Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
ORD said:
Anything with a 0-100 time of less than 11 or 12 seconds is surely fast whenever it was built, isn't it?!
Quick or fast seems to be a relative measure.A 0-60 of 8 seconds was once considered fast.
0-100 in 12 seconds is not really fast in 2015. It was quick in 1995, but it is hot hatch performance in 2015.
Kawasicki said:
ORD said:
Anything with a 0-100 time of less than 11 or 12 seconds is surely fast whenever it was built, isn't it?!
Quick or fast seems to be a relative measure.A 0-60 of 8 seconds was once considered fast.
0-100 in 12 seconds is not really fast in 2015. It was quick in 1995, but it is hot hatch performance in 2015.
Is it the fact that a mere hatchback can achieve that nowadays that makes it somehow not fast?
thegreenhell said:
Kawasicki said:
ORD said:
Anything with a 0-100 time of less than 11 or 12 seconds is surely fast whenever it was built, isn't it?!
Quick or fast seems to be a relative measure.A 0-60 of 8 seconds was once considered fast.
0-100 in 12 seconds is not really fast in 2015. It was quick in 1995, but it is hot hatch performance in 2015.
Is it the fact that a mere hatchback can achieve that nowadays that makes it somehow not fast?
It depends whether you think fast should be measured in absolute or comparative terms.
Like most people following this thread head and heart has kinda conflicting views.
Someone mentioned rose tinted specs. I had an XR4x4 in 2.9 guise and at the time it genuinely did go well for what it was but compared to current similar diesel engined turbo charged offerings it maybe isn`t so `big`. Still, it covered ground well and made a great noise in the process which was all part of the fun. My GF has a 2006 320d for current daily duties and I can say with all honesty in a drag race there wouldn`t be much in it. (specs on
)
70`s RS2000. 60 in just over 8 secs? Still pretty respectable for its limited output. 112bhp? Obviously a lot to do with the fact that it weighed as much as your average fridge freezer.
Someone mentioned rose tinted specs. I had an XR4x4 in 2.9 guise and at the time it genuinely did go well for what it was but compared to current similar diesel engined turbo charged offerings it maybe isn`t so `big`. Still, it covered ground well and made a great noise in the process which was all part of the fun. My GF has a 2006 320d for current daily duties and I can say with all honesty in a drag race there wouldn`t be much in it. (specs on
)70`s RS2000. 60 in just over 8 secs? Still pretty respectable for its limited output. 112bhp? Obviously a lot to do with the fact that it weighed as much as your average fridge freezer.
bigkeeko said:
I had an XR4x4 in 2.9 guise and at the time it genuinely did go well for what it was but compared to current similar diesel engined turbo charged offerings it maybe isn`t so `big`. Still, it covered ground well and made a great noise in the process which was all part of the fun. My GF has a 2006 320d for current daily duties and I can say with all honesty in a drag race there wouldn`t be much in it. (specs on )
Just for interest, on paper, as Autocar tested both those cars, the 2006 163bhp 320d has it on everything. 0-60, 0-100, ss1/4, ss km, in-gear increments, economy(!) )Lose the 4wd from the Sierra though (XR4i) and the performance advantage edges back the other way thanks to less weight and transmission drag/loss
Kawasicki said:
thegreenhell said:
Kawasicki said:
ORD said:
Anything with a 0-100 time of less than 11 or 12 seconds is surely fast whenever it was built, isn't it?!
Quick or fast seems to be a relative measure.A 0-60 of 8 seconds was once considered fast.
0-100 in 12 seconds is not really fast in 2015. It was quick in 1995, but it is hot hatch performance in 2015.
Is it the fact that a mere hatchback can achieve that nowadays that makes it somehow not fast?
It depends whether you think fast should be measured in absolute or comparative terms.
St John Smythe said:
You need to compare it to the average car on UK roads. It is fast in that regards.
Quite so. If you average the cars in use on the streets of Britain you you end up with something in the region of a 120 hp 1.6 hatchback, top speed about 115 mph, 0-60 in about 10-11 seconds.Kawasicki said:
wsurfa said:
1990 ST185 Celica GT4 - not that quick. Was about 220bhp. After the Wizards of NOS 100bhp kit, felt a bit quicker. Late 1990s/2000s
1997 R33 GTR. Few mods, probably 400-450bhp. Very quick, launching was hilarious if not mechanically sensitive (sidestep clutch at c5000rpm). I'd guess that it'd still be quick compared to today. Owned early 2000s.
My current dad wagon (V10 S6) feels a lot slower than the GTR.
I imagine that the GTRs, especially one with a light mod or more, would have been unworldly when they arrived in the late 80s (R32) onwards
A few mods on a modern GTR is 600-700 bhp. Bringing modifications to the debate doesn't help.1997 R33 GTR. Few mods, probably 400-450bhp. Very quick, launching was hilarious if not mechanically sensitive (sidestep clutch at c5000rpm). I'd guess that it'd still be quick compared to today. Owned early 2000s.
My current dad wagon (V10 S6) feels a lot slower than the GTR.
I imagine that the GTRs, especially one with a light mod or more, would have been unworldly when they arrived in the late 80s (R32) onwards
The 'few mods' would be the base state of 90%+ of GTRs in the late 90's/early 2000's, and would most likely be exhaust, boost controller and remap. That would be 400-425bhp (maybe 450), the stock injectors probably maxing around 450/475bhp.
The point being that unless you bought one of the very few new UK models, and did nothing at all, then you'd be driving a c400bhp car.
A far higher proportion of UK R35s are unmodified as they are not artificially limited
Welshbeef said:
s m said:
1990s cars, well 99% of them, simply are/were not fast compared to today. I drove a Seat Leon today. 276 bhp (and felt like 300 bhp). Just compare that with the laggy Escort Cosworth i had and it's weakling 227 bhp. Back then it was said to be a hugely fast and powerful car. It was too. THEN. Now a multi-purpose hatchback from Seat would hand it it's ass on a plate. Handling. Speed. Brakes. The lot. It would be 30 seconds a lap quicker at the Ring.
CorvetteConvert said:
1990s cars, well 99% of them, simply are/were not fast compared to today. I drove a Seat Leon today. 276 bhp (and felt like 300 bhp). Just compare that with the laggy Escort Cosworth i had and it's weakling 227 bhp. Back then it was said to be a hugely fast and powerful car. It was too. THEN. Now a multi-purpose hatchback from Seat would hand it it's ass on a plate. Handling. Speed. Brakes. The lot. It would be 30 seconds a lap quicker at the Ring.
By 99%? Are we saying that all of the EVO's, Impreza's and other Japanese cars equate to less than 1%?It's also worth pointing out the Leon is a breathed on family car in exactly the same was as the Escort Cosworth is and the mighty Leon is only .5 of a second faster than the 1990's car and still far slower (at least in a straight line) than a lot of those 1990's cars. The Leon wouldn't know which way a lot of the fastest Japanese performance cars went!
Also and this is a genuine question, I thought there was no official ring time for the Escort Cosworth? (have I got this wrong?)
CorvetteConvert said:
1990s cars, well 99% of them, simply are/were not fast compared to today. I drove a Seat Leon today. 276 bhp (and felt like 300 bhp). Just compare that with the laggy Escort Cosworth i had and it's weakling 227 bhp. Back then it was said to be a hugely fast and powerful car. It was too. THEN. Now a multi-purpose hatchback from Seat would hand it it's ass on a plate. Handling. Speed. Brakes. The lot. It would be 30 seconds a lap quicker at the Ring.
Yet I'd take the Ford over the Seat in a heartbeat. AntiLagGC8 said:
CorvetteConvert said:
1990s cars, well 99% of them, simply are/were not fast compared to today. I drove a Seat Leon today. 276 bhp (and felt like 300 bhp). Just compare that with the laggy Escort Cosworth i had and it's weakling 227 bhp. Back then it was said to be a hugely fast and powerful car. It was too. THEN. Now a multi-purpose hatchback from Seat would hand it it's ass on a plate. Handling. Speed. Brakes. The lot. It would be 30 seconds a lap quicker at the Ring.
By 99%? Are we saying that all of the EVO's, Impreza's and other Japanese cars equate to less than 1%?It's also worth pointing out the Leon is a breathed on family car in exactly the same was as the Escort Cosworth is and the mighty Leon is only .5 of a second faster than the 1990's car and still far slower (at least in a straight line) than a lot of those 1990's cars. The Leon wouldn't know which way a lot of the fastest Japanese performance cars went!
Also and this is a genuine question, I thought there was no official ring time for the Escort Cosworth? (have I got this wrong?)
I had cars in the 1980s that were fast, but they were very much the minority.
No, every sector you care to imagine, cars are much faster today 9 times out of 10.
The fact that the next Golf hatchback will have more power than a V12 Lamborghini Countach supercar from 1991 tells you everything you need to know about the question.
Official ring time? No, but it is pretty obvious how long it would take, given it's weedy output, laggy engine (i had one remember) and crap brakes and gearbox.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Thursday 8th October 07:50
2001 BMW in line 6 2993cc turbo diesel saloon. 184 bhp/288 lbft
Now, from 313/464 to 375/550. Just look at that change in 14 years!
1995 Corvette. 265 bhp.
Now. From 460 to 640 bhp. Again a massive change.
Look at anything with 1.6 litres from the 90s. 105 bhp my 205 GTI had. We now have 1.6s with 270 bhp as standard. My 1987 (not long before the 90s) 3 litre Capri had 150 bhp and was considered powerful!
Of course an Evo was fast in the 90s, most cars built and sold in small numbers as high performance cars were. I had a Makkinen Evo and it's 276 bhp was pretty good. Okay, it's still behind a Civic Hatchback today (!!!) but it went quite well, yes.
But NOT like today, sorry.
Also it's not just the power and speed that make today's cars impressive, it's the fact they do it whilst carrying around shed loads of emissions and safety gear, which harms performance a lot. Today's engines in 1990s weight would be awesome. 360 bhp A45 AMG weighing 1250 kgs would be fun. 425 bhp BMW M3 weighing 1400 kgs would be too.
I digress, every modern fast car i have owned has been faster than every 80s or 90s fast car i owned. They just are.
Now, from 313/464 to 375/550. Just look at that change in 14 years!
1995 Corvette. 265 bhp.
Now. From 460 to 640 bhp. Again a massive change.
Look at anything with 1.6 litres from the 90s. 105 bhp my 205 GTI had. We now have 1.6s with 270 bhp as standard. My 1987 (not long before the 90s) 3 litre Capri had 150 bhp and was considered powerful!
Of course an Evo was fast in the 90s, most cars built and sold in small numbers as high performance cars were. I had a Makkinen Evo and it's 276 bhp was pretty good. Okay, it's still behind a Civic Hatchback today (!!!) but it went quite well, yes.
But NOT like today, sorry.
Also it's not just the power and speed that make today's cars impressive, it's the fact they do it whilst carrying around shed loads of emissions and safety gear, which harms performance a lot. Today's engines in 1990s weight would be awesome. 360 bhp A45 AMG weighing 1250 kgs would be fun. 425 bhp BMW M3 weighing 1400 kgs would be too.
I digress, every modern fast car i have owned has been faster than every 80s or 90s fast car i owned. They just are.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff