Are modern cars really faster than old ones?
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
I think I know what question I was asking. It amazes me that it baffles so many people however. It really isn't rocket science.
Hell I even gave two examples in the OP. And thus far nobody has even answered the examples.
So stop trying to change the question to suit your answer. Which is clearly what is happening.
If I wanted to know "Are newer, more powerful, faster cars quicker round a track than older, slower, less powerful ones?"
Then that's what I would have asked. But I didn't did I.
Here's the big print edition for you
If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
Yes car 2 will be faster. Unless the 15-20 year old car has had replacement suspension, rebuilt engine, etc, etcHell I even gave two examples in the OP. And thus far nobody has even answered the examples.
So stop trying to change the question to suit your answer. Which is clearly what is happening.
If I wanted to know "Are newer, more powerful, faster cars quicker round a track than older, slower, less powerful ones?"
Then that's what I would have asked. But I didn't did I.
Here's the big print edition for you
If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
Edited to add - actually I'd still put my money on car 2 due to the advancements in suspension design, braking, etc over the 20 odd years.
Neither of the examples you gave had particularly similar power outputs or similar weights, one had a wildly dissimilar power-to-weight ratio and was also a completely different kind of vehicle. You can't really get upset with people suggesting your question and examples are a bit s
t if you can't even keep to your own arbitrary rules.
t if you can't even keep to your own arbitrary rules.
ManOpener said:
Neither of the examples you gave had particularly similar power outputs or similar weights
????For the Subaru's both have about 200hp and both just over 1200kg. In anyones book who isn't being pedantic that is pretty similar.
ManOpener said:
, one had a wildly dissimilar power-to-weight ratio and was also a completely different kind of vehicle. You can't really get upset with people suggesting your question and examples are a bit st if you can't even keep to your own arbitrary rules.
The Fords might differ slightly in weight and power. But not massively so. But they both differ in the same direction, so the power to weight is very close. 6bhp to be exact!!!t if you can't even keep to your own arbitrary rules.300bhp/ton said:
Max_Torque said:
simple answer: YES.
The OEMs spend millions of ££ and millions of man hrs engineering their new models. Unless market forces result in the particular model being differently placed, then the new car is always faster than the old one!
Plenty of mags have done lap compares on the whole series of Golf Gti's for example, and each new one laps faster than the previous one.
That is my point though. Today's Golf is not the same market segment as the MK1. So comparing a 1.6 litre compact hatch with a sizeable up market modern one sporting a 2.0 litre Turbo isn't really that interesting.The OEMs spend millions of ££ and millions of man hrs engineering their new models. Unless market forces result in the particular model being differently placed, then the new car is always faster than the old one!
Plenty of mags have done lap compares on the whole series of Golf Gti's for example, and each new one laps faster than the previous one.
In terms of market placement the up! or Polo are far closer to the Mk1 Golf.
300bhp/ton said:
To that extent if I was comparing an e36 M3, I suspect something like a 335i or 135i would be a better more interesting comparison than the latest M4.
But that wouldn't be comparing it to the old version of the car, which surely is the point of the question? M3's have got progressively faster with each generation. The fastest non-M cars have also got quicker with each generation - E30 325i vs E36 328i vs E46 330i vs E90/92 335i, F30 has the same engine, haven't bothered to dig further into the performance stats though.Of course, if we alter the requirements to suit the argument so we can pit the Impreza against the BRZ, then we can answer the question however we want
E65Ross said:
Some Gump said:
Focus RS v Focus ST? What about the new Focus RS?
first thing I thought of.Yes, the new cars are quicker than their older equivalents in almost all cases, if not in all cases.
Here is another example.
A new showroom one of these:
And one of these:
And maybe even one of these:
Three completely different eras. Is the original Elan really the slowest? How about with some modern sticky tyres on it?
I've worked it out.
The OP does not want to known "Are modern cars really faster than old ones" (as per the thread title and the original post).
The answer to that question is "Yes", but he isnt interested and gets grumpy if you point it out.
What he wants to know is this:
"Are modern cars really faster than old ones if you pick a new car that is no faster than the comparator old car, on the basis that it is no faster than the old car, even if it is a different model?"
The answer is "No", but it is hidden in the question if you look really hard.
The OP does not want to known "Are modern cars really faster than old ones" (as per the thread title and the original post).
The answer to that question is "Yes", but he isnt interested and gets grumpy if you point it out.
What he wants to know is this:
"Are modern cars really faster than old ones if you pick a new car that is no faster than the comparator old car, on the basis that it is no faster than the old car, even if it is a different model?"
The answer is "No", but it is hidden in the question if you look really hard.
300bhp/ton said:
E65Ross said:
Some Gump said:
Focus RS v Focus ST? What about the new Focus RS?
first thing I thought of.Yes, the new cars are quicker than their older equivalents in almost all cases, if not in all cases.
Here is another example.
A new showroom one of these:
And one of these:
And maybe even one of these:
Three completely different eras. Is the original Elan really the slowest? How about with some modern sticky tyres on it?
300bhp/ton said:
Three completely different eras. Is the original Elan really the slowest? How about with some modern sticky tyres on it?
Yes, easily. This isn't a tyre test, so lets put track day rubber on all 3. The original Elan will still be the slowest. I wouldn't care though, it would be good fun.ORD said:
I've worked it out.
The OP does not want to known "Are modern cars really faster than old ones" (as per the thread title and the original post).
The answer to that question is "Yes", but he isnt interested and gets grumpy if you point it out.
What he wants to know is this:
"Are modern cars really faster than old ones if you pick a new car that is no faster than the comparator old car, on the basis that it is no faster than the old car, even if it is a different model?"
The answer is "No", but it is hidden in the question if you look really hard.
Indeed.The OP does not want to known "Are modern cars really faster than old ones" (as per the thread title and the original post).
The answer to that question is "Yes", but he isnt interested and gets grumpy if you point it out.
What he wants to know is this:
"Are modern cars really faster than old ones if you pick a new car that is no faster than the comparator old car, on the basis that it is no faster than the old car, even if it is a different model?"
The answer is "No", but it is hidden in the question if you look really hard.
Also, a McLaren P1 is faster than a Lotus Elan. I think that may be what he's asking?
300bhp/ton said:
I think I know what question I was asking. It amazes me that it baffles so many people however. It really isn't rocket science.
Hell I even gave two examples in the OP. And thus far nobody has even answered the examples.
So stop trying to change the question to suit your answer. Which is clearly what is happening.
If I wanted to know "Are newer, more powerful, faster cars quicker round a track than older, slower, less powerful ones?"
Then that's what I would have asked. But I didn't did I.
Here's the big print edition for you
If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
Your OP gave the example of an Impreza RB5 and a BRZ; you quoted peak power and weight figures, which completely ignores torque curves and drivetrain characteristics. Hell I even gave two examples in the OP. And thus far nobody has even answered the examples.
So stop trying to change the question to suit your answer. Which is clearly what is happening.
If I wanted to know "Are newer, more powerful, faster cars quicker round a track than older, slower, less powerful ones?"
Then that's what I would have asked. But I didn't did I.
Here's the big print edition for you
If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
The turbo Impreza will have more power at 4000rpm than the BRZ will at 4000rpm; of course, gearing well have an effect on the engine RPM at a given road speed. 4WD most likely helps get the power down off the start line and our of corners.
This is why everyone is saying your example and original question is duff. As already mentioned, comparing an old Impreza with a new WRX STi would be a more sensible comparison.
300bhp/ton said:
Here's the big print edition for you
If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
Almost without exception, YES!!!If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
Point even the best driver at a real world road (rather than a race track or 14 mile stretch of german one way system), and the more modern car will be quicker against the clock than the older car.
Swap in an average driver, and the difference will be even more exaggerated, with the confidence and security of the newer tech and tyres enabling a much faster performance.
If the road is a proper british B road, and the weather is a proper british summers day, then a modern supermini / warm hatch could quite realistically embarrass some "PH heroes" too.
Suzuki Swift GTi vs E30 M3?
Golf GTi vs 930 3.0 911 Turbo?
Focus RS vs Ferrari Testerossa ....... or maybe even 550 Maranello???
991 911 GT3 vs Pagani Zonda C12??
Place your bets!!!
300bhp/ton said:
????
For the Subaru's both have about 200hp and both just over 1200kg. In anyones book who isn't being pedantic that is pretty similar.
I'd argue eleven percent difference is quite a lot. Certainly well outside what I would deem to be the margin of error. An 11% power advantage is pretty substantial. Notwithstanding you're comparing two cars that are basically nothing alike.For the Subaru's both have about 200hp and both just over 1200kg. In anyones book who isn't being pedantic that is pretty similar.
To specifically address your Focus comparison (which are wildly dissimilar in weight and actual power even though the power to weight ratio is similar), the current Focus ST seems to be faster than the Mk1 RS on most tracks I can find comparable lap times for.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff