Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[Lowtimer]

CorvetteConvert said:

The question was ABOUT the fast cars though!

The original post was actually about cars in the fairly modest warmed-up mid-range family car market, e.g. higher end 3-series (not M-cars) and hot hatches of the era, and suggested:

"The argument I hear trotted out nowadays is that none of these would see which way a modern diesel repmobile went and the relatively modest power and torque outputs would seem to support that."

The answer to that particular question is that a new 320D or Golf GTD is definitely tough straight line competition for an E30 325i or Mark II / Mark III GTI 16v.

It is somewhat different from the question of "is a 40 year old 930 a quick car today", to which the answer is obviously yes, if you know how to drive it properly. A new Golf R is also a quick car today. There's no conflict in these positions, they are simple numerical facts. It's when you start introducing concepts like "better" or "less of a true PH car" that it starts to look like some sort of agenda. (Which I'm sure it's not, given your car history, but I think it may come across that way to some people if we are all defining the issues differently).

Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 8th October 11:22

[Leins]

CorvetteConvert said:

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

I suspect we have different expectations. When I'm really enjoying driving cars like E30s, say on back roads or even sweeping A-roads, they never "feel" slow to me. Even in a straight-line I've never felt frustrated with the performance on offer, so cannot quite tally with exactly where you're coming from

Maybe it's a certain mindset, but I don't get into such cars thinking "Oh dear, this hasn't got a 4L V8 so it's going to be slow", but instead view it as something fit-for-purpose in making me smile and getting down a road quickly (and occasionally scaring the crap out of me! ) When I do that, they still seem like fast ground-covering cars for my fairly limited skills, and if it feels quick to me then it is quick to me

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I seem to have a very different "PH-er" viewpoint to you

Where I will admit there can be a huge difference is in braking performance. I know these can be upgraded but many 80s and even 90s performance cars can feel a little inadequate, and require more care and attention than even new cooking models

[interloper]

CorvetteConvert said:

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

No thanks, too modern for my tastes!

[mat205125]

CorvetteConvert said:

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!

..... and only 1142kg for the 930 Turbo.

http://930-turbo.com/specs.shtml

1378kg for the new Civic Type R

http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/honda/civic-typ...

Porshe is 17% lighter than a modern hot hatch ..... Given the difference in size, it's actually incredible that the weight of the civic is so low.

[e21Mark]

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.

Both would give many modern performance cars a hard time. Especially on B roads and lanes, such as those we have down here. Whilst both have modest power, at circa 240bhp, they also way a lot less. Attempting to place them in the same league as a 2CV, albeit to try and lend weight to your position, is just plain silly. Both are quick cars, end of. Yes, many modern cars are quicker, but that doesn't make the older ones slow.

[Batfink]

CorvetteConvert said:

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

Honestly? The mk1 golf.
Its not the fastest golf, it does not need to be. If you simply want to accelerate faster than the car next to you then owning a 1970's designed car is not for you (unless you modify it). Surely for the 1990's though the Golf to have was the Mk2 g60 16v, but its still going to be slow in a drag race against the top modern hot hatches.

I have a Toyota AE86 and still am allowed to drive a friends Peugeot 205 with an Mi16 engine (which with 180ish bhp is actually quick). Both are generally fast enough, but the 86 with only 130bhp couldnt outdrag a thing so I never try. It rewards in a multitude of ways modern cars find impossible and have enough flaws to give the car a certain character.
180bhp in a 205 is enough to outdrag an R32 golf (first version)though for reference.

30+ years has brought us faster cars without question, the real question should be is a 90's car fast enough to enjoy it, and the answer is yes.

Edited by Batfink on Thursday 8th October 13:05

[Olivera]

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?

This is a thread about 90s cars, yet you're comparing the Golf GTI Mk1 released in 1975 versus a car that doesn't exist yet?

[CorvetteConvert]

When all has calmed down i suppose the easiest way to look at this is to ask a few other questions.
Were 60s performance cars as quick as 90s ones? No.
Were 60s motorcycles as quick as 90s ones? No.
Were 90s cars as quick as today's? No.
Were 90s motorcycles as quick as today's? No.
Were 90s computers as fast as todays's? No.
Were 90s mobiles as good as today's? No.
Were 90s off-road bicycles as fast and good as my current all-carbon bike? No.

It's called progress and it is called development and it is called technology.

There were some lovely cars and bikes made in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s, but performance-wise they ain't at the races!

Enough of this topic methinks!

[Patrick Bateman]

Are you having a conversation with yourself? Who is saying 90's performance cars are AS QUICK as modern ones?

[300bhp/ton]

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.

But it's not exactly hot hatch performance is it. Ok there are a few and it is a few hyper hatches that can do this, which in any other guise likely wouldn't be called a hot hatch anyhow, just as a lot of people don't consider an Escort Cosworth a hot hatch.

Only these days car makers don't have to build road going versions of competition cars.

Your average hot hatch is no where near 12 sec or under 0-100mph.

[TREMAiNE]

CorvetteConvert said:

When all has calmed down i suppose the easiest way to look at this is to ask a few other questions.
Were 60s performance cars as quick as 90s ones? No.
Were 60s motorcycles as quick as 90s ones? No.
Were 90s cars as quick as today's? No.
Were 90s motorcycles as quick as today's? No.
Were 90s computers as fast as todays's? No.
Were 90s mobiles as good as today's? No.
Were 90s off-road bicycles as fast and good as my current all-carbon bike? No.

It's called progress and it is called development and it is called technology.

There were some lovely cars and bikes made in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s, but performance-wise they ain't at the races!

Enough of this topic methinks!

Erm... No.

Take a 1992 RX-7.

It'll hit 60 in 5.5 seconds and do a standing quarter mile in under 14 seconds.

That IS still quick. The OP was asking if 90's performance cars are still quick, not if they're faster than modern performance cars.


The 'answer' to the topic is "Some 90's performance cars are still quick, others aren't'"

[DuncanM]

I had a 200SX S14 in standard trim and it felt bloody fast.

I still find it strange that a Corsa VXR will have more BHP these days, and that a Toyota GT 86 has 'only' 200bhp :-/

[300bhp/ton]

bigkeeko said:

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.

Was the XR4x4 really a fast car in any day though? My mate had one, very tidy that he and his Dad rebuilt the 2.9 V6 (his Dad was a mechanic). Added a nice burbly exhaust, K&N induction kit and a few other trinkets. It was nice and sounded bloody brilliant. Wasn't very quick though.

I had an MG Maestro 2.0 EFI at the time and 3 up with only 2 people in the XR4x4i, the MG would simply piss all over the Ford up to about 95mph. Enough that I could start behind them, over take and pull a few car lengths on them.

And I wouldn't exactly call the Maestro a "fast" car, just brisk'ish in it's day.

[300bhp/ton]

s m said:

The old MX5 vs the new MX5

http://youtu.be/ghMtyVQXX5Y

Can't watch with the sound on, but guessing it's the new 1.5 and not 2.0 litre they used?

[300bhp/ton]

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.

Considering you own a Cosworth I'd have thought you'd be a bit more savvy on them.

The laggy experience is due to the BIG turbo (assuming early model). This is because the car only existed to gain rally homoligation. So the big turbo would not be an issue on a Grp A rally car, or even a Grp N one.

To the same tune, the motor was massively detuned for the production cars, and no way reflects their potential.

As for the road going ones performance, it was ok, but no quicker than a fwd Rover Coupe Turbo (slightly slower from a roll) and only marginally faster than an MG Maestro turbo. Hardly Earth shattering.

The Leon by comparison has no such motorsport ties and in stock trim is only marginally bettering the Cosworth against the clock.

[300bhp/ton]

CorvetteConvert said:

1995 Corvette. 265 bhp.
Now. From 460 to 640 bhp. Again a massive change.

At least try and get the figures right.

1995 Corvette would be 330bhp or 405bhp depending on the model you picked. And weighing less than today's C7.

Certainly the C7 is faster, but that's not the point, as the latter C4's are chuffing quick cars too.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 8th October 20:31

[300bhp/ton]

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?

Hardly like for like though is it. In relative terms what percent of the average wage would a Mk1 GTI be vs 400R. Massive difference.

[300bhp/ton]

CorvetteConvert said:

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???

The point? That actually you are saying the most extreme hot hatch today is on par with a 1970's supercar. Nice, but hardly relevant to the thread.

[300bhp/ton]

TREMAiNE said:

CorvetteConvert said:

When all has calmed down i suppose the easiest way to look at this is to ask a few other questions.
Were 60s performance cars as quick as 90s ones? No.
Were 60s motorcycles as quick as 90s ones? No.
Were 90s cars as quick as today's? No.
Were 90s motorcycles as quick as today's? No.
Were 90s computers as fast as todays's? No.
Were 90s mobiles as good as today's? No.
Were 90s off-road bicycles as fast and good as my current all-carbon bike? No.

It's called progress and it is called development and it is called technology.

There were some lovely cars and bikes made in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s, but performance-wise they ain't at the races!

Enough of this topic methinks!

Erm... No.

Take a 1992 RX-7.

It'll hit 60 in 5.5 seconds and do a standing quarter mile in under 14 seconds.

That IS still quick. The OP was asking if 90's performance cars are still quick, not if they're faster than modern performance cars.


The 'answer' to the topic is "Some 90's performance cars are still quick, others aren't'"

+1

[300bhp/ton]

DuncanM said:

I had a 200SX S14 in standard trim and it felt bloody fast.

I still find it strange that a Corsa VXR will have more BHP these days, and that a Toyota GT 86 has 'only' 200bhp :-/

This might be true. But a Mitsubishi FTO Gpx Mivec also had "only" 200hp. And is a similar car to the GT86, as in 2+2 affordable coupe, designed for fun and driving. Ok the FTO is FWD, but that doesn't alter how it was pitched or it's market placement.

In 1994 the FTO had almost identical performance to today's GT86.