Are modern cars really faster than old ones?

[otolith]

That's an argument about the width of the power band, not the revs at which it sits. Many cars which deliver their power at low revs have a relatively narrow power band, and some which will rev highly do not.

[ORD]

Precisely. Most NA petrol cars with decent power also have a decent power band - it just starts higher up the rev range.

[Some Gump]

I have no idea why you're questioning RBWill. You are all probably driving round the Evo triangle granny shifting not double clutching like you should. You're all lucky that hundred shot of NOS didn't blow the welds on the intake.

[Alex]

An interesting comparison:

'66 Corvette vs Toyota Camry - Classic American Sports Car Against a Modern Midsize Sedan

[Dblue]

300bhp/ton said:

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!!!

I understand the case you are trying to make but there was for example a Focus ST that was a contemporary of the Mk1 RS. it had 170bhp IIRC and was therefore quite a bit slower than todays equivalent. As mentioned above the new RS blows the original into the weeds in performance terms.

Your other example together with your MX5 analogy concentrates on modern cars developed specifically without outright speed being the priority. The reason the original Impreza was even as fast as it was is because it was turbocharged and had substantially more torque. there is of course a modern WRX which makes a much more meaningful comparison.

To really put the boot in why don't you pick examples of the reverse being true of supposedly fast icons of the past being utterly hammered by comparatively mundane modern cars. The Sierra Cosworth for example would struggle to contain a Fiesta ST with a mountune kit. The 205 GTi 1.9 with 130 bhp made 60 in 7.8s, most turbodiesel rep cars would leave it for dead let alone the 208GTi Edition 30 which is a second and a half quicker to 60.

A Ferrari 355 had 385bhp and 0.60 in around 4.6s in the mid 90s, now you can buy an Audi A3 that is faster than that.Modern cars are undeniably much faster.

[s m]

Alex said:

An interesting comparison:

'66 Corvette vs Toyota Camry - Classic American Sports Car Against a Modern Midsize Sedan

Not as many years separate these two

VXR8 vs Lotus Carlton

[RB Will]

otolith said:

That's an argument about the width of the power band, not the revs at which it sits.

Its a bit of both. Obviously the wider the powerband the better but I would suggest in practice it matters where it is too. I would suggest that in the real world even with enthusiastic drivers, cars with their powerband set lower are driven quicker and smoother easier than high revving cars. Becomes a bit more irrelevant on a racetrack when you are going at 9/10ths
I know how you all love my personal anecdotes but speaking from my own experience:
Skoda 184bhp - powerband roughly 2.5-4.5k rpm
Corolla 189bhp - powerband 6.2-8.2k rpm

The Skoda is soo much easier to drive quickly.

[GreenArrow]

This is an interesting question and one I have often pondered.

If you take two cars with similar power to weight ratios, one old and new with similar power to weight ratios, I think in most cases the new one will be faster around a track, because the newer car generally has bigger wheels/tyres and springs and dampers which are stiffer and therefore allow the car to lap faster, as the body is kept in check. Also modern cars probably have better brakes.

That said, I think chassis design is a compromise and modern cars ride way too stiffly.

With increasing vehicle girth etc and suspensions that don't ride bumps as well as of old, I reckon something like a relatively softly sprung Saxo VTS or similar would be faster than many modern equivalents down a very bumpy and fairly narrow and twisty B Road.

I had a copy of 1998 performance car hot hatch of all time special and a Clio Williams was the quickest of all down the old B660 or whatever they used simply due to its size and road biased damping. I recall that the brilliant 306 GTI-6 struggled on the test because it was wider and heavier than the older nimbler GTIs....

Hope that's a more thoughtful answer to the OPs question!!!

[iloveboost]

Alex said:

An interesting comparison:

'66 Corvette vs Toyota Camry - Classic American Sports Car Against a Modern Midsize Sedan

Well that's the point isn't it? If you like driving you want an experience and stuff to do, not just easy speed. If you want a rush with no skill take up base jumping.

[otolith]

RB Will said:

Its a bit of both. Obviously the wider the powerband the better but I would suggest in practice it matters where it is too. I would suggest that in the real world even with enthusiastic drivers, cars with their powerband set lower are driven quicker and smoother easier than high revving cars. Becomes a bit more irrelevant on a racetrack when you are going at 9/10ths
I know how you all love my personal anecdotes but speaking from my own experience:
Skoda 184bhp - powerband roughly 2.5-4.5k rpm
Corolla 189bhp - powerband 6.2-8.2k rpm

The Skoda is soo much easier to drive quickly.

I've got the same engine as the Corolla in my Elise. Dragging so little weight, it's not such a problem, even changing up at 6000rpm still gets it to 60 in under 7 seconds, but I would imagine it's a bit of a pain in the arse in a heavy car. It's massively inferior in that respect to other high revving engines I've had including the Honda K20A and Mazda Renesis. Or our latest toy, the BMW S54. The Toyota unit is basically every cliché about Honda VTEC made real. It certainly isn't the best example of a high-revving car with a broad power band.

[Bill]

iloveboost said:

If you want a rush with no skill take up base jumping.

At risk of further derailing the thread, I think bungee jumping is a better analogy.

[B'stard Child]

s m said:

Alex said:

An interesting comparison:

'66 Corvette vs Toyota Camry - Classic American Sports Car Against a Modern Midsize Sedan

Not as many years separate these two

VXR8 vs Lotus Carlton

Pretty sure at the time of that test the LC wasn't running at full fettle (approx half the boost available) but hey would Vauxhall want the LC to give the new kid on the block (VXR8) a bloody nose - probably not......

[s m]

B'stard Child said:

Pretty sure at the time of that test the LC wasn't running at full fettle (approx half the boost available) but hey would Vauxhall want the LC to give the new kid on the block (VXR8) a bloody nose - probably not......

A similar one here Ian

VXR8 vs Lotus Carlton ( times at end )

As you say, I remember that the Heritage car definitely had some sort of power issue for a good while ( as per the Total Vauxhall runway test )

[B'stard Child]

s m said:

B'stard Child said:

Pretty sure at the time of that test the LC wasn't running at full fettle (approx half the boost available) but hey would Vauxhall want the LC to give the new kid on the block (VXR8) a bloody nose - probably not......

A similar one here Ian

VXR8 vs Lotus Carlton ( times at end )

As you say, I remember that the Heritage car definitely had some sort of power issue for a good while ( as per the Total Vauxhall runway test )

There are several reasons that an LC can be down on boost and it's not always easy to spot - most don't have a boost indicator unless you drive one to the max performance available it's not even easy to tell it's sluggish unless you drive a good one back to back.

Mine felt sluggish when I put it back on the road 2 years ago - initially I put it down to "rose tinted spectacles" and several years off the road and nothing was wrong with diagnostics on Tech 1. It's first journey after a last min MOT was to the Le Mans Classic and I was more keen to get there and back without using a recovery truck.

It was only when I started data logging that I could see clearly it had low boost issues and then I could track down the cause.

The ECU will save the engine by shutting it down and registering fault codes in the case of over boost but it doesn't trigger any codes if it's under boosting

[DugyC]

AntiLagGC8 said:

delta0 said:

AntiLagGC8 said:

Max_Torque said:

Here are two lists:

List 1. The things that make a modern car potentially faster:

1) More power
2) Better brakes
3) Better suspension (roll control, kinematics, damping, Stiffness etc etc)
4) More gears and much faster shifting
5) Stiffer bodyshell
6) Chassis Electronic Feature Content (ABS, DSC, brake steer, E diffs etc)
7) Much wider power band (high torque at low engine speed)
8) Better aerodynamics (less drag, lower lift)
9) Easier / less physical to drive (powersteer etc)
10) Significantly wider tyres which develop high grip through modern Silica enhanced compounds
11) Improved durability at high load (ie engines don't go "bang" like they used too etc


List 2. The things that make a modern car potentially slower:

1) Bit heavier.

By a bit heavier, presumably you mean a lot heavier.

I did laugh a little at point 11. Engines that don't go bang, what about turbo's and DPF's? Lots of modern cars have serious reliability issues and things often do go bang!

My RB5 is a 1200kg and is arguably a hot hatch in today's parlance. It was a Prodrive WR model and originally made 237bhp on the wrong fuel (they tested on 95 and the car was mapped from factory for 97) and a little over 250bhp on the correct fuel. It could achieve 0-60 in 4.9's and has truly incredible grip in all conditions.

How many modern hot hatches can outperform the car in a drag race to the obligatory 60 (the usual hot hatch measure) or on a typical rough British B road?

Colin Chapman said:

Adding power makes you faster on the straights; subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere

Just picking out the very common hot hatch the Golf R will do 0-60 in 4.7 and that is normally a conservative number. Remap and you get a lot more too. What is the 30-70 of your RB5?

I have no idea as my RB5 is fully forged and should be around 350bhp. My car is a very long way from standard.

I can out drag a Golf R from 30mph upwards on an airfield.

Just to cover this one off with the stats...

Would appear a standard 1999 RB5 WR Sport is only a tenth short of a new Golf R from 30-70 (4.4 v's 4.3). There is not much that will hold onto the old RB5 upto 30 (1.5secs), most 300+bhp hot hatches today will be competitive within legal speed limits, but then the RB5 is left behind once you enter licence losing territory as the 100+ extra hp the new cars have takes over.

Often wondered how it would do around the Top Gear track, but feel it probably would be quite embarrassing without all the electronics that the new cars have to let any old monkey drive them fast...

Edited by DugyC on Tuesday 22 September 12:00

[liner33]

BricktopST205 said:

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.

I think the Evo 6 had smaller tyres than the Golf R certainly 17" wheels but yes it would show a set of heels to the R in terms of sprints its half a second quicker to 60 than the DSG and more for the stick (4.4 for the Evo, 5.1 for the manual Golf)

But the Golf wont fall apart or make you feel like you are in a bean can

[RB Will]

other thing to consider with a golf R is that especially with DSG it will bang out 4.5-5 sec 0-60 all day long to do the same in a scoob or evo you are looking at serious wear on the drivetrain. I have a 400+bhp Impreza and I reckon 8 times out of 10 a golf R would beat me off the line as I'm not willing to risk the clutch, diffs and gearbox too much and if I dont get the revs right and bog down I have some monumental turbo lag to worry about

[clarki]

The evos were a lot trickier to get off the line than a dsg'd golf though.