Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[FerdiZ28]

japaneseskoda said:

But it is still quick. Low mileage at 68,000 miles (like many Japanese imports) and it blows many modern things like Meganes and Civic Type R's away. For sure it's nothing compared to an M3 or 135 etc, but compared to modern hottish hatches it can stand with the most. Same applies to many 90's cars.

Edited by japaneseskoda on Sunday 13th September 22:02

Awful car though, if we are honest, isnt it a bit of an embarrassment?

[SonicShadow]

JockySteer said:

Makes it irrelevant then, I'll just whack a superchager on the SLK (if I was made of money) and keep the cycle going!

And for that money, Mr. MR2 owner can rebuild the engine with forged internals and some other nice bits and really turn the boost up

[Barronmr]

JockySteer said:

Makes it irrelevant then, I'll just whack a superchager on the SLK (if I was made of money) and keep the cycle going!

Not as irrelevant as comparing stock for stock, when a good portion of MR2 Turbo's you'll meet on the road are modified.

But lets not dwell on the details. You have a very nice car.

[JockySteer]

Barronmr said:

JockySteer said:

Makes it irrelevant then, I'll just whack a superchager on the SLK (if I was made of money) and keep the cycle going!

Not as irrelevant as comparing stock for stock, when a good portion of MR2 Turbo's you'll meet on the road are modified.

But lets not dwell on the details. You have a very nice car.

Not looking for praise, but thank you anyway mate I was just confused as I thought we were talking stock for stock.

[JockySteer]

SonicShadow said:

JockySteer said:

Makes it irrelevant then, I'll just whack a superchager on the SLK (if I was made of money) and keep the cycle going!

And for that money, Mr. MR2 owner can rebuild the engine with forged internals and some other nice bits and really turn the boost up

And break down after one run

[SonicShadow]

JockySteer said:

And break down after one run

Not really - the point of using forged internals is you can run higher boost levels safely.

[AntiLagGC8]

s m said:

neil1jnr said:

I think in short the answer is yes. Of course there are 90's cars you could drive today and are quick. Are 90's cars as quick as modern ones? That is a tough one to answer and it isn't going to be yes or no.

Take the Golf R and an Evo VI for example, both very similar on paper. I have driven the Golf and I have recently acquired the Evo. My money would go on the Evo but I don't think the Golf would be far behind. With that in mind I'd say that yes 90's cars are still quick but I think the modern cars are much more confidence inspiring and allow the average driver to push them harder than they would an older car.

Regardless of what is quicker, I know which one I'd chose to go for a blast in and it isn't the German one!

That's the comparison I was thinking of as well Neil, a few posts above yours.

I wondered if the sedate looking Golf could match or beat the old EVO 6 from the late 90s.

It weighed in at 1365kg and had around 280bhp whereas the 3-door Golf R with DSG tipped the scales 35kg heavier as specced below
The Golf was figured on a wet day but even with the DSG shifting it couldn't quite match the in-gear times - the Golf has a 6 speeder but even so, the first 4 gears in both are close enough in max speed to make a comparison

Interior noise at full acceleration and average fuel economy are the big gains for the Golf though ( the touring route mpg wasn't as marked although not sure if it has remained the same )

Interesting thanks for posting!

The EVO pulls out a pretty decent lead to 100mph and is just under half a second faster to 60mph so it should be able to pull away in a straight line but on the track the gap maybe smaller coming out of corners although I'd put a wager on the EVO being faster around a twisty track.

[GC8]

Hol said:

GC8 said:

Classics feel faster because theyre insubstantial compared to New Age cars.

When the new age came out back in 2001, it was estimated by most owners on SN that you needed an extra 30bhp for like-to-like acceleration, due to the extra weight over the classic.

They feel faster, because they are lighter.

And because theyre made out of tin foil! The extra weight added a great deal of structural integrity and the grown-up New Age cars a very different.

[Hol]

GC8 said:

Hol said:

GC8 said:

Classics feel faster because theyre insubstantial compared to New Age cars.

When the new age came out back in 2001, it was estimated by most owners on SN that you needed an extra 30bhp for like-to-like acceleration, due to the extra weight over the classic.

They feel faster, because they are lighter.

And because theyre made out of tin foil! The extra weight added a great deal of structural integrity and the grown-up New Age cars a very different.

Hardly,

[white_goodman]

Thanks for all the replies. It has been an interesting read. Of course the thread title should probably have read "do 1990s "performance" cars still FEEL quick?" because obviously the figures suggest that new performance cars are quicker.

I haven't driven a 1990s performance car since I sold my Corrado VR6 in 2007. Jumping into something now that was considered quick back in the day, Sierra Cosworth or Delta Integrale perhaps, would they still feel quick or would they feel slow i.e. would one wonder what the fuss was all about. These cars certainly used to feel quick and the road network hasn't changed that much but probably busier if anything, so shouldn't they still feel quick?

[interloper]

Surely the answer will depend on what you drive currently and which 90s car you then go and try out (also assuming that car performs like it was fresh out of the box).

For instance if you jump out of a 180bhp diesel BMW 3 series and jump behind the wheel of a Sierra Sapphire Cosworth, I reckon the Ford will feel a lot quicker even if on paper there isn't really that much in it.

[Speedracer329]

ikarl said:

Barronmr said:

Can't a Rev3 Ct20b do over 300hp?

Yup, as I said on a previous post, mine certainly did

ikarl said:

To add something to this, my old rev3 turbo had an exhaust/filter/bigger intercooler and Dastek unichip. Dastek, not renowned as the best dyno for accuracy but apparently had 313bhp. It was certainly very very quick! My best 1/4 mile time at Crail was 13.1 sec

Bit of a difference achieving 300hp between rev2-rev3

I don't give a stuff if 90's cars are slower or quicker, but they certainly had more character.
On the subject of MR2's, two things. I had a Rev2 with a tad over 300bhp and I wouldn't have called it highly modified. CT20b turbo, Apexi boost controller and a Celica charge cooler, and with a bit of practice,[well a lot], could consistently do 12.9's at Santa Pod.
Also, a guy I knew through IMOC, called Luke, took his newly purchased Rev3, stock and with Nankangs on the rears, very annoyingly did a 12.9 on his first set of runs, so yes a stock Rev3 was quick then and quick now.

[s m]

interloper said:

Surely the answer will depend on what you drive currently and which 90s car you then go and try out (also assuming that car performs like it was fresh out of the box).

For instance if you jump out of a 180bhp diesel BMW 3 series and jump behind the wheel of a Sierra Sapphire Cosworth, I reckon the Ford will feel a lot quicker even if on paper there isn't really that much in it.

^
This.

If you drive a new M4 or C63 AMG you probably won't find they 'feel' that quick .

If you're used to a 320d like mentioned above I think you will find the Sierra 'feels' quick by comparison. If you're reasonably proficient and launch both cars hard the Sierra is still 2 seconds quicker to 60 and 5 seconds faster to the ton - 10 seconds faster to 120 - that's a difference you can notice - if it only matched the modern BMW it would still 'feel' quicker in my opinion. Truth is, apart from very low speeds or top gear slog offs, the Ford is faster over a given increment if you can operate a gearbox

Edited by s m on Monday 21st September 23:31

[200Plus Club]

I've just sold my 1980s Sunbeam Lotus and although not as fast on paper as a modern Golf R or whatever i know which was more fun down country lanes and to 100mph which realistically is as fast as anyone gets to on occasions these days. 60 in about 7s but instant grunt in 3rd and 4th with no lag.
Its not just about power and paper figures, bring back light weight instant throttle response and the sound of carbs at full chat! :-)
You'd have had to be very brave or risk taking to overtake the old bus on some nice windy lanes.

I can remember test driving a saphire cossie at well lane turbos in the day (prob mid 90s) and thinking it was a bag of crap right until the point the turbo got going and all hell broke loose. 300bhp back then was the business, lag what lag!

[s m]

200Plus Club said:

I've just sold my 1980s Sunbeam Lotus and although not as fast on paper as a modern Golf R or whatever i know which was more fun down country lanes and to 100mph which realistically is as fast as anyone gets to on occasions these days. 60 in about 7s but instant grunt in 3rd and 4th with no lag.
Its not just about power and paper figures, bring back light weight instant throttle response and the sound of carbs at full chat! :-)
You'd have had to be very brave or risk taking to overtake the old bus on some nice windy lanes.

I can remember test driving a saphire cossie at well lane turbos in the day (prob mid 90s) and thinking it was a bag of crap right until the point the turbo got going and all hell broke loose. 300bhp back then was the business, lag what lag!

Although, for the terms of strict comparison, that was about 50% more power than standard
As standard, they were about 130i BMW performance in a straight line

[matsoc]

white_goodman said:

Thanks for all the replies. It has been an interesting read. Of course the thread title should probably have read "do 1990s "performance" cars still FEEL quick?" because obviously the figures suggest that new performance cars are quicker.

I haven't driven a 1990s performance car since I sold my Corrado VR6 in 2007. Jumping into something now that was considered quick back in the day, Sierra Cosworth or Delta Integrale perhaps, would they still feel quick or would they feel slow i.e. would one wonder what the fuss was all about. These cars certainly used to feel quick and the road network hasn't changed that much but probably busier if anything, so shouldn't they still feel quick?

The Delta is a car dating back to 1979 but the Integrale is still quite unique in the way it drives now but certainly has lost a bit that sense of "quickness" some time ago. Up to the end of the 90s at least here in Italy there wasn't a large diffusion of the Japanese Impreza and EVOs and the widespread MK4 Golf Gti was not a brisk car. But a bit later the wave arrived and the revised Impreza STI with 265 ps sold in good numbers followed by the more expensive but even quicker EVOs.

There is still a decent number of Integrale fans that they still like to drive them around a lot in my area near Turin and even if I don't own a car anymore since a decade I still met some of them. The thrust still feels punchy enhanced by the short gearing but a Mini Cooper S JCW (not the latest, the one with the 1.6 turbo engine) resulted a lot faster, especially past 50mph.

[s m]

matsoc said:

white_goodman said:

Thanks for all the replies. It has been an interesting read. Of course the thread title should probably have read "do 1990s "performance" cars still FEEL quick?" because obviously the figures suggest that new performance cars are quicker.

I haven't driven a 1990s performance car since I sold my Corrado VR6 in 2007. Jumping into something now that was considered quick back in the day, Sierra Cosworth or Delta Integrale perhaps, would they still feel quick or would they feel slow i.e. would one wonder what the fuss was all about. These cars certainly used to feel quick and the road network hasn't changed that much but probably busier if anything, so shouldn't they still feel quick?

The Delta is a car dating back to 1979 but the Integrale is still quite unique in the way it drives now but certainly has lost a bit that sense of "quickness" some time ago. Up to the end of the 90s at least here in Italy there wasn't a large diffusion of the Japanese Impreza and EVOs and the widespread MK4 Golf Gti was not a brisk car. But a bit later the wave arrived and the revised Impreza STI with 265 ps sold in good numbers followed by the more expensive but even quicker EVOs.

There is still a decent number of Integrale fans that they still like to drive them around a lot in my area near Turin and even if I don't own a car anymore since a decade I still met some of them. The thrust still feels punchy enhanced by the short gearing but a Mini Cooper S JCW (not the latest, the one with the 1.6 turbo engine) resulted a lot faster, especially past 50mph.

As an aside, I was at the Gardaland theme park a couple of weeks back and there was a nice Integrale parked by the entrance - very much still a "hero" car over there in Italy

[matsoc]

s m said:

As an aside, I was at the Gardaland theme park a couple of weeks back and there was a nice Integrale parked by the entrance - very much still a "hero" car over there in Italy

Yes, absolutely, the "hero" status is also highlighted by the fact that many owners I met are very young, under 25, so not nostalgic 90s drivers because in the golden years of the Delta they were barely born.

[e21Mark]

There are 3 local to me, here in Cornwall, that still get used regularly.

I saw 2 of them at St Mawgan last weekend. The 3rd is a white Evo 2 and still looks mighty.

[darkyoung1000]

white_goodman said:

Thanks for all the replies. It has been an interesting read. Of course the thread title should probably have read "do 1990s "performance" cars still FEEL quick?" because obviously the figures suggest that new performance cars are quicker.

I haven't driven a 1990s performance car since I sold my Corrado VR6 in 2007. Jumping into something now that was considered quick back in the day, Sierra Cosworth or Delta Integrale perhaps, would they still feel quick or would they feel slow i.e. would one wonder what the fuss was all about. These cars certainly used to feel quick and the road network hasn't changed that much but probably busier if anything, so shouldn't they still feel quick?

As with all things, it's relative to your last experience before getting in it.... I was driving my G60 along the A66 on Sunday, normally, it feels brisk...but then I failed to overtake a MINI Cooper S on the transition to duel carriageway (good work to the driver btw ).

Round B roads, it still 'feels' fast....unless the last thing I rode was my bike. Then it feels like the brakes are stuck on. Conversely if I've been using the diesel Astra, the Corrado is a rocket sled!

Cheers,
Tom