Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
My 1999 Impreza could do 0-60 in 4.9's out of the factory and now is more than 100bhp up and with some modern changes like launch control but even without those changes it would still be far quicker than most of the performance cars out there.
So I'd say yes, its the same for many of the Japanese turbo cars and other sports cars.
So I'd say yes, its the same for many of the Japanese turbo cars and other sports cars.
Edited by AntiLagGC8 on Sunday 13th September 21:11
white_goodman said:
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
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,
If you consider that for example a 2007 Civic 1.8 with 143 hp weights nearly 350Kg MORE than the likes of the mk2 GTI, 205gt, even the E30 an 306s are barely over 1000kgs then you can appreciate why the civic is approximately 3 seconds slower to 60mph than 80s hot hatches!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
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,
However that only tells part of the story. Take a 205 GTI 1.9, 150hp per tonne, the same as a Civic Type R (fn2) and same as a Jaguar XF 3.0D
What's interesting though is how the 0-100mph times vary, 22.6sec for the GTI, 16.8 CTR, 19.8sec for the Jaguar.
As a result for the average traffic light grand prix, motorway slip road/dual carriage way blast at somewhat short of 100mph an old school hot hatch will not be embarrassed by modern run of the mill cars.
skeeterm5 said:
Lotus Carlton, yes it is still quick, very quick.
S
0-100 in 11 sec, still definitely quick but a lot has caught up, a 135i does it in 11.7, Golf R in 12, wonder what the nearest modern equivalent is to the Carlton.S
375 bhp used to be massive, massive power, a Sierra Cosworth was considered very fast with 204, which barely rates as a warm hatch now, 375 bhp us still a lot but but middling Mercs make that, not even AMG ones.
But the Lotus Carlton, would still prefer one.
swerni said:
my 2 tonne 4x4 will do that.
quick but it's hardly going to blow most things in to the weeds up to 80
The OP asked if the 90's cars are still quick. Are they still quick? The MR2 Rev3 Turbo at 5.5 and more like 5.1 is still quick. Modern cars off the roundabout are quick for sure, but certain (not all) 90's cars are still quick and considering you can keep the pounds in your pocket well worth investing in for a bargain ride with no real financial costs.quick but it's hardly going to blow most things in to the weeds up to 80
They will probably feel faster due to more noise - but sadly all of those are beaten and well beaten by diesels these days. Heck not even the fastest diesel is needed to do it.
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
Jimmyarm said:
'Classic' imprezas are very quick in the right hands.
Depends how you define 'quick' I guess
With regards to power, we have a lot more now as standard but the weight of cars is creeping up too.
I think weights have peaked and are now coming back down, Mazda are a good example of this, the new MX5 is not much heavier than the original, they have had all the easy wins on economy so now need to do the hard stuff like removing weight, the new Q7 is still a lump but its a shed load lighter than the first one.Depends how you define 'quick' I guess
With regards to power, we have a lot more now as standard but the weight of cars is creeping up too.
Also, cars have got bigger, a Golf is massive compared to a MK1 but they slot new models in underneath, for example the Up! is more mk1 Golf Sized, a KA is nearer to an old Fiesta.
aka_kerrly said:
If you consider that for example a 2007 Civic 1.8 with 143 hp weights nearly 350Kg MORE than the likes of the mk2 GTI, 205gt, even the E30 an 306s are barely over 1000kgs then you can appreciate why the civic is approximately 3 seconds slower to 60mph than 80s hot hatches!
However that only tells part of the story. Take a 205 GTI 1.9, 150hp per tonne, the same as a Civic Type R (fn2) and same as a Jaguar XF 3.0D
What's interesting though is how the 0-100mph times vary, 22.6sec for the GTI, 16.8 CTR, 19.8sec for the Jaguar.
As a result for the average traffic light grand prix, motorway slip road/dual carriage way blast at somewhat short of 100mph an old school hot hatch will not be embarrassed by modern run of the mill cars.
The real world 0-60 of the 1.9 GTI was 8s so it would be much slower than the Civic and even the 1.8 non R Civic would give it a run for its money.However that only tells part of the story. Take a 205 GTI 1.9, 150hp per tonne, the same as a Civic Type R (fn2) and same as a Jaguar XF 3.0D
What's interesting though is how the 0-100mph times vary, 22.6sec for the GTI, 16.8 CTR, 19.8sec for the Jaguar.
As a result for the average traffic light grand prix, motorway slip road/dual carriage way blast at somewhat short of 100mph an old school hot hatch will not be embarrassed by modern run of the mill cars.
Welshbeef said:
They will probably feel faster due to more noise - but sadly all of those are beaten and well beaten by diesels these days. Heck not even the fastest diesel is needed to do it.
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
How many 4 second diesel cars are there? How many could cross country like an EVO or one of the high spec Impreza's?11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
But most importantly how many are fun and engaging to drive?
AntiLagGC8 said:
Welshbeef said:
They will probably feel faster due to more noise - but sadly all of those are beaten and well beaten by diesels these days. Heck not even the fastest diesel is needed to do it.
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
How many 4 second diesel cars are there? How many could cross country like an EVO or one of the high spec Impreza's?11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
But most importantly how many are fun and engaging to drive?
But these are
Alpina D3
Alpina D5
BMW 335d
BMW 535d
BMW M550d
Audi SQ5
masserari Ghibli diesel
Audi Q7 V12
Audi A8 v8 TDI
VW Phantom 5.0ltr V8 TDI
Jag XF bi turbo TDI is close but not there
Many others are close too - however they sound crap and id say when I wrung the neck on a Clio Sport 172 that was raw fun but slower than the above still highly enjoyable.
Welshbeef said:
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
I can't find any times for the new M3/4 but the gap between the E92 M3 and LC from 0 - 140 mph is only about 2 seconds, and the LC went on to 175mph....But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
Also bear in mind that the LC has no launch control, or even traction control, and the closeness of the numbers is even more staggering.
Cornering however is a different thing all together, and I am not a driving god so any hot hatch is prolly quicker on any non straight road...... But I know who,is having more fun.
S
Engine and gearbox technology has moved on so fast that I think most new cars would be faster. However, as has been said, feel and fun have inevitably taken a hit.
I was pondering this today. Was in my old nail, a standard E36 328i. Not massively quick by today's standards but on a shortish section of dual carriageway it could have easily had me into 3 figures.
Speed is fine but I want to be able to fully use and exploit my car on the public road without losing my licence.
I was pondering this today. Was in my old nail, a standard E36 328i. Not massively quick by today's standards but on a shortish section of dual carriageway it could have easily had me into 3 figures.
Speed is fine but I want to be able to fully use and exploit my car on the public road without losing my licence.
J4CKO said:
I think weights have peaked and are now coming back down, Mazda are a good example of this, the new MX5 is not much heavier than the original, they have had all the easy wins on economy so now need to do the hard stuff like removing weight, the new Q7 is still a lump but its a shed load lighter than the first one.
Also, cars have got bigger, a Golf is massive compared to a MK1 but they slot new models in underneath, for example the Up! is more mk1 Golf Sized, a KA is nearer to an old Fiesta.
I hope so Also, cars have got bigger, a Golf is massive compared to a MK1 but they slot new models in underneath, for example the Up! is more mk1 Golf Sized, a KA is nearer to an old Fiesta.
I drive a one litre corsa c of 2000 vintage to work and back every day.
The newest corsa 1.4 feels considerably slower !
That is obviously at the bottom end of the car market but it is apparent across a lot of marque's.
Older focuses feel much quicker than 2005 onwards etc.
I think there has been a period of 5 to ten years that the more run of the mill stuff has become very bloated.
Welshbeef said:
AntiLagGC8 said:
Welshbeef said:
They will probably feel faster due to more noise - but sadly all of those are beaten and well beaten by diesels these days. Heck not even the fastest diesel is needed to do it.
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
How many 4 second diesel cars are there? How many could cross country like an EVO or one of the high spec Impreza's?11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
But most importantly how many are fun and engaging to drive?
But these are
Alpina D3
Alpina D5
BMW 335d
BMW 535d
BMW M550d
Audi SQ5
masserari Ghibli diesel
Audi Q7 V12
Audi A8 v8 TDI
VW Phantom 5.0ltr V8 TDI
Jag XF bi turbo TDI is close but not there
Many others are close too - however they sound crap and id say when I wrung the neck on a Clio Sport 172 that was raw fun but slower than the above still highly enjoyable.
It interesting you've found a few of the extreme cars to compare to the performance cars from the 1990's.
So I think we can conclude some of the 1990's performance cars are really very fast even by modern standards.
delta0 said:
The real world 0-60 of the 1.9 GTI was 8s so it would be much slower than the Civic and even the 1.8 non R Civic would give it a run for its money.
Autocar tested a 1.9GTI at 7.8 seconds and a FN2 Civic Type R at 6.4 seconds and a fn2 1.8 8.6sec ( I must confess I hastily noted the time for a 1.8 auto by mistake earlier >10.3sec hence my approximately 3 second comment)
A current BMW 320D does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds to, to me the idea of a 1986 hatch hatch being as quick as a 2015 BMW should be considered a positive for the car industry/technological progress and not a reason to doubt cars of yesteryear.
swerni said:
japaneseskoda said:
swerni said:
my 2 tonne 4x4 will do that.
quick but it's hardly going to blow most things in to the weeds up to 80
The OP asked if the 90's cars are still quick. Are they still quick? The MR2 Rev3 Turbo at 5.5 and more like 5.1 is still quick. Modern cars off the roundabout are quick for sure, but certain (not all) 90's cars are still quick and considering you can keep the pounds in your pocket well worth investing in for a bargain ride with no real financial costs.quick but it's hardly going to blow most things in to the weeds up to 80
"Seriously, off a roundabout and full on foot to the floor acceleration very little will outrun it in the legal zones"
I was pointing out that this was wrong, lots will
you mr2 is probably putting out less power now than a standard one did when it rolled out the factory
Edited by japaneseskoda on Sunday 13th September 22:02
Personally I'm not a fan of modern cars. Those that I've driven seemed devoid of character and driver involvement. Even the new fangled, 400bhp, all singing and dancing M3 I spent a few months in, was usually left at home in favour of my 1602 and it's heady 90 brake and 165 section tyres. Yes, modern stuff is invariably quicker, but I have more fun in cars from 25 years ago.
That said, you could always combine old with new and have the best of both worlds? A seventies car with modern fuel injection, brakes and suspension and 220+ bhp.
That said, you could always combine old with new and have the best of both worlds? A seventies car with modern fuel injection, brakes and suspension and 220+ bhp.
aka_kerrly said:
Autocar tested a 1.9GTI at 7.8 seconds and a FN2 Civic Type R at 6.4 seconds and a fn2 1.8 8.6sec
( I must confess I hastily noted the time for a 1.8 auto by mistake earlier >10.3sec hence my approximately 3 second comment)
A current BMW 320D does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds to, to me the idea of a 1986 hatch hatch being as quick as a 2015 BMW should be considered a positive for the car industry/technological progress and not a reason to doubt cars of yesteryear.
The GTI clearly not even a hot hatch by today's standard. It would be just into the warm territory.( I must confess I hastily noted the time for a 1.8 auto by mistake earlier >10.3sec hence my approximately 3 second comment)
A current BMW 320D does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds to, to me the idea of a 1986 hatch hatch being as quick as a 2015 BMW should be considered a positive for the car industry/technological progress and not a reason to doubt cars of yesteryear.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff