Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[Welshbeef]

TVRJAS said:

These are quite entertaining tests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EUaPlGlSIk

There are many tests in the series,this was just the 1st one in my youtube history.

Golf Mk2 GTI 16v humbled by a Golf Bluemotion 2.0TDi Mk7.

E30 M3 2.3 Rivello just beats the F30 320d on the 1/4 mile by 0.3 seconds close but not humbled.

[LuS1fer]

I had a Renault 5 GT Turbo back in the early 90s and the combination of flyweight, great brakes and ability to literally fly round corners on 3 wheels made it an urban weapon that a lardy modern diesel could never equal. It felt fast and it was fast. 0-60 was mid 7s on a good day but mine had a little boost kit that allegedly gave it 150hp from the standard 115.

As for keeping a 320d honest, I had a nice jaunt behind a 320d a couple of years back in my fairly crappy '96 Golf GTI Mk 3 with it's mediocre 115bhp. Once you're up and in the groove, overall power is less of a factor and differences between most cars A to B is not that great.

[Poopipe]

Hol said:

If I remember correctly, the detuned 1999 UK2000 version of the impreza still hit 0-60 in 5.3 or 5.4 seconds?

Where as the 1999 Sti Type R/RA hit 0-60 in 4.3 Seconds and the V5/6 EVO's was just a little slower.

Both of those numbers are for boggo standard cars and both stack up quite well to the modern 2.0turbo AWD alternatives 16 years on: (Golf R, AMG A45, RS3, etc..)

The issue with the imprezas - especially the ra is that once you hit higher speeds the performance really starts to tail off - the 0-100 on a standard 95 STi ra is 12 seconds which for a car that hits 60 in 4.3 is pretty sluggish (and a good reason not to take on the likes of an e9x m3).

Splendid B Road weapons but up against a large engined repmobile on a motorway theyre left somewhat wanting.

I know what id rather have though

[CRA1G]

I agree very much with the the perception in what's statistically quick and what actually feels quick..big difference.. The Z3MC feels so much quicker than the E36 M3 but official figures only put them a fraction of a second apart.. The i8 is near on a full second quicker 0/60 than both but the technology doesn't seem to make it feel any quicker because it easier to get there without the drama..! And that's why i still enjoy driving all of them.. and not forgetting the old 286 BHP 840 sport..

[Le Mans Visitor]

zygalski said:

My Astra regularly surpises members of the Audi/BMW/VW 2.0l hire purchase repmobile club.
Up my backside in a light traffic, wait for it to clear, floor it & pull in to the left hand lane & watch the intense frustration in the rear view mirror as the tailgater makes no progress whatsoever
135mph & 0-60 was had in 7.0 by some testers back in the day.

I do exactly the same in my GTE!

[white_goodman]

TVRJAS said:

These are quite entertaining tests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EUaPlGlSIk

There are many tests in the series,this was just the 1st one in my youtube history.

Good to see the "heroes" winning but in most cases not by much. I guess the Golf wasn't that shocking. More power (150bhp?) and a lot more torque. What surprised me was XR2i vs. Fiesta Ecoboost. I really thought that the Ecoboost would win. Was it the 123bhp version (no sound on my computer)?

[300bhp/ton]

doogz said:

Loads.

Seriously, there are fking tonnes of them about here.

There are 3 on my street. I see 2 in the work car park every morning.

Don't see 135is that often, but there seems to be a disproportionately high amount of Golf Rs about here.

We must live in very different places then. None at my work. And I didn't see a single one on the 1h 20min drive home.

[AntiLagGC8]

TommoAE86 said:

ikarl said:

90's performance cars;

E36 M3
200sx turbo
Mr2 turbo
300zx tt
Supra tt
3000gto
944 turbo
Impreza
Evo

Still pretty quick IMO

Why no Skyline?

Agree with other's though, modern stuff is vastly quicker. The much lauded and mentioned Golf R especially, fabulously quick - zero emotion (the one I tried was). I went for the older car and don't regret it for an instant.

I'm not sure where 'vastly quicker' comes from bud? I can point you at several 1990's cars than can outrun the Golf R. As an example the STi Type R did it in 4.6's and the P1 4.7's. They are also far quicker across country thanks to their low body weight. The STi Type RA is simply savage across country thanks to its stripped out configuration and short ratio gear box. I've spent time in both the Golf R and the RA and they are brilliant for different reasons but the Type RA is a brute up to about 120mph and then it reaches it (gearing) limit shortly afterwards.

I actually rate the Golf R because its quick, competent, looks good and well spec'd and to be fair to the Golf, the RA is a hardcore stripped out car and the Golf is a very quick but also comfortable car than can be used for any purpose.

[plenty]

AntiLagGC8 said:

I'm not sure where 'vastly quicker' comes from bud? I can point you at several 1990's cars than can outrun the Golf R. As an example the STi Type R did it in 4.6's and the P1 4.7's. They are also far quicker across country thanks to their low body weight. The STi Type RA is simply savage across country thanks to its stripped out configuration and short ratio gear box. I've spent time in both the Golf R and the RA and they are brilliant for different reasons but the Type RA is a brute up to about 120mph and then it reaches it (gearing) limit shortly afterwards.

I have driven many thousands of miles in Imprezas, in convoy with Golf Rs piloted by drivers of a comparable level of skill and experience to myself. (How do I know? We've driven together for years, in a variety of cars, and know each others' abilities well.)

As much as I love my v5 Type RA it simply will not keep up with a Golf R at full chat...the brakes are too weak, and the limits too low. Furthermore when really hooning in the right place at the right time it is too easy to run out of gears in an RA - it really needs a sixth (in fact the 1-5 ratios of the Subaru JDM six-speed are almost identical to the RA ratios).

My 2004 JDM on the other hand is a better match for the R, its twin scroll offering far superior power delivery for the road and the stiffer shell offering much higher adhesion limits far outweighing any weight penalty. Even still I have to work extremely hard to stay in touch with an R and I certainly cannot pull a gap on one, especially a DSG-equipped car - do not under-estimate how much of a performance advantage the DSG offers.

[Welshbeef]

plenty said:

I have driven many thousands of miles in Imprezas, in convoy with Golf Rs piloted by drivers of a comparable level of skill and experience to myself. (How do I know? We've driven together for years, in a variety of cars, and know each others' abilities well.)

As much as I love my v5 Type RA it simply will not keep up with a Golf R at full chat...the brakes are too weak, and the limits too low. Furthermore when really hooning in the right place at the right time it is too easy to run out of gears in an RA - it really needs a sixth (in fact the 1-5 ratios of the Subaru JDM six-speed are almost identical to the RA ratios).

My 2004 JDM on the other hand is a better match for the R, its twin scroll offering far superior power delivery for the road and the stiffer shell offering much higher adhesion limits far outweighing any weight penalty. Even still I have to work extremely hard to stay in touch with an R and I certainly cannot pull a gap on one, especially a DSG-equipped car - do not under-estimate how much of a performance advantage the DSG offers.

How often do you break 120mph on the UK public roads?

[AntiLagGC8]

plenty said:

AntiLagGC8 said:

I'm not sure where 'vastly quicker' comes from bud? I can point you at several 1990's cars than can outrun the Golf R. As an example the STi Type R did it in 4.6's and the P1 4.7's. They are also far quicker across country thanks to their low body weight. The STi Type RA is simply savage across country thanks to its stripped out configuration and short ratio gear box. I've spent time in both the Golf R and the RA and they are brilliant for different reasons but the Type RA is a brute up to about 120mph and then it reaches it (gearing) limit shortly afterwards.

I have driven many thousands of miles in Imprezas, in convoy with Golf Rs piloted by drivers of a comparable level of skill and experience to myself. (How do I know? We've driven together for years, in a variety of cars, and know each others' abilities well.)

As much as I love my v5 Type RA it simply will not keep up with a Golf R at full chat...the brakes are too weak, and the limits too low. Furthermore when really hooning in the right place at the right time it is too easy to run out of gears in an RA - it really needs a sixth (in fact the 1-5 ratios of the Subaru JDM six-speed are almost identical to the RA ratios).

My 2004 JDM on the other hand is a better match for the R, its twin scroll offering far superior power delivery for the road and the stiffer shell offering much higher adhesion limits far outweighing any weight penalty. Even still I have to work extremely hard to stay in touch with an R and I certainly cannot pull a gap on one, especially a DSG-equipped car - do not under-estimate how much of a performance advantage the DSG offers.

Interesting and I do agree about the top gear although you're not going to be over that speed very often (and hopefully only on track days!). The DSG point is another I agree with however the Golf suffers a large weight penalty for these additions. (1400kg vs 1250kg)

I'm in a similar position, I own an Impreza and have spent a lot of time in a RA although my experience is very different. The RA was able to hustle the Golf and when out in front get away albeit not by a massive amount although both and mine and your experiences are based on varied conditioned and different (skilled?) drivers.

Is you RA factory standard? I'm just wondering if the difference is in age? The one I've spent time out in has had a full rebuild about 2 1/2 years ago and is very tight. There are only a few minor changes to his, nothing very much really.

My Classic has a twin scroll (VF37) among other things and spools very quickly and makes just shy of 350bhp but isn't fair to compare as its a moderately modified car.

A well piloted classic with some fairly low cost mods is still very fast indeed against modern cars.

[sjabrown]

My 1.6 205 gti (not modified) is quicker round the B863 Kinlochring than my 2.0 diesel Passat. I haven't been able to compare with a modern 'performance' car. The 205 has the advantage of being narrow compared to most modern stuff so it's much easier to place and thread through the bends.

[TVRJAS]

white_goodman said:

Good to see the "heroes" winning but in most cases not by much. I guess the Golf wasn't that shocking. More power (150bhp?) and a lot more torque. What surprised me was XR2i vs. Fiesta Ecoboost. I really thought that the Ecoboost would win. Was it the 123bhp version (no sound on my computer)?

The XR2 has 105hp and the Fiesta is a 1.0L 3 cylinder turbo 125hp

Edited if you still haven't got any sound... He says "it's all the start... "my start was awful"

Edited by TVRJAS on Monday 14th September 22:43

[plenty]

AntiLagGC8 said:

A well piloted classic with some fairly low cost mods is still very fast indeed against modern cars.

Most definitely

Just wanted to make the observation that a Golf R is really a very fast car indeed when at the extreme of the performance envelope.

To add also, ESP on modern cars makes their full performance much easier to access without the need for god-like driving skills.

[interloper]

aka_kerrly said:

How about this, a Ferrari F40 does 30mph-70mph in 2.8 seconds the BMW M4 3.5 seconds, for perspective a 2001 BMW M5 takes 4.8 seconds, a 2013 BMW 320D takes just under 8 seconds.

Fastlane pegged the F40 AT 2.7secs 30 to 70, that 0.1 makes all the difference! Whilst we are comparing, the F40 hit 150mph in 16.2 seconds from a stand still, does anyone have a figure for the M4?

[aka_kerrly]

interloper said:

Fastlane pegged the F40 AT 2.7secs 30 to 70, that 0.1 makes all the difference! Whilst we are comparing, the F40 hit 150mph in 16.2 seconds from a stand still, does anyone have a figure for the M4?

As it happens yes, Autocar timed a M4 0-150mph @ 20.6 seconds. The F40 is already over half a second ahead by 100mph which demonstrates quite well how the BMW gains a traction/launch advantage but starts losing ground soon after.

[thegreenhell]

TVRJAS said:

These are quite entertaining tests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EUaPlGlSIk

There are many tests in the series,this was just the 1st one in my youtube history.

They've done a few proper track battles as well as those drag races:

1991 Audi Ur-Quattro 20v vs 2013 Audi A1 quattro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoMaTl1zuoc
2004 BMW M3 CSL vs 2013 BMW M235i: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8amcRnmYfM
1999 Nissan Skyline R34 vs 2015 Nissan GT-R: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZROiJmrrjFc

[GC8]

Impreza, not Imprezza.

[Welshbeef]

Is a 7 second 1990's car quick today? / well a 320d or similar is that kind of speed so provided your happy to call the modern stuff quick too then fine.


Personally I don't think the 320d is quick - it's perfectly fine but it is not quick.

Is the new quick the Focus RS/M135i/S3/335d is that the new level of quick with slower being warm?

[ZX10R NIN]

white_goodman said:

This isn't intended to be another "fings ain't what they used to be" style thread but I'm just thinking of some of the "older" performance cars that my friends and I owned back in the day in our early 20s such as:

205/309 GTis
306 Rallye/GTi-6
Primera eGTs
Civic 1.6i-16
BMW 325is (E30)
Volvo 440 Turbo
Corrado VR6s

They all felt pretty bloody quick back in the day to be honest but the argument I hear trotted out nowadays is that none of these would see which way a modern diesel repmobile went and the relatively modest power and torque outputs would seem to support that.

Even my modern "mid-spec" Civic puts out 143bhp from its 1.8 litre petrol engine (more than a 205/309 GTi, Golf GTi 16v or Renault Clio/19 16v) but I can't say it feels that quick, whereas those cars did. Even some modern cars with 200bhp+ don't necessarily feel that quick.

So, I guess what I'm asking is, would a well-driven 205 GTi/Golf GTi 16v still be able to keep say a modern 320d "honest" cross country or would they really not see which way it went.

Are these cars really that slow by today's standards or did lighter weight, less refinement and gearing more geared towards performance rather than fuel economy and emissions "fool" us into thinking that they were a lot quicker than they were?

It all depends on if you're talking about cars that have been left standard or not, for example I have a mate with a GTI-6 with Cams Throttle Bodies upgraded Suspension & Brakes along with bigger wheels & modern tyres all in all the car owes him 12k but inside he has Bluetooth DAB etc he will happily give a modern hot hatch hell.

Also because older cars have an exhaust/induction noise as well as less sound deadening they also felt & sounded faster because you were made more aware of you rise in speed than you would do in a newer cars.