know about how times have changed.
Apologies again for keeping the thread off target/ keeping it alive.
as for your comment about the evo triange, love that you know what would happen there despite not ever experiencing it by the way
but what you said highlights the point I have been making all along. The faster car is only long gone if the driver is going to exploit all its performance. Yes an M3/911 will do 40mph+ more top end than the Skoda but there aint many people willing or capable of holding that sort of speed on a country road even if it were closed to other traffic and on a road with more bends then the faster cars wont be making much ground on the straights. The stty skoda has more torque than an M3 CSL surprisingly which helps, obviously the M3 is faster but its not as much as you would think over a short distance.
You dont have to be going that much quicker than someone else to drop them out of sight on a good country road.
Just as a thought exercise, Nurburgring (commonly known as a power circuit) laptime for M3 CSL 7.50 Seat leon (same chassis,near enough, as the Octavia) 7.58 with about 70bhp less, so could be argued that the family estate car has just as or a more competent chassis than the CSL so the CSL may well have been closer to its limit and crashing than I was. The 911 in question is another 30 secs slower at the Ring despite having the same power as the Leon suggesting that The Leon has a much more competent chassis so the 911 probably was closer to its limit than me. Also bearing in mind those times are all set by experienced pro drivers and an M3 and 911 are much harder to manage around their limits than a bleedin Octavia for most people.
Is this Fish Hill near Stow on the Wold you are on about? If so I dont know what you mean about leaving people behind going slowly I have seen people doing silly speeds up and down it. If I remember correctly arent there signs there saying to drive carefully as people go belting up and down it?
I dont accept your idea that someone driving a mundane car around a corner quicker than average joe is so much more dangerous than a muppet in a 500bhp car doing very illegal things on straights. Youtube is full of clips of people stacking cars on straight roads
How your post seems to read is people driving fast cars fast is fine but people driving mundane cars fast is child murder???
you dont need to be anywhere near a modern cars handling limits to be going too fast for most roads, you can take a family car to 75% of its potential and its still enough to outpace 95% of people comfortably.
I think you have a bee in you bonnet thinking that I'm suggesting that to keep up with an older/ faster car I and anyone else has to be driving a mundane modern car fully to its limits, braking at the last split second and screeching tyres around corners this just isnt the case
As I have already stated numerous times, no massive ego here nor arrogant. Just speaking from experience. I'm perfectly happy to back out of a situation to preserve myself, my car and anyone around me. What there is of my ego would certainly take a much bigger beating if I were to crash rather than drive safely and slower than someone who is more competent or willing to risk it.
I'm a very matter of fact sort of person and you have mistaken me being blunt for arrogance.
Have to admit it does amuse me that you two guys who have an issue with my grand tale are both 911 owners
now quit your bellyaching before I get out a video of me beating a 911 and M3 around the Ring in my mums Corolla, and I'm still not making this st up
ORD said:
The problem with saying that you outpaced much faster cars on a country road is that there is literally only one way to do that - take the corners much much closer to the limits of grip for your car (probably much lower than those for the faster cars). In other words, the guy in the slower car needs to do one of the most dangerous things you can do in road driving - go fast into slow corners.
As for the Evo triangle, that looks to me like a route where (if you were to ignore speed limits) even a complete numpty in an M3 wouldn't be visible from a diesel Skoda after a few minutes. Long straights, fast bends and excellent sight lines mean the faster car is long gone.
And all this ignores the fact that you have to utterly take the piss with speed limits to leave any car long behind on the road, let alone 911s and M3s. One fun exemption to this is Fish Hill where more powerful cars can maintain and gain speed while others struggle. I remember watching an Atom disappear from view on that road
But I don't really care whether or not people brake speed limits. I do care about them flying around a corner barely in control because they are desperate to embarrass a faster car. A 458 S driven by a fool in a straight line at 100mph won't wipe out a family; a good driver pushing a slower car too hard around a corner to keep up just might.
The slower straight line car may well be taking the corners faster (it doesnt need to be much faster) and be nearer its grip limit but that does not mean it is actually anywhere near its grip limit and is going to crash it could just be braking slightly later, again well away from its limit but enough to make up the little bit of ground lost.As for the Evo triangle, that looks to me like a route where (if you were to ignore speed limits) even a complete numpty in an M3 wouldn't be visible from a diesel Skoda after a few minutes. Long straights, fast bends and excellent sight lines mean the faster car is long gone.
And all this ignores the fact that you have to utterly take the piss with speed limits to leave any car long behind on the road, let alone 911s and M3s. One fun exemption to this is Fish Hill where more powerful cars can maintain and gain speed while others struggle. I remember watching an Atom disappear from view on that road
But I don't really care whether or not people brake speed limits. I do care about them flying around a corner barely in control because they are desperate to embarrass a faster car. A 458 S driven by a fool in a straight line at 100mph won't wipe out a family; a good driver pushing a slower car too hard around a corner to keep up just might.
as for your comment about the evo triange, love that you know what would happen there despite not ever experiencing it by the way
but what you said highlights the point I have been making all along. The faster car is only long gone if the driver is going to exploit all its performance. Yes an M3/911 will do 40mph+ more top end than the Skoda but there aint many people willing or capable of holding that sort of speed on a country road even if it were closed to other traffic and on a road with more bends then the faster cars wont be making much ground on the straights. The stty skoda has more torque than an M3 CSL surprisingly which helps, obviously the M3 is faster but its not as much as you would think over a short distance.You dont have to be going that much quicker than someone else to drop them out of sight on a good country road.
Just as a thought exercise, Nurburgring (commonly known as a power circuit) laptime for M3 CSL 7.50 Seat leon (same chassis,near enough, as the Octavia) 7.58 with about 70bhp less, so could be argued that the family estate car has just as or a more competent chassis than the CSL so the CSL may well have been closer to its limit and crashing than I was. The 911 in question is another 30 secs slower at the Ring despite having the same power as the Leon suggesting that The Leon has a much more competent chassis so the 911 probably was closer to its limit than me. Also bearing in mind those times are all set by experienced pro drivers and an M3 and 911 are much harder to manage around their limits than a bleedin Octavia for most people.
Is this Fish Hill near Stow on the Wold you are on about? If so I dont know what you mean about leaving people behind going slowly I have seen people doing silly speeds up and down it. If I remember correctly arent there signs there saying to drive carefully as people go belting up and down it?
I dont accept your idea that someone driving a mundane car around a corner quicker than average joe is so much more dangerous than a muppet in a 500bhp car doing very illegal things on straights. Youtube is full of clips of people stacking cars on straight roads
How your post seems to read is people driving fast cars fast is fine but people driving mundane cars fast is child murder???
you dont need to be anywhere near a modern cars handling limits to be going too fast for most roads, you can take a family car to 75% of its potential and its still enough to outpace 95% of people comfortably.
I think you have a bee in you bonnet thinking that I'm suggesting that to keep up with an older/ faster car I and anyone else has to be driving a mundane modern car fully to its limits, braking at the last split second and screeching tyres around corners this just isnt the case
Hungrymc said:
LOL.... Keep 'em coming, it's reviving a flagging thread..... You didn't 'post an example'.... You explained how you've 'broken egos' ... On the road.
I'm not judging you for driving hard. I'm judging you for being either shockingly arrogant or having a massive ego (I'd suggest that your choice of words is quite revealing) .... Terrible when in combination with quick driving. But good luck to you as you travel the country slaying egos. LOL
I did just post an example/ made a statement, if I wanted to explain the situation it would have taken a paragraph and been rather tedious and irrelevant. I'm not judging you for driving hard. I'm judging you for being either shockingly arrogant or having a massive ego (I'd suggest that your choice of words is quite revealing) .... Terrible when in combination with quick driving. But good luck to you as you travel the country slaying egos. LOL
As I have already stated numerous times, no massive ego here nor arrogant. Just speaking from experience. I'm perfectly happy to back out of a situation to preserve myself, my car and anyone around me. What there is of my ego would certainly take a much bigger beating if I were to crash rather than drive safely and slower than someone who is more competent or willing to risk it.
I'm a very matter of fact sort of person and you have mistaken me being blunt for arrogance.
Have to admit it does amuse me that you two guys who have an issue with my grand tale are both 911 owners
now quit your bellyaching before I get out a video of me beating a 911 and M3 around the Ring in my mums Corolla, and I'm still not making this s
t up Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff