Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[CorvetteConvert]

e21Mark said:

It's clear by looking at power outputs and sprint times, that modern cars are quicker than those of 20 years ago, but that certainly doesn't make those cars slow! Those figures only tell part of the story.

Golf GTI MK1 (115bhp) or the Golf 400R (397bhp)? Which would you honestly take as a car to drive the next 3 years?

[chris watton]

And yet, you'll still have a white rental van bomb past you at some point, no matter how fast you think you're going!

[Hol]

CorvetteConvert said:

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?)

Missing the point. We are not saying were the fastest rally reps in 1990 fast, we are saying are 1990s cars in general fast compared to today. The answer is no, because i have owned or driven every car pretty much from both eras.
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

Actually, I think GC8 is responding to the numerous posts who seem to think that all the affordable sub 5 second five seat family cars were only invested in 2012.


It is a little off topic from the original, but no more that your own thread asking if sports car drivers secretly wanted a motorbike. Its currently full of enthusiastic biking/biker comments, but very few responses from the intended audience.

So, it happens everywhere.

[e21Mark]

CorvetteConvert said:

e21Mark said:

It's clear by looking at power outputs and sprint times, that modern cars are quicker than those of 20 years ago, but that certainly doesn't make those cars slow! Those figures only tell part of the story.

Golf GTI MK1 (115bhp) or the Golf 400R (397bhp)? Which would you honestly take as a car to drive the next 3 years?

I wouldn't want either. That said though, I do drive a 1982 BMW and have done for way more than 3 years. I do have a 1990 M3, so I guess that could be seen as a concession to a modern car, although I regularly drive a 44 year old 2002 also. I spent the first part of this year with a 2013 M3 and yes, it was undoubtedly very fast. I much prefer my 2 though.



Yes, the V8 M3 is quick but I'd never swap it for the E30.

[CorvetteConvert]

I know which most PHers would have...the 414 bhp V8.

[CorvetteConvert]

The 2 older cars pictured above have 'classic appeal' but then so does my 2CV.
They would bore me silly within a week. But the V8 M3 is a true PH-er car.

[Lowtimer]

Well, that's a purely personal choice and other PHers, like me, disagree with you. I much prefer driving older BMWs (same for Mercs, Porsches)

[Patrick Bateman]

CorvetteConvert said:

The 2 older cars pictured above have 'classic appeal' but then so does my 2CV.
They would bore me silly within a week. But the V8 M3 is a true PH-er car.

I'd like a shot of the e9X M3, I'm sure I'd love it, but I suspect there's a reason the e30 is regarded by most as one of, if not the, greatest M car.

If we're talking about whatever a true PH car is (getting on course for no true Scotsman here), you really can't argue with an e30 M3.

[CorvetteConvert]

Lowtimer said:

Well, that's a purely personal choice and other PHers, like me, disagree with you. I much prefer driving older BMWs (same for Mercs, Porsches)

Of course, i know people who think that 1930s cars were their favourites. Again, not really the point. My dad loves his 1960s Aston Martin but in reality it's awful to drive quickly.

[CorvetteConvert]

I drove a restored E30 and it was okay, but way too slow.

[GravelBen]

CorvetteConvert said:

The fact that the next Golf hatchback will have more power than a V12 Lamborghini Countach supercar from 1991

Just to be pedantic... (because this is the internet after all)

The Countach was a 1970s car, and ended production in 1990 (by which time it had 450bhp, significantly more than the 300 of the Golf R). Calling it a 90s supercar is a little disingenuous don't you think?

[CorvetteConvert]

'Fast' 1990s cars and 2015 cars, bottom line; they are much more powerful now and much faster, 99 times out of 100.
Many 1990s cars i owned felt quick back then, but drive them now and you think, ''how the hell did this feel fast to me''?
I think the old Porsche 930 turbo a friend owns is a lovely car but fast? Then, yes. But place it next to the new Porsche 911 turbo and see the bhp/performance GULF!
Light years!

[s m]

e21Mark said:

Yet I'd take the Ford over the Seat in a heartbeat.

You'll be alright in the traffic light Grand Prix at legal speeds Mark

[CorvetteConvert]

GravelBen said:

CorvetteConvert said:

The fact that the next Golf hatchback will have more power than a V12 Lamborghini Countach supercar from 1991

Just to be pedantic... (because this is the internet after all)

The Countach was a 1970s car, and ended production in 1990 (by which time it had 450bhp, significantly more than the 300 of the Golf R). Calling it a 90s supercar is a little disingenuous don't you think?

Okay an EARLY Countach, you must get the point???

[Lowtimer]

CorvetteConvert said:

'Fast' 1990s cars and 2015 cars, bottom line; they are much more powerful now and much faster, 99 times out of 100.
Many 1990s cars i owned felt quick back then, but drive them now and you think, ''how the hell did this feel fast to me''?
I think the old Porsche 930 turbo a friend owns is a lovely car but fast? Then, yes. But place it next to the new Porsche 911 turbo and see the bhp/performance GULF!
Light years!

But compare it to 95% of the cars actually making up the traffic on UK roads today and the 930 is still fast. You write as if every Golf is an R, and every 5-series an M5, where as most of them are 1.6 shopping trolleys or four-pot diesels

[CorvetteConvert]

Lowtimer said:

CorvetteConvert said:

'Fast' 1990s cars and 2015 cars, bottom line; they are much more powerful now and much faster, 99 times out of 100.
Many 1990s cars i owned felt quick back then, but drive them now and you think, ''how the hell did this feel fast to me''?
I think the old Porsche 930 turbo a friend owns is a lovely car but fast? Then, yes. But place it next to the new Porsche 911 turbo and see the bhp/performance GULF!
Light years!

But compare it to 95& of the cars actually making up the traffic on UK roads today and the 930 is still fast.

No figures to hand but what, 285 bhp were they?
All the sporty hatches have more now! Surely that answers the original question!

[CorvetteConvert]

Lowtimer said:

CorvetteConvert said:

'Fast' 1990s cars and 2015 cars, bottom line; they are much more powerful now and much faster, 99 times out of 100.
Many 1990s cars i owned felt quick back then, but drive them now and you think, ''how the hell did this feel fast to me''?
I think the old Porsche 930 turbo a friend owns is a lovely car but fast? Then, yes. But place it next to the new Porsche 911 turbo and see the bhp/performance GULF!
Light years!

But compare it to 95% of the cars actually making up the traffic on UK roads today and the 930 is still fast. You write as if every Golf is an R, and every 5-series an M5, where as most of them are 1.6 shopping trolleys or four-pot diesels

The question was ABOUT the fast cars though!

[CorvetteConvert]

Well, if people seriously believe 1990s sporty cars even approached the power and performance of today's sporty cars; then, please do buy them all up. But i won't be waiting for you when we go out!
I'll be GAWN! :-)

[Patrick Bateman]

That's clearly not what people were saying, I didn't think it was the original question either as it's utterly blatant modern cars will be faster than their older counterparts.

[Lowtimer]

The 1970s 3.0 was 260 hp and sub 1300 kg, 0-100 is about 12.5 secs.

The 1980s ones, most were 300 or 330 hp unmodified, top seeds in the 170s and 0-100 in well sub 12, which is obviously still a quick car in the context of today's traffic, most of which still does 0-100 in 30 secs or slower.

A 1990s 911 Turbo, coming around to the era in the subject heading, is say a 993 Turbo S, is 450 hp, 0-100 in 8.8, top speed 188.

If those aren't quick cars then you have SNP standards of objectivity.