Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
CS400 said:
J4CKO said:
wonder what the nearest modern equivalent is to the Carlton.
VXR8?Here's an article EVO wrote with the LC driven back to back against the latest M5, makes good reading relating to the overall context of this thread.
http://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/5-series/14115/bmw-m5-vs-...
e21Mark said:
lostkiwi said:
e21Mark said:
s m said:
Slightly off topic but did anyone notice there is a new mag just out for 80s/90s performance cars?
Think I'll nip to WH Smiths later. The cover cars all just look modern to me and not so much 'classic'. It's probably more to do with my age though. 
Some would say the Subaru is too.
Welshbeef said:
NotNormal said:
The Carlton was recorded at 10.6 to 100mph by Performance Car back in '91.
Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
High torque doesn't make a car quick its power - else that last line will have diesel drivers dribbling ohh my big torque will do it not the power Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
Just to state to obvious...
Which is why the old STI's where quick as their BHP & Torque was often nearly the same.
Had an Impreza Sti Type R - 276bhp (allegedly) 0.-60 in 4.3 seconds and onto 150mph+, still very quick by modern standards. In fact would give most modern uber hatches a good run for their money.
Had a previous gen Skyline GTR, 276bhp (allegedly) 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and onto over 160mph+, still very quick by modern standards
Oh and both were able to rev to over 8000rpm despite being turbocharged.
In fact Japanese performance cars were well ahead of their time and most "performance" cars are only catching up now.
20 years progress, seems like we've stood still to me, in a lot of cases gone backwards and the areas where cars seem to have made "progress" hold little appeal for me.
Had a previous gen Skyline GTR, 276bhp (allegedly) 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and onto over 160mph+, still very quick by modern standards
Oh and both were able to rev to over 8000rpm despite being turbocharged.
In fact Japanese performance cars were well ahead of their time and most "performance" cars are only catching up now.
20 years progress, seems like we've stood still to me, in a lot of cases gone backwards and the areas where cars seem to have made "progress" hold little appeal for me.
lostkiwi said:
e21Mark said:
lostkiwi said:
e21Mark said:
s m said:
Slightly off topic but did anyone notice there is a new mag just out for 80s/90s performance cars?
Think I'll nip to WH Smiths later. The cover cars all just look modern to me and not so much 'classic'. It's probably more to do with my age though. Some would say the Subaru is too.
Frimley111R said:
I had a Clio Williams recently. It was nippy but in no way fast by today's standards! I remember them being ballistic but that was a long time ago and normal modern cars are significantly faster than they were.
I don't think they where ever 'ballistic', just a nippy hot hatch.0-100mph in 21.6 sec
15.8 sec 1/4 mile @ 87mph
I don't actually think it's slow, as I said earlier, 7.x sec 0-60mph is quick no matter what IMO, even if newer cars are quicker.
But in terms of ballistic. Nope, to put it in perspective, in the USA a Trans Am was likely pitched at a similar demographic as the Clio Williams was in the UK. The slowest late 70's Trans Am's ran mid 16 sec 1/4 mile at 83-85mph. Not hugely different to the Williams, just 25 years older.
Early 1970's models where high 14 second cars.
And as a like for like year comparison.
1993 Pontiac Firebird Formula 0-60 mph 6.0 sec 1/4 mile 14.5 and a year later down to 5.7 sec and 13.9 1/4 mile.
BricktopST205 said:
My 20 year old ST205 GT-Four can still show the new boys a thing or two. The car was quite advanced for it's time (super strut suspension, twin entry turbo, Torsen LSD etc). Okay it is not standard but what 90's jap car isn't. Currently at 330BHP and is around 100kg lighter than say a Golf R. Has no problem keeping up with the lease boys. My current setup is a forged engine away from 400bhp+ and then you are in M4 territory
That is the great thing about 90's japanese performance cars. For a small outlay you can quite easily make them as fast as today's M4's and RS4's
My R33 GTS-T is still standard... managed to resist the urge! That is the great thing about 90's japanese performance cars. For a small outlay you can quite easily make them as fast as today's M4's and RS4's
The Audi 80 RS2 when arrived was quite ballistic, significantly faster than 911, excluding the 993 turbo obviously. I was in early teen then, not driving but quite petrolhead already, my dad owned a 964 and a Saab 9000 turbo at the time.
When I took a first ride in an Audi 80 RS2 the punch was significantly stronger.
Strangely the RS2 seem quite vanished now, I haven't seen one for years now and I never had the chance to drive one.
When I took a first ride in an Audi 80 RS2 the punch was significantly stronger.
Strangely the RS2 seem quite vanished now, I haven't seen one for years now and I never had the chance to drive one.
e21Mark said:
lostkiwi said:
e21Mark said:
s m said:
Slightly off topic but did anyone notice there is a new mag just out for 80s/90s performance cars?
Think I'll nip to WH Smiths later. The cover cars all just look modern to me and not so much 'classic'. It's probably more to do with my age though. 300bhp/ton said:
Frimley111R said:
I had a Clio Williams recently. It was nippy but in no way fast by today's standards! I remember them being ballistic but that was a long time ago and normal modern cars are significantly faster than they were.
I don't think they where ever 'ballistic', just a nippy hot hatch.0-100mph in 21.6 sec
15.8 sec 1/4 mile @ 87mph
I don't actually think it's slow, as I said earlier, 7.x sec 0-60mph is quick no matter what IMO, even if newer cars are quicker.
But in terms of ballistic. Nope, to put it in perspective, in the USA a Trans Am was likely pitched at a similar demographic as the Clio Williams was in the UK. The slowest late 70's Trans Am's ran mid 16 sec 1/4 mile at 83-85mph. Not hugely different to the Williams, just 25 years older.
Early 1970's models where high 14 second cars.
And as a like for like year comparison.
1993 Pontiac Firebird Formula 0-60 mph 6.0 sec 1/4 mile 14.5 and a year later down to 5.7 sec and 13.9 1/4 mile.
matsoc said:
The Audi 80 RS2 when arrived was quite ballistic, significantly faster than 911, excluding the 993 turbo obviously. I was in early teen then, not driving but quite petrolhead already, my dad owned a 964 and a Saab 9000 turbo at the time.
When I took a first ride in an Audi 80 RS2 the punch was significantly stronger.
Strangely the RS2 seem quite vanished now, I haven't seen one for years now and I never had the chance to drive one.
Agreed rapid, they need a good driver to keep them on song. Only about 160 UK cars though so you'll be lucky to see them outside of a owners club.When I took a first ride in an Audi 80 RS2 the punch was significantly stronger.
Strangely the RS2 seem quite vanished now, I haven't seen one for years now and I never had the chance to drive one.
With regards to the debate of new cars versus those from 20 or 30 years ago, I'd also like to add there wasn't the profusion of speed cameras and 30 or even 20 mph zones to inhibit forward progress beyond the national limits back then.
Generally when I was hooning a few of the slightly warmer cars of that era (Manta GTE, Corrardo G60, Pug 209 GTI 1.9 and a wealth of hot minis) you would be on the lookout for a marked or even unmarked Police car and otherwise keep your foot nailed to the floor pretty much whenever you desired. If you got a bit out of shape there seemed to be a lot more empty road to get back in line and you were less likely to collect a bit of the countryside or another vehicle in doing so.
With the state of the roads now, the amount of traffic, a lot more elderly drivers being ultra cautious and the amount of cyclists / horse riders these days, that seems to be enough of a deterrent to really open up any car for any length of time. I'll take that track days are a lot more popular, but has the whole idea of gaining safe but rapid progress across country been thwarted by the modern road system, it's less courteous and seemingly less skilled drivers and the way the law is enforced?
I'd take a slightly slower 80's car if I could drive on 80's roads please.
Generally when I was hooning a few of the slightly warmer cars of that era (Manta GTE, Corrardo G60, Pug 209 GTI 1.9 and a wealth of hot minis) you would be on the lookout for a marked or even unmarked Police car and otherwise keep your foot nailed to the floor pretty much whenever you desired. If you got a bit out of shape there seemed to be a lot more empty road to get back in line and you were less likely to collect a bit of the countryside or another vehicle in doing so.
With the state of the roads now, the amount of traffic, a lot more elderly drivers being ultra cautious and the amount of cyclists / horse riders these days, that seems to be enough of a deterrent to really open up any car for any length of time. I'll take that track days are a lot more popular, but has the whole idea of gaining safe but rapid progress across country been thwarted by the modern road system, it's less courteous and seemingly less skilled drivers and the way the law is enforced?
I'd take a slightly slower 80's car if I could drive on 80's roads please.
Some are quick by any standards - e.g. 99 M3 Evo which would waste any diesel at any speed whereas others are just nostalgic quick. I remember one of the best drives of my life was when a mate loaned me his Pug Gti (was driving a Nova SR at the time). Tried to buy one last year and boy was I underwhelmed by the performance. Similarly E30 M3 and Integrale - in performance terms, circa 200 bhp just doesn't cut it now against super-diesels but I know which car rather be taking out for a blast...!
CS400 said:
Welshbeef said:
NotNormal said:
The Carlton was recorded at 10.6 to 100mph by Performance Car back in '91.
Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
High torque doesn't make a car quick its power - else that last line will have diesel drivers dribbling ohh my big torque will do it not the power Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
Just to state to obvious...
Which is why the old STI's where quick as their BHP & Torque was often nearly the same.
Edited by s m on Thursday 24th September 18:07
I recently went in a standard, well sorted 205Gti 1.6. One word that could describe how I felt was 'vulnerable'. It felt tinny, flexy, not very planted, quite slow, and the body roll...like a ship. It made me cringe when I think how we used to drive the wheels off these things (amongs others) back in the day. How were we not killed?
My daily drive is a not-particularly sporty A4 3.0 tdi quattro. The 205 wouldn't get near it in a straight line or on a back road, wet or dry.
But ask me which one I'd rather take for a blast early on a Sunday morning :-)
My daily drive is a not-particularly sporty A4 3.0 tdi quattro. The 205 wouldn't get near it in a straight line or on a back road, wet or dry.
But ask me which one I'd rather take for a blast early on a Sunday morning :-)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff