Are modern cars really faster than old ones?

[AW111]

Rb Will, for a man who keeps saying they don't have a huge ego, you sure spout a lot of unverifiable "I am a hero driver" bks.
I don't care if it's true or not, you come across as a knob either way

[Hungrymc]

RB Will said:

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

And there is more ! Brilliant.

Matter of fact would be more along the lines of 'I've been quicker then a 911 and an M3'

'I've broke the egos of'..... litle bit different. Bloody funny but different.

I've no doubt its possible for an average car to be driven quicker than a performance car. Driver experiance, attitude to acceptable speed on the road, poor conditions, driver aids, front drive ease of use. Of course this is possible, it's obvious. Same with motorbikes (which take these parameters to another level).

I'll let you into a little secret, I have use of a Cupra 280, I can get it down many roads quicker than my 911, that doesn't cause me to not want my 911, and it doesn't shatter my ego.

You're clearly very confident (I'm tempering my language as I recognise that I'm guilty of fanning the flames of an Internet argument and have been more judgmental than I would normally be). For clarity, the problem with your 'ego' comment is that you're assigning some level of lost personal worth to someone else driving faster on the road. This hints at your views and feelings with respect to what your driving says about you (ie its is building worth, strengthening your ego when you 'beat' somone on the road). in my opinion, there is no place on the road for this belief, and it's the source of so many accidents, road rage, bullying and other bad things that happen on our road.

I accept that you disagree.

[rb5er]

Thread has gone full retard.

[Hungrymc]

rb5er said:

Thread has gone full retard.

To be fair, it started bad, picked up a bit, and then tailed off badly...

I'll fetch my coat.

[Kitchski]

New cars are faster IMO. Example is I run a BX 16v among others, which back in the 1980's had a reasonable turn of speed in comparison to the available competition (150bhp/ton, 0-60 in the sevens, 135mph etc) so its on a par, if not one of the slightly performers in its class. Would walk all over your average family runner. These days, a Passat TDI could give it a good scrap from anything above 20mph! So yes, new cars are faster. Can't even think about including track times, too many variables.

[CorvetteConvert]

Sorry RB Will but you did talk nonsense on several occasions; as everyone except you can see...what time have you completed the Nurburgring in as a matter of interest?
I class myself as quicker than average in 4 wheels and on 2 but am acutely aware that much faster people exist old and young.
I clicked off several laps in just over 8 minutes recently in my 996 turbo and also a Caterham 260 CSR which I used to own.
Judging yourself against others on UK public roads is impossible, nigh-on.
Mate, stop digging!

Anyway.
Fastest Mini 30 years ago. 90 bhp. Now 228 bhp.
First hot Golf 105 bhp. Now 300, soon to be 400.

[RB Will]

AW111 said:

Rb Will, for a man who keeps saying they don't have a huge ego, you sure spout a lot of unverifiable "I am a hero driver" bks.
I don't care if it's true or not, you come across as a knob either way

Never claimed to be a hero, said I'm not great on several occasions, you seem to have made your own narrative up and its a bit rich calling me a knob when you are the one slinging insults around. All events verifiable by witnesses if you ever speak to them, numerous long term PHers too.

Hungrymc - we may as well leave the whole "ego" discussion, you are clearly reading way more into it than I ever meant in a quick comment. Ultimately you were not there and had not seen the way the 911 and M3 had been behaving to other drivers that day that leads me to believe they may have had their egos bent a bit, I'm sure they didnt go home and cry themselves to sleep. How about we say I surprised them instead?

CorvetteConvert said:

Sorry RB Will but you did talk nonsense on several occasions; as everyone except you can see...what time have you completed the Nurburgring in as a matter of interest?
I class myself as quicker than average in 4 wheels and on 2 but am acutely aware that much faster people exist old and young.
I clicked off several laps in just over 8 minutes recently in my 996 turbo and also a Caterham 260 CSR which I used to own.
Judging yourself against others on UK public roads is impossible, nigh-on.
Mate, stop digging!

Please show me the nonsense, as far as I'm aware I have and certainly at least tried to stay factual throughout. Its not my problem if you choose not to believe it. (look at my posting history if you like, I dont make stuff up and generally do research before posting)

I'm very aware that quicker more experienced drivers are around as I have said numerous times. I'm not remotely pushing a cars limits when I drive it on the road.

As for Ring lap times (now who is benchmarking against others ) 9.02 in the Corolla (would have been a 8.58 but couldnt get the bloody thing in 2nd at the hairpin before Adenau). Just bear in mind it was my Mums daily driver so no uprated brakes, budget tyres and when it left the factory only 189bhp so god knows how much left after 12 years and 80k miles of irregular servicing. Pretty much everyone on here will tell you how crap they are as a warm hatch. I'm aware that sounds like boasting but it not its more explaining why Im content with a lap time that slow.
Fastest I have been timed is 8.24 and that was in my old Scoob 1996 model, 230bhp with upgraded brakes.

Its not me but there is a vid on youtube of a guy taking a standard diesel Octavia round in the mid 8.40s

Congrats on your time, thats not bad going (I'm assuming all cars are standard? if the Turbo has like 600+bhp then ur a bit slow )

using us as examples though you can see how even much faster more powerful cars are not much quicker. At the ring, with its big long high speed straights your 400+bhp 911 is only pulling 1-2 secs a mile over my scoob. Since you and your 911 are very unlikely (I dont know you) to be doing 130+ mph on a country A or B road that advantage of yours gets even smaller so even both of us driving flat out and super dangerous you will pull a few car lengths a minute at best, all of which could vanish very quickly if you so much as fluffed a gearchange. Add in the relative ease of those cars to drive down a country road (I have experience of 996 Turbo and GT2) and I expect the guy in the 911 would be nearer the danger zone than the Scoob at any given speed.

I agree about judging yourself against others on the road, I'm not trying to rank or benchmark anyone all I was doing was using examples I have experienced to highlight that point (badly by the looks of it). I'm not digging I'm just trying to explain to people why I'm saying what I'm saying, really not sure why I have caused such a stir.

So again the point I was originally trying to make before taking 300s thread on a tangent was that yes ultimately (theoretically) modern cars are almost always faster due to their more advanced technology but in the real world differences in car performance are so much smaller than differences in driver performance that you may as well buy what you like as its going to be quick enough.

Are we all happy and friends now?

[JockySteer]

Post the video of the Corolla

[smbitin]

RB Will makes some valid points, driving a powerful car does not necessarily make you faster down a given stretch of road. I was once overtaken by a Sierra Cosworth on a straight whist accelerating flat out in my Montego, he nearly stacked it in the next corner (fishtailed wildly) as he had to carry too much speed into the next corner. Fast forward 15 years or so in an S4 I gave up an idea of overtaking a modest hatchback with 4 people on board as he was obviously using all of his cars performance and I wasn't prepared to use 100% of my cars performance to pass it. I remember both events because they were potentially dangerous,I wasn't racing they were just other cars I came across on my route.

[anonymous-user]

RB Will said:

The stty skoda has more torque than an M3 CSL surprisingly which helps.

except it doesn't, help that is........



The M3 CSL makes around 350bhp, the skoda something like 150bhp less. That means AT THE REAR WHEELS the M3 has something like 1/3 MORE tractive effort than the "more torquey" Skoda.

[J4CKO]

ohtari said:

J4CKO said:

RB Will said:

ORD said:

You sound like an extremely dangerous driver and a street racer. Here's hoping that you lose your licence fairly soon!

18 years of driving, no points, no cars smashed up, highest scoring employee in the driving assessment at a firm with over 100 employees, never been in a street race, friends and family feel safer with me driving than anyone else they know but yeah you go ahead and think what you like

Never been in a street race ?

You said this a few posts back.

"Recent trip to Wales case in point. My diesel (184bhp) Octavia estate was hanging onto the back of my mates Supercharged Exige at anything up to unmentionable speeds, whilst leaving other mates in a RX8 and 360bhp Audi S3 for dead. Also broke the egos of a 911 and M3 CSL on the Evo Triangle."


Which sounds to me very much like street racing, as, correct me if I am wrong, the Evo triangle, is road based, and not a weirdly shaped circuit ?

Oh ffs

Don't come on here and play the "holier than thou" card. There isn't a petrolhead alive that hasn't "given it some" off the lights at a a juction, or "kept up with" a faster car and/or driver down a road.

How many times do you read on here about "leaving them behind" when entering a NSL zone? Or going for a romp/hoon/blast/etc. down a good country road?

We're all on here for our love of cars and/or bikes and/or speed. So cut the crap.

That is the point, I wasnt making any claims about my own driving, he said he had never been in a street race despite posting he had on the previous page.

[s m]

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.

Yes, that's the way I saw the lineage



The Silvia line of cars ( which ended with the S15 as the S14/S15 had low sales other than in Japan ) were a sporty/fun/drifty coupe rather than the more powerful GT line of the Z cars

[RB Will]

Max_Torque said:

Except it doesn't, help that is........
The M3 CSL makes around 350bhp, the skoda something like 150bhp less. That means AT THE REAR WHEELS the M3 has something like 1/3 MORE tractive effort than the "more torquey" Skoda.

It helps more than having less (in that it decreases the gap between them) but yes you are correct in what you say. Well almost, the M3 has way more than 1/3 more tractive effort at the rear wheels compared to the FWD Skoda :P

What I meant by helping is that the Skoda has a nice broad spread of power all through its rev range making it easy to keep on the boil and giving near peak power most of the time about 2.2-4.7K rpm Surprisingly the VRS is also lighter than the M3 CSL (+110kg for a regular M3)
The M3 matches this power at about 4.5kRPM and it only breaks 300bhp (a useful amount more power) at about 6Krpm and peak power nearer 8k so the CSl needs to be pretty on the boil to be pulling hard on the Skoda and again there are not many people that drive that hard on the road.
The 911 with even less power would be even closer to the Skoda.

Its the flexibility / drivability of the Skoda compared to the M3 I was trying to get across, again badly.

J4CKO said:

he said he had never been in a street race despite posting he had on the previous page.

Making up your own story there, even in the bit you quoted me saying it says I was just following / chasing a friend or other road user. I repeat I have never been in a street race. You may want to look into what one is. A spirited drive out with friends certainly doesnt count if, it does I expect every last one of us is guilty.


Back to the thread

Here is a clip of old Scirocco 2.0 vs new 1.4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJtcTgBdLF8

Despite the older car having more power and about 250-300kg less weight the 2 cars are a dead heat in an acceleration test. So spread of power, drivetrain efficiency must be improved over the old car. Obviously comparing the newest Scirocco R or similar would have been a very one sided fight.

[14-7]

We have several quick and slow cars at my work.

On the quicker side we have a Vauxhall Insignia VXR, pretty quick with 320bhp however it doesn't out pace the X5 35d we have until 90 mph.

Modern cars are certainly getting quicker the problem is they flatter the st drivers in the bends because the car corners for them unlike older cars where you have to actually know how to drive and drive the car around the corner.

[s m]

RB Will said:

Back to the thread

Here is a clip of old Scirocco 2.0 vs new 1.4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJtcTgBdLF8

Despite the older car having more power and about 250-300kg less weight the 2 cars are a dead heat in an acceleration test. So spread of power, drivetrain efficiency must be improved over the old car. Obviously comparing the newest Scirocco R or similar would have been a very one sided fight.

Looking at the video, did the US spec 16v Sciroccos really have 175bhp? Or is that a modded one/strange US interpretation of horsepower?

[BricktopST205]

A 300ZX is faster than a 350Z, EP3 faster than FN2, E46 M3 CSL is faster around the ring than the E92 M3. Just to name a couple.

An Evo 6 or Sti Version 6 would most likely show a clean pair of heels to a Golf R or RS3 given tyres are the same.

I think the main problem is EU safety and emissions legislation. It put a real downer on car progression which only now are we really starting to see progression from the mid to early 00's.

[Mr Tidy]

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.

WOW, lovely collection you have there!

At a somewhat different level I would have to say YES, modern cars are significantly faster!

My personal experience is that back in the 80s I had a couple of Capri 2.8 Injections, but my current daily driver is a BMW 325ti Sport Compact (similarities are size, 6 cylinder N/A engine, RWD, 3 door hatch) but in any sort of "competition" the Capri wouldn't see which way the 325ti went!

Capri ran 205/60 x 13 tyres, BMW has 225/45 x 17 front and 245/40 x 17 rears - can't get a very big brake disc inside a 13 inch wheel either! Capri was great in it's time, but I wouldn't want one now (lucky as I couldn't afford one anyway)!

130i moved things on a bit further with loads more grunt, and current M135i is quicker still (but cheats a bit as it has a turbo)!

[ManOpener]

BricktopST205 said:

A 300ZX is faster than a 350Z

Is it? Four seconds slower around Tsukuba, which is the only comparable lap time I can actually find anywhere.

BricktopST205 said:

EP3 faster than FN2

Again, the FN2 was faster around the Top Gear Test Track and Oschersleben, the same around the Autozeitung test track and slightly slower around Hockenheim so I'm not sure it actually is.

BricktopST205 said:

E46 M3 CSL is faster around the ring than the E92 M3

But slower around it than an E92 M3 GTS, which I suppose makes a more direct comparison on account of them both being limited run, lightened and fettled versions of the M3.

[ORD]

ManOpener said:

But slower around it than an E92 M3 GTS, which I suppose makes a more direct comparison on account of them both being limited run, lightened and fettled versions of the M3.

Quite. Comparing the E92 boggo M3 to the previous hot M3 was a bit of a cheat.

I have no idea what the chap above is on about re slower cars being easier to drive fast because they have more torque low down the rev range. I dont find it any harder to drive at 6000 revs than 2000. The engine spins, not me.

[RB Will]

ORD said:

I have no idea what the chap above is on about re slower cars being easier to drive fast because they have more torque low down the rev range. I dont find it any harder to drive at 6000 revs than 2000. The engine spins, not me.

The car being slower is irrelevant, a car with a wide spread of torque is easier to drive faster on the road.
Keeping a car up in a power band of 6-8k rpm requires a lot more work with the gears adding more activity and thought to the driving. It also makes the car a bit less stable if you are not bang on with your up and down shifts, each gearchange takes time. The car itself is also more reactive when right up at high revs.
leads into all sorts of other things like unexpected items in the road eg sheep, with the big fat torque spread you can brake make your way around the sheep then press on again, with a high rever its brake go around the sheep try to go again realise you have to shift down 1-2 gears then go, same for things like unknown corners getting tighter etc

Go drive 2 cars with similar peak power but one a revvy NA motor and one with a turbo and see which is easier to drive/ keep the pace up in.

All of which can be very satisfying and enjoyable to do on a hoon but but in no reality is it easier.