Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
SidewaysSi said:
CorvetteConvert said:
Take the 911 turbo from 1990. Then look at the 2015 version.
Light years better and so much faster now.
Faster but I wouldn't class it as better. If I had both sat outside my house right now, I would pick the 90s car without a moment's hesitation.Light years better and so much faster now.
Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
CorvetteConvert said:
Why ever would you? It's a sports car and the new one is faster, quicker, handles better, has a much better interior, much better brakes, steers better and looks a hell of a lot meaner too. Other than the 'classic' thing, where people prefer old cars simply because they like the old look, why would anyone want a 1990 911 over the current one?
Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
Really? Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
Surely of all places, the members on here can grasp that having quantifiably more of everything does not necessarily a more enjoyable car make.
I think 'outright grip' may be getting used in place of 'handling' here too...
Edited by Patrick Bateman on Wednesday 30th September 06:56
CorvetteConvert said:
Why ever would you? It's a sports car and the new one is faster, quicker, handles better, has a much better interior, much better brakes, steers better and looks a hell of a lot meaner too. Other than the 'classic' thing, where people prefer old cars simply because they like the old look, why would anyone want a 1990 911 over the current one?
Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
You'd rather the current M5 over the last hand built M5's? Which are dramatically rarer when new and have the iconic I6 power plant which is half a Mc F1 engine. Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
996 Turbo one reason to prefer it over all else is the legendary Mezger engine which the current one doesn't have
993 GT2 - it's a full on Homologation car v what we have today. Without question I think any petrol head would choose a car which has raced in Le Mans and other sports car racing which is near on identical to the 911 GT2
Corvette well personally I'm a big Mk1 Vette fan and the first Z01 fan so yes I care little about modern or 90's stuff. That said I'd happily own a modern one.
Focus RS 3 has zero racing pedigree and its engine is built on the production line. The Escort cosworth has huge rally credentials and an engine designed and built by Cosworth (no doubt about it at the time the best in the business). As an every day proposition yes I'd take the RS3 as it has creature comforts and is faster but there are reasons why people do want the older ones not just because they might become "classic".
I think I would take any old 911 over the 991.1 (perhaps not the 996 or 997.1). And the 991.2 is a sad, sad thing to contemplate. But it is going to be seriously rapid.
As others have said, anyone who seriously thinks that a new car is better simply because it is faster really hasn't driven fast cars (or isn't that interested in driving). Taking the 991 v 997 as an example: looks can go either way but probably a win for the new car; the 997 is noticeably smaller (win); the 991 is noticeably faster (maybe a win...it kinda depends); the 997 has better steering and brakes (2 wins); the 991 has better turn in and high speed stability (2 wins); the 991 is more comfortable and refined (hmmm. I think this is a loss for a sports car/sporting GT); the 997 has more characterful handling (win).
You could do the same thing for 996/997 v 993 and the results would be similar. At some point we would all say 'I want the slower one, please'. If you draw a line on a graph with speed and refinement, the 911 is on a fast trajectory to becoming a ballistic Audi saloon by about 2025
Back on topic, I think 1990s normal car v 2015 normal car shows an astonishing difference in performance. Aside from a few exceptions, the same is true of 'performance' cars and supercars. The rally reps were freaks at the time, as I recall.
As others have said, anyone who seriously thinks that a new car is better simply because it is faster really hasn't driven fast cars (or isn't that interested in driving). Taking the 991 v 997 as an example: looks can go either way but probably a win for the new car; the 997 is noticeably smaller (win); the 991 is noticeably faster (maybe a win...it kinda depends); the 997 has better steering and brakes (2 wins); the 991 has better turn in and high speed stability (2 wins); the 991 is more comfortable and refined (hmmm. I think this is a loss for a sports car/sporting GT); the 997 has more characterful handling (win).
You could do the same thing for 996/997 v 993 and the results would be similar. At some point we would all say 'I want the slower one, please'. If you draw a line on a graph with speed and refinement, the 911 is on a fast trajectory to becoming a ballistic Audi saloon by about 2025
Back on topic, I think 1990s normal car v 2015 normal car shows an astonishing difference in performance. Aside from a few exceptions, the same is true of 'performance' cars and supercars. The rally reps were freaks at the time, as I recall.
I dont want to skew the discussion, but...
I owned a 22B for 7 years, and I can tell you, there is NOTHING in the current range that even remotely interests me here in the UK.
The usual question of "would you do it again", sees me answering "I'll take your arm off to have another one".
I fully appreciate that that car isnt a "normal" car, however, I am speaking of personal experience, as opposed to some theoretical discussion referring to cars in some cases costing quite a lot of money (Ferraris, etc as discussed in these threads, whereas a 22B is maybe 30-40k these days).
In all honesty, you cant stand in the way of progress, that's true, but modern cars also now have airbags coming out of their airbags, reinforced reinforcements, and heavy refinement coming out of its refinement. They are much heavier than they used to be, and have a lot more gadgets than they used to.
All of this adds weight.
If the weight of the car has increased by 10-20%, and power has similarly increased, that may seem like an even break, but the laws of physics still apply (sorry to say), and all that extra weight is felt around corners, accelerating, and braking.
I'm a huge fan of light weight cars (the 22B was 1270 kg standard), and modern cars are going in the opposite direction.
Try and hustle a modern car down a winding back road, then try the same in a lightweight car, and see the difference. Having an extra 100-200bhp wont mask the bloated whale feeling.
I owned a 22B for 7 years, and I can tell you, there is NOTHING in the current range that even remotely interests me here in the UK.
The usual question of "would you do it again", sees me answering "I'll take your arm off to have another one".
I fully appreciate that that car isnt a "normal" car, however, I am speaking of personal experience, as opposed to some theoretical discussion referring to cars in some cases costing quite a lot of money (Ferraris, etc as discussed in these threads, whereas a 22B is maybe 30-40k these days).
In all honesty, you cant stand in the way of progress, that's true, but modern cars also now have airbags coming out of their airbags, reinforced reinforcements, and heavy refinement coming out of its refinement. They are much heavier than they used to be, and have a lot more gadgets than they used to.
All of this adds weight.
If the weight of the car has increased by 10-20%, and power has similarly increased, that may seem like an even break, but the laws of physics still apply (sorry to say), and all that extra weight is felt around corners, accelerating, and braking.
I'm a huge fan of light weight cars (the 22B was 1270 kg standard), and modern cars are going in the opposite direction.
Try and hustle a modern car down a winding back road, then try the same in a lightweight car, and see the difference. Having an extra 100-200bhp wont mask the bloated whale feeling.
LankyLegoHead said:
I can see where you're coming from Mr 300bhp/ton, but once again you've put a lot of effort into a poorly executed argument for said case.
The fact of the matter is, no. A Beetle is nothing like the old beetle. However the Golf, is a Front engined watercooled hatchback, the GTI being the perfect combination of practical and fast. At the time, the Golf was Comparable to the XR3i. Now its comparable with the Focus ST. Catch the drift? Thats the point everyone else is making.
Sometimes I think you just like to disagree with a valid viewpoint for the sake of it.
A Sierra was also a 3 door hatchback. And a Focus hardly sits in the same market segment as the XR3i did.The fact of the matter is, no. A Beetle is nothing like the old beetle. However the Golf, is a Front engined watercooled hatchback, the GTI being the perfect combination of practical and fast. At the time, the Golf was Comparable to the XR3i. Now its comparable with the Focus ST. Catch the drift? Thats the point everyone else is making.
Sometimes I think you just like to disagree with a valid viewpoint for the sake of it.
Just because things are named the same hardly means they are still the same thing.
The original Golf was not a premium family vehicle, while it is today. It's been moved 'upmarket' and followed the trend of getting bigger, heavier and more powerful.
The 3 Series BMW used to be the smallest budget entry into a BMW, it's now a mid range model, with two model lines sitting below it and the entire MINI range.
If just a name makes a thing the same....
Both of these ships are US Navy vessels named Enterprise... do you think they are the same type of ship, just because of their name?
CorvetteConvert said:
TREMAiNE said:
300bhp/ton said:
But your statement itself is misleading, as today's Golf is certainly a segment or two higher than it was originally. So it might be a Golf in name, but not in market placement or price.
So it isn't really a like for like comparison.
Well... It is...So it isn't really a like for like comparison.
Like the technology in it, the Golf has evolved. Of course it can be compared to the 90's version, utterly stupid comment.
Perfectly comparable.
Yes I'd agree an MX-5 is still an MX-5.
Kawasicki said:
derin100 said:
This is very true...and the main reason I got rid of mine probably about 7-8 years ago.
Despite all the hype certain dealers have used to their own gain there is no getting away from the fact that on the public road (where most will be driven) they are just too flipping slow!
And before anyone talks about the "dream balance, steering and handling" outweighing the lack of straight-line speed and thus making it a "connoisseur's car" and all that clap-trap...get an E30 318is. It'll do just the same...albeit at an even slower rate....for a fraction of the cost!
An E30 M3 was fast in 1985...but not 30 years later.
An E30 m3 is not a fast car in absolute terms, but it is still plenty fast to get the driver in serious trouble with the law. I've owned a couple of e30 318is, and even that needs a bit of restraint to avoid travelling at over 100mph most of the time.Despite all the hype certain dealers have used to their own gain there is no getting away from the fact that on the public road (where most will be driven) they are just too flipping slow!
And before anyone talks about the "dream balance, steering and handling" outweighing the lack of straight-line speed and thus making it a "connoisseur's car" and all that clap-trap...get an E30 318is. It'll do just the same...albeit at an even slower rate....for a fraction of the cost!
An E30 M3 was fast in 1985...but not 30 years later.
CorvetteConvert said:
SidewaysSi said:
CorvetteConvert said:
Take the 911 turbo from 1990. Then look at the 2015 version.
Light years better and so much faster now.
Faster but I wouldn't class it as better. If I had both sat outside my house right now, I would pick the 90s car without a moment's hesitation.Light years better and so much faster now.
Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
ORD said:
Back on topic, I think 1990s normal car v 2015 normal car shows an astonishing difference in performance.
Actually that's a good comparison. And one that I think has been missed a lot in this thread.Are "normal" cars really vastly quicker?
The BMW 1 Series today probably represents slightly above average performance figures for it's market segment, just as the 3 Series in the 1990's also probably represented slightly above average, so makes them comparable, since they both target a similar/same market segment and pricing point.
The current cars over the entire range don't seem substantially quicker, 12'ish secs instead of over 13 to 60, but still plenty in the 9-10 sec range. Of course the "hot" quicker models are quicker than before, but they are hardly the definition of "normal" in such a model range, nor the mass sellers.
300bhp/ton said:
A Sierra was also a 3 door hatchback.
Yes, but a large 'D' segment one - significantly bigger than the contemporary Escort.300bhp/ton said:
And a Focus hardly sits in the same market segment as the XR3i did.
Yes it does, 'C' segment - medium cars300bhp/ton said:
Just because things are named the same hardly means they are still the same thing.
The original Golf was not a premium family vehicle, while it is today. It's been moved 'upmarket' and followed the trend of getting bigger, heavier and more powerful.
As have all its competitors. The original Golf was not a premium family vehicle, while it is today. It's been moved 'upmarket' and followed the trend of getting bigger, heavier and more powerful.
What you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept is that the market segments have shifted, not the individual models, meaning that the Ford Focus of 2015 is directly comparable to the Ford Escort of 1995 - remember the Focus was a direct replacement in 1998 (albeit a significant improvement).
The Golf has been made more plush inside by Volkswagen, but so have all other cars - VW have been advertising the Golf based on perceived quality and relative high-class since the 1980s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQIUJOr1GA.
300bhp/ton said:
The 3 Series BMW used to be the smallest budget entry into a BMW, it's now a mid range model, with two model lines sitting below it and the entire MINI range.
That doesn't mean that the 3 series has changed market segment, just that BMW decided to start building cars in the 'C' segment, starting with the 3 Series Compact in the 1990s - that model has latterly been renamed into two models, as you note. BMW's ownership of MINI is irrelevant to this point, as they are marketed separately.
300bhp/ton said:
If just a name makes a thing the same....
Both of these ships are US Navy vessels named Enterprise... do you think they are the same type of ship, just because of their name?
Now you're truly clutching at straws...Both of these ships are US Navy vessels named Enterprise... do you think they are the same type of ship, just because of their name?
300bhp/ton said:
Actually that's a good comparison. And one that I think has been missed a lot in this thread.
Are "normal" cars really vastly quicker?
The BMW 1 Series today probably represents slightly above average performance figures for it's market segment, just as the 3 Series in the 1990's also probably represented slightly above average, so makes them comparable, since they both target a similar/same market segment and pricing point.
The current cars over the entire range don't seem substantially quicker, 12'ish secs instead of over 13 to 60, but still plenty in the 9-10 sec range. Of course the "hot" quicker models are quicker than before, but they are hardly the definition of "normal" in such a model range, nor the mass sellers.
Now compare the current 3 Series to the old 3 Series, or indeed the 1 Series to the old 3 Series compact (using like-for-like engine choices within the range, of course...)Are "normal" cars really vastly quicker?
The BMW 1 Series today probably represents slightly above average performance figures for it's market segment, just as the 3 Series in the 1990's also probably represented slightly above average, so makes them comparable, since they both target a similar/same market segment and pricing point.
The current cars over the entire range don't seem substantially quicker, 12'ish secs instead of over 13 to 60, but still plenty in the 9-10 sec range. Of course the "hot" quicker models are quicker than before, but they are hardly the definition of "normal" in such a model range, nor the mass sellers.
So basically the new BMW's are quicker than the old, while producing less power, fewer emissions and costing less when adjusted for inflation?
Now lets compare the 116ii (hardly one of the hot models?) with the 316i, the 318i or the 320i.
.
If performance hasn't changed at the lower end of the scale, it's not because manufacturers can't, it's because the market likely doesn't demand it. Around ten seconds 0-60 is fine for my mum, it was ten years ago, it is now.
All of which is somewhat missing the point of the title of the thread, to which my response is 'quite a few are quite quick enough for me', particularly with today's road conditions.
Now lets compare the 116ii (hardly one of the hot models?) with the 316i, the 318i or the 320i.
.
If performance hasn't changed at the lower end of the scale, it's not because manufacturers can't, it's because the market likely doesn't demand it. Around ten seconds 0-60 is fine for my mum, it was ten years ago, it is now.
All of which is somewhat missing the point of the title of the thread, to which my response is 'quite a few are quite quick enough for me', particularly with today's road conditions.
Edited by DrTre on Wednesday 30th September 10:52
300bhp/ton said:
Kawasicki said:
derin100 said:
This is very true...and the main reason I got rid of mine probably about 7-8 years ago.
Despite all the hype certain dealers have used to their own gain there is no getting away from the fact that on the public road (where most will be driven) they are just too flipping slow!
And before anyone talks about the "dream balance, steering and handling" outweighing the lack of straight-line speed and thus making it a "connoisseur's car" and all that clap-trap...get an E30 318is. It'll do just the same...albeit at an even slower rate....for a fraction of the cost!
An E30 M3 was fast in 1985...but not 30 years later.
An E30 m3 is not a fast car in absolute terms, but it is still plenty fast to get the driver in serious trouble with the law. I've owned a couple of e30 318is, and even that needs a bit of restraint to avoid travelling at over 100mph most of the time.Despite all the hype certain dealers have used to their own gain there is no getting away from the fact that on the public road (where most will be driven) they are just too flipping slow!
And before anyone talks about the "dream balance, steering and handling" outweighing the lack of straight-line speed and thus making it a "connoisseur's car" and all that clap-trap...get an E30 318is. It'll do just the same...albeit at an even slower rate....for a fraction of the cost!
An E30 M3 was fast in 1985...but not 30 years later.
Actually, I might swap my E30 for a new version, but I'd sell it and use the money to buy another E30 and pocket the change. Yes, modern cars are, for the most part, faster. They're just not always better though and certainly nowhere near as much fun to drive. Anyway, the sun is out and I have an E30 M3 and half a tank of super unleaded.
A lot of people are forgetting that manufacturers are making their cars more powerful now for a sales pitch/willy waving/advertised improved engineering point of view.
An 80`s Sierra Cosworth with 5 point something to 60 and a 150 mph was and still is quick but Ford could have (if they wanted to) sold that car with another 100 plus horse power back then and made it faster than what a Focus RS is today. In fact if I recall correctly they were literally detuned to sell to the public.
Same goes for anything Japanese. They left the factory in a state of mild tune to either suit themselves, wary consumers, safety boards or for some other reason.
That is not to say though that the refinement or handling hasn`t come on in leaps and bounds.
schmunk said:
300bhp/ton said:
A Sierra was also a 3 door hatchback.
Yes, but a large 'D' segment one - significantly bigger than the contemporary Escort.| Model/year | Wheelbase | Length | Width | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 Sierra 2.0 Ghia | 102.7 | 174 | 67.7 | 1095kg |
| 2004 Focus 2.0 16v | 103.9 | 170.9 | 72.4 | 1322kg |
| 2012 Focus 1.0 Ecoboost Hatch | 104.3 | 171.6 | 73.1 | 13xxkg |
schmunk said:
remember the Focus was a direct replacement in 1998
But it wasn't.The range used to be
Fiesta -> Escort -> Sierra -> Granada
Then KA was introduced, as the Fiesta moved slightly upmarket and upsized.
The Mondeo replaced what? Sierra or Granada?
Well both really. Albeit maybe initially sitting somewhere between the two, but it has continued to move upmarket and bigger.
The Focus did a similar thing, it initially sat above the Esocrt placement, but lower than a Sierra would have been. It was however the model directly below the Mondeo.
Today you have
KA -> Fiesta -> Focus -> Mondeo
| Fiesta | Escort | Sierra | Granada |
| KA | Fiesta | Focus | Mondeo |
In the line up, the Focus is not a direct comparison to an XR3i.
Welshbeef said:
CorvetteConvert said:
Why ever would you? It's a sports car and the new one is faster, quicker, handles better, has a much better interior, much better brakes, steers better and looks a hell of a lot meaner too. Other than the 'classic' thing, where people prefer old cars simply because they like the old look, why would anyone want a 1990 911 over the current one?
Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
You'd rather the current M5 over the last hand built M5's? Which are dramatically rarer when new and have the iconic I6 power plant which is half a Mc F1 engine. Give me the 2015 Corvette over the 1990 one any day. Or the Golf R over the Golf GTI MK4. Or the current M5 over the 1990 version. Focus RS 3 over Escort Cosworth. I am struggling to think of a single 1990 car i would prefer to it's 2015 equivalent.
Forgetting worth of course, if it happens to be very rare. To actually own and drive.
996 Turbo one reason to prefer it over all else is the legendary Mezger engine which the current one doesn't have
993 GT2 - it's a full on Homologation car v what we have today. Without question I think any petrol head would choose a car which has raced in Le Mans and other sports car racing which is near on identical to the 911 GT2
Corvette well personally I'm a big Mk1 Vette fan and the first Z01 fan so yes I care little about modern or 90's stuff. That said I'd happily own a modern one.
Focus RS 3 has zero racing pedigree and its engine is built on the production line. The Escort cosworth has huge rally credentials and an engine designed and built by Cosworth (no doubt about it at the time the best in the business). As an every day proposition yes I'd take the RS3 as it has creature comforts and is faster but there are reasons why people do want the older ones not just because they might become "classic".
Buying and coveting cars is far more than just looking at a table of statistics, measuring NVH, and touching plastic surfaces. If it were, then the Golf R would come out right at the top of the list of "best" cars available on the market.
Does that mean that I'd want one over an E30 M3, Escort Cosworth, Mk1 Golf GTi, 205 1.9 GTi, Megane R26, E46 M3 CSL, 964 or 993 911 Carrera etc etc etc?
No chance!
That shouldn't be interpreted as criticism of a fine automobile, rather an emotional connection to "more desirable" machines in my opinion only.
I'm positive that its a generational thing, as my dad has a fondness for old Wolseys and crap like that. Those were the vehicles of his youth that he can recount memories of.
The thrill of driving and loving cars goes way beyond covering distances from point to point as quickly as possible.
schmunk said:
Now compare the current 3 Series to the old 3 Series, or indeed the 1 Series to the old 3 Series compact (using like-for-like engine choices within the range, of course...)
3 Series compact used the same engines as the 3 Series (minus the hotter engines), so the comparison would be the same.old 3 Series to current 3 Series is pointless, as I don't believe they are directly comparable.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff