Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[Billiam]

Wish i could have taken the time to read all of the pages on this post but enjoy the ones i did.. The difference in opinions and thoughts and feelings is as vast the modern car market..

My 2p worth, i dont care if my 156 V6 is faster or slower than the modern rep mobiles or the crazy fast hot hatches as i love every mile i do in it. As for the numbers games, not for me - its all about how a car feels but then i also drive a TVR so i might be a little bit mental ! But safe to say anyone thinking they will fly past my 156 will need plenty of horses or they might find themselves a little red in the face..

And to keep on topic, safe to say a very modern Astra VXR that was right up my trumpet in traffic over the Brecon Beacons was a little dissapointed when oncoming traffic cleared and we both moved out and he had to move in behind me.. And for the record, my 156 is totally standard 2.5 and Lusso (luxury) model even.. So yes, 90s performance is still causing upsets !!

[schmunk]

bigkeeko said:

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.

But by the same argument, the current Focus ST/RS, Golf R, etc. are in a mild state of tune which will meet emissions regs, let the car hit 100,000+ miles without going pop, etc.

Ford could send them from the factory in 'Stage 3' tune, but they wouldn't come with a 3 year / 60,000 mile warranty...

[300bhp/ton]

DrTre said:

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.
.

I believe the images I posted does this comparison fine. The stats are on Parkers.co.uk if you want to look further.

Yes some are quicker, 8.x instead of 9.x to 60mph. But by and large lots of the current models are still 10sec+ to 60mph. Not every new car is 4.3 sec to 60mph and 180mph capable, as seems to be the suggestion by many.

[DrTre]

Believe me, the pictures do the comparison just fine, don't worry about that.

A masterful evasion of meaningful discussion by blanking, selective quoting and ridiculous hyperbole. I admire it in some ways, but I leave you to it.

[schmunk]

300bhp/ton said:

DrTre said:

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.
.

I believe the images I posted does this comparison fine. The stats are on Parkers.co.uk if you want to look further.

Yes some are quicker, 8.x instead of 9.x to 60mph. But by and large lots of the current models are still 10sec+ to 60mph. Not every new car is 4.3 sec to 60mph and 180mph capable, as seems to be the suggestion by many.

OK, using your (incorrect, in my opinion) comparison of the current 1 Series hatchback with the 91-98 3 Series saloon, and sticking to manual petrol models:

	Slowest	Mid-range	Fastest
3 Series	12.3s (316i)	9.6s (320i)	7.1s (328i)
1 Series	10.8s (114i)	7.2s (120i)	4.9s (M135i)

No difference, eh?

p.s. don't go looking for favour with diesels or automatics, it won't work out for you...

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 30th September 12:24

[C.A.R.]

I've always wondered how one of the Japanese Sports cars of the 90s would fare against the likes of the current crop of Hyper Hatches - Civic Type R, Renault Meganne, Focus RS & Astra VXR.

These cars are all around the "Gentlemans' agreement" power output from the 90s in Japan of 276bhp (although not strictly adhered to as we now know). However, these cars had straight 6 twin-turbos, fancy torque-vectoring awd systems and certainly look a lot less 'fat and heavy' as the aforementioned hatches riding on 20' wheels, but aside from the similarities on paper, how do these systems compare?

Progress is a great thing of course, but it would be sad to see the performance margin of something as desireable as an R33/34 GTR or TT Supra against these bloaty modern hatches which are packed with technology and not nearly as motorsports-inspired or desireable (in my opinion).

Is there still a margin at all? Or are they now level-pegged?

[s m]

Chicane-UK said:

On the flip side of that I do also have a new type Fiesta ST which would show the Corrado a clean set of heels on a twisty back road no doubt about it (the handling is superb!) but I still think the Corrado would have the legs on it in a sprint over say 100MPH. It just feels like it accelerates that bit more ferociously if you keep your foot in. Corrado wouldn't in be able to touch it 'in gear' from say 20-90MPH though I don't think - that 1.6 turbo engine is extremely torquey

Edited by Chicane-UK on Tuesday 29th September 14:58

I was intrigued so I took a look at the respective Autocar road test timings and actual data for the VR6 and ST-2 - the Corrado was 40kg heavier than the Fiesta as tested and had about 10 more bhp.

The Corrado just pips it over the Standing start km marker by 0.1 seconds ( although the Fiesta is travelling 3mph quicker at that terminal marker - about 122 instead of 119 ).
30-70 through the gears the Corrado just pipped it, same as to 60 - however if the Fiesta hadn't needed a 2nd gear change to 60 it would have been very close. In gear increments are different really as the Fiesta had 6 gears so like for like ( 2nd gear 20-40 etc ) is always quicker as you say as the Fiesta is effectively shorter-geared. The Corrado is also faster flat out by a fair few mph.

Needless to say, these were pretty brand new test cars tested some 22 years apart, both in the dry however. Straight line horsepower as you'd expect is still worth pretty much the same

[neil1jnr]

C.A.R. said:

I've always wondered how one of the Japanese Sports cars of the 90s would fare against the likes of the current crop of Hyper Hatches - Civic Type R, Renault Meganne, Focus RS & Astra VXR.

These cars are all around the "Gentlemans' agreement" power output from the 90s in Japan of 276bhp (although not strictly adhered to as we now know). However, these cars had straight 6 twin-turbos, fancy torque-vectoring awd systems and certainly look a lot less 'fat and heavy' as the aforementioned hatches riding on 20' wheels, but aside from the similarities on paper, how do these systems compare?

Progress is a great thing of course, but it would be sad to see the performance margin of something as desireable as an R33/34 GTR or TT Supra against these bloaty modern hatches which are packed with technology and not nearly as motorsports-inspired or desireable (in my opinion).

Is there still a margin at all? Or are they now level-pegged?

We spoke about this a few pages back, Evo Vi vs Golf R and someone put up the Autocar stats for both, on paper they are almost identical for acceleration, speed, weight etc.

The Skyline and Supra you mention, are probably heavier than a number of modern hot hatches, I am surprised you would have thought they were lighter!?

IMO I think all of the hatches you mentioned would be quicker than a completely standard/factory Supra or Skyline GTR, they are just too heavy. A lighter Impreza WRX STI or Evo GSR though I think is a much better comparison if we are regarding both past and present models as of how they left the factory.

BUT, I'd put my money on the older cars having more character and being a lot more enjoyable to drive (as a second car). I say second car becuase I don't for a second mean to say modern hatches are boring, far from it. If we say as an everyday prospect I'd take a new Civic Type R or Astra VXR for example over a 90's jap machine. For a blast out on the B-Roads I'd take my Evo every time!

[s m]

neil1jnr said:

C.A.R. said:

I've always wondered how one of the Japanese Sports cars of the 90s would fare against the likes of the current crop of Hyper Hatches - Civic Type R, Renault Meganne, Focus RS & Astra VXR.

These cars are all around the "Gentlemans' agreement" power output from the 90s in Japan of 276bhp (although not strictly adhered to as we now know). However, these cars had straight 6 twin-turbos, fancy torque-vectoring awd systems and certainly look a lot less 'fat and heavy' as the aforementioned hatches riding on 20' wheels, but aside from the similarities on paper, how do these systems compare?

Progress is a great thing of course, but it would be sad to see the performance margin of something as desireable as an R33/34 GTR or TT Supra against these bloaty modern hatches which are packed with technology and not nearly as motorsports-inspired or desireable (in my opinion).

Is there still a margin at all? Or are they now level-pegged?

We spoke about this a few pages back, Evo Vi vs Golf R and someone put up the Autocar stats for both, on paper they are almost identical for acceleration, speed, weight etc.

The Skyline and Supra you mention, are probably heavier than a number of modern hot hatches, I am surprised you would have thought they were lighter!?

IMO I think all of the hatches you mentioned would be quicker than a completely standard/factory Supra or Skyline GTR, they are just too heavy. A lighter Impreza WRX STI or Evo GSR though I think is a much better comparison if we are regarding both past and present models as of how they left the factory.

BUT, I'd put my money on the older cars having more character and being a lot more enjoyable to drive (as a second car). I say second car becuase I don't for a second mean to say modern hatches are boring, far from it. If we say as an everyday prospect I'd take a new Civic Type R or Astra VXR for example over a 90's jap machine. For a blast out on the B-Roads I'd take my Evo every time!

I remember the R34 GTR that Autocar tested alongside the EVO 6 in a 99 issue was 10.6 seconds to 100. ( I'm not sure how many bhp they really were though... ) - certainly the A45 AMG and Golf R might come close

That is purely straight line stats though

[neil1jnr]

s m said:

neil1jnr said:

C.A.R. said:

I've always wondered how one of the Japanese Sports cars of the 90s would fare against the likes of the current crop of Hyper Hatches - Civic Type R, Renault Meganne, Focus RS & Astra VXR.

These cars are all around the "Gentlemans' agreement" power output from the 90s in Japan of 276bhp (although not strictly adhered to as we now know). However, these cars had straight 6 twin-turbos, fancy torque-vectoring awd systems and certainly look a lot less 'fat and heavy' as the aforementioned hatches riding on 20' wheels, but aside from the similarities on paper, how do these systems compare?

Progress is a great thing of course, but it would be sad to see the performance margin of something as desireable as an R33/34 GTR or TT Supra against these bloaty modern hatches which are packed with technology and not nearly as motorsports-inspired or desireable (in my opinion).

Is there still a margin at all? Or are they now level-pegged?

We spoke about this a few pages back, Evo Vi vs Golf R and someone put up the Autocar stats for both, on paper they are almost identical for acceleration, speed, weight etc.

The Skyline and Supra you mention, are probably heavier than a number of modern hot hatches, I am surprised you would have thought they were lighter!?

IMO I think all of the hatches you mentioned would be quicker than a completely standard/factory Supra or Skyline GTR, they are just too heavy. A lighter Impreza WRX STI or Evo GSR though I think is a much better comparison if we are regarding both past and present models as of how they left the factory.

BUT, I'd put my money on the older cars having more character and being a lot more enjoyable to drive (as a second car). I say second car becuase I don't for a second mean to say modern hatches are boring, far from it. If we say as an everyday prospect I'd take a new Civic Type R or Astra VXR for example over a 90's jap machine. For a blast out on the B-Roads I'd take my Evo every time!

I remember the R34 GTR that Autocar tested alongside the EVO 6 in a 99 issue was 10.6 seconds to 100. ( I'm not sure how many bhp they really were though... ) - certainly the A45 AMG and Golf R might come close

That is purely straight line stats though

That is true, they probably all made more than 276bhp. Yes in a straight line the Supra RZ and Skyline GTR are likely to be quicker from a standstill over the FWD hatches. I would still put my money on the Megane or Civic being quicker around a track or on a B-road than the aforementioned heavy weight japs.

[Leins]

e21Mark said:

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.

AN e30 M3 is not slow, not really. But on the flip side, it was never a ground shattering performance car either, it was slower than many late 60's/early 70's era muscle cars, and by some margin. I think in the UK we tend to forget that there where plenty of quick cars about, but still try and dress cars like the e30 M3 up as the ultimate hypercar of their day, which frankly is comically silly.

I've not seen anyone try and dress the E30 M3 up as anything other than what it was/is, which is one of the best handling cars BMW have built. It's ultimate pace simply isn't what it's about, especially given that being a base for competition, the spec of cars will varey considerably. (an E30 with a 380bhp s14 is night & day to a stock 185 brake car) Even forgetting the blue chip motorsport heritage, it's how it feels to drive, that makes it so special. I spent a few months with an all singing and dancing, 400bhp V8 version, yet I wouldn't swap it for my E30. The modern M3's just do nothing for me, no matter what their ultimate pace may be.

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.

Exactly. Even the M-Division at the time tried to cater for a much more powerful 3-series by trying to get the M635 CSi's 24v 6-cyl to fit into the E30, but this would have been a significantly different car to the M3, albeit a lot faster on the Autobahn (they dropped the idea and created the E28 M5 instead, although Hartge subsequently produced a number of these "super-E30"s)

As a colleague of mine once suggested, the definition of a quick car is one that pushes you back into your seat when you floor it. Anything falling short of this is slow, anything above is just quicker

Edited by Leins on Wednesday 30th September 13:44

[LittleEnus]

300bhp/ton said:

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.

You have far, far too much time on your hands.

[TREMAiNE]

300bhp/ton said:

Fiesta	Escort	Sierra	Granada
KA	Fiesta	Focus	Mondeo

In the line up, the Focus is not a direct comparison to an XR3i.

_	Fiesta	Escort	Sierra	Granada
KA	Fiesta	Focus	Mondeo	_

That's the lineup.

KA introduced.
Fiesta is still going.
Focus has directly replaced Escort
Mondeo has directly replaced Sierra
Granada discontinued with no replacement.

[crispyshark]

TREMAiNE said:

300bhp/ton said:

Fiesta	Escort	Sierra	Granada
KA	Fiesta	Focus	Mondeo

In the line up, the Focus is not a direct comparison to an XR3i.

_	Fiesta	Escort	Sierra	Granada
KA	Fiesta	Focus	Mondeo	_

That's the lineup.

KA introduced.
Fiesta is still going.
Focus has directly replaced Escort
Mondeo has directly replaced Sierra
Granada discontinued with no replacement.

The Mondeo almost straddles both the Sierra and Granada categories....it's certainly big enough! lol

[HGFdodger]

All I came here to say was... Rover Coupe Turbo.

[LankyLegoHead]

I have to say, it is quite entertaining watching 300' clutch at the endless supply of straws that he seems to have.

Yes, cars have gotten bigger. The point being made is: all cars have got bigger, therefore saying (FOR EXAMPLE) a MK1 Golf vs. MK7 Golf is a fair comparison when looking at how cars have changed in performance terms. I cant believe anyone would dispute this? Your argument would only be valid if the Golf was the only car to get bigger/change market. But all cars have. That is the point being made, it is correct, you are wrong. Stop. Step away from the keyboard. PLEASE.

[s m]

HGFdodger said:

All I came here to say was... Rover Coupe Turbo.

[Bemmer]

Leins said:

CRA1G said:

Off topic but I think it's similar with Stereo systems and the way they have changed,but all three of my 90's cars all have the the original ones in them the ZMC had an expensive Pioneer CD in it which I had removed with the correct BMW Business RDS Cassette system..! But I think it just sounds better going for a Sunday blast with a 90's compilation Cassette blasting out....

I'm all about this. Hate seeing flashy mid-2000 stereos in 80s cars

Me too. It's not all just about performance,I don't like to see any modifications on classic's,original and standard for me every time!

[e21Mark]

Well that was a fun couple of hours. Atlantic Highway on a sunny day and pretty light traffic.

HGFdodger said:

All I came here to say was... Rover Coupe Turbo.

I used to work for a Formula Opel Euroseries team and whilst at Spa, the Rover Tomcat Series did a support race. I've never really liked Rovers but no denying the Tomcat was a properly quick thing. I haven't seen one in years though.

[s m]

Leins said:

Exactly. Even the M-Division at the time tried to cater for a much more powerful 3-series by trying to get the M635 CSi's 24v 6-cyl to fit into the E30, but this would have been a significantly different car to the M3, albeit a lot faster on the Autobahn (they dropped the idea and created the E28 M5 instead, although Hartge subsequently produced a number of these "super-E30"s)

As a colleague of mine once suggested, the definition of a quick car is one that pushes you back into your seat when you floor it. Anything falling short of this is slow, anything above is just quicker

Edited by Leins on Wednesday 30th September 13:44

Alpina's 12v version