Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
Hol said:
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?)
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
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.
The Golf and the Leon are most certainly good cars and both have been given heroic status in this thread, yet are still slower than the fastest performance cars from the 1990's by some measures.
I made the point earlier, when comparing cars in the same classes, they are aren't always faster and even when they are, its often not by a huge margin. What they are is more accessible and deliver good performance but often also decent economy, service intervals and comfort whereas cars of that time that delivered similar performance had very short service intervals and were for some, difficult to live with.
He's correct regarding the Lamborghini Countach however the F40 from 1987 had an additional 171bhp on the Golf
As far as I recall, both Toyota and Mazda deliberately kept power outputs low and concentrated on the handling. They also deliberately limited the amount of grip that was available. I guess they recognised that performance is more than a who can piss the highest contest?
Modern performance cars may well have more power, better mpg and be quicker to 60 but they're also often bigger, heavier and more divorced from what's going on beneath them. Traction control, electronic PAS, stability control etc etc and less and less driver involvement. I think it's this which has seen such a rise in people going back to 'boring' cars like E30 M3, Pug 205, Golf GTi etc. Cars where it's driver input and not electronic aids that are paramount. Personally, I have nothing more than a passing interest in modern performance cars, as I just think they've lost whatever it was that made so many cars of the 70's, 80's & 90's iconic. How many current vehicles will people still want 25 years from now, no matter how quick they are?
Modern performance cars may well have more power, better mpg and be quicker to 60 but they're also often bigger, heavier and more divorced from what's going on beneath them. Traction control, electronic PAS, stability control etc etc and less and less driver involvement. I think it's this which has seen such a rise in people going back to 'boring' cars like E30 M3, Pug 205, Golf GTi etc. Cars where it's driver input and not electronic aids that are paramount. Personally, I have nothing more than a passing interest in modern performance cars, as I just think they've lost whatever it was that made so many cars of the 70's, 80's & 90's iconic. How many current vehicles will people still want 25 years from now, no matter how quick they are?
300bhp/ton said:
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 a full magnex and twin K&N`s on mine and I agree it did make a lovely noise...so it should of though because even back in the day the exhaust cost me nearly £500 and the filters were £100 and it probably only gave me about 8bhp extra! Thank god most things are turbo`s now because they are miles cheaper and more effective to tune.
300bhp/ton said:
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.I still find it strange that a Corsa VXR will have more BHP these days, and that a Toyota GT 86 has 'only' 200bhp :-/
In 1994 the FTO had almost identical performance to today's GT86.
Yet I came across a FT0 once and it kept me honest on the M1 and it surprised me big time and I have always had a soft spot for them since.
300bhp/ton 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.
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.
Still with 220bhp, Sapphire a little bit quicker to 60 with a 5.6 than the Leon Cupra 280bhp DSG ( 5.9 ) but it does trail at the quarter mile with a 14.3 rather than the Leon's 14.1. Does have 4wd though compared to the 2wd Leon with only DSG and launch control - as speeds head into 3 figures the Leon would really stride away
Certainly big gains in economy for the Seat though and stuff like this and the Golf R are, like the Ford, affordable high performance
Edited by s m on Thursday 8th October 22:30
CorvetteConvert said:
I know which most PHers would have...the 414 bhp V8.
Not a chance...I'd love an E30...cars don't get THAT highly rated by all manner of drivers/journos/owners without being a proper event to drive.Conversely, while the E92's V8 is undeniably an utter stonker, the rest of the car is just (by comparison to the E30) too aloof, too crushingly competent, too 'boring' at legal/semi-legal speeds.
The E92 would be a far easier daily driver proposition while still being fun on a special drive, but the E30 would genuinely make you smile on every drive...
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.
They're ALL PH-er cars. Stop being so narrow-minded.They would bore me silly within a week. But the V8 M3 is a true PH-er car.
CorvetteConvert said:
I drove a restored E30 and it was okay, but way too slow.
Erm...in comparison to what? E30 is similar in pace (but torquier so better mid-range) to my old DC2s, and I could hit 90/100mph quick enough in them, and I could keep up with your typical diesel rep on give-and-take driving.cerb4.5lee said:
CorvetteConvert said:
I know which most PHers would have...the 414 bhp V8.
Nothing wrong with the 414bhp V8...its the fact that it only has 295ib/ft of torque and has 1650kg to drag around that is the problem. ORD said:
cerb4.5lee said:
CorvetteConvert said:
I know which most PHers would have...the 414 bhp V8.
Nothing wrong with the 414bhp V8...its the fact that it only has 295ib/ft of torque and has 1650kg to drag around that is the problem. love it! Of course 295 torque is enough for most but I would have liked more and its flat low down, plus I never seem to get bored of slating the torque light barge that is the V8 M3!
You want to try driving a E90 330i though...it feels like its going backwards everywhere but then it would as its only got 221 torque and still has to carry over 1500kg.
Learn to change gear, you complete knobhead! 
Torque is for lazy motorway barges and shopping cars. Proper cars have lots of power and enough torque to be easy to drive sedately but not so much torque that there's no point revving out the engine and rowing the gears.
You need a 335d. Apologise to that 8400 revving V8 on your way out.
Torque is for lazy motorway barges and shopping cars. Proper cars have lots of power and enough torque to be easy to drive sedately but not so much torque that there's no point revving out the engine and rowing the gears.You need a 335d. Apologise to that 8400 revving V8 on your way out.
300bhp/ton 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.
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.
I have no idea.
ORD said:
Learn to change gear, you complete knobhead! Torque is for lazy motorway barges and shopping cars. Proper cars have lots of power and enough torque to be easy to drive sedately but not so much torque that there's no point revving out the engine and rowing the gears.
You need a 335d. Apologise to that 8400 revving V8 on your way out.
Already got a 640d so that suits me fine(if it didn't sound so s Torque is for lazy motorway barges and shopping cars. Proper cars have lots of power and enough torque to be easy to drive sedately but not so much torque that there's no point revving out the engine and rowing the gears.You need a 335d. Apologise to that 8400 revving V8 on your way out.
t!)...the day I apologise for a car that has crappy brakes, is overweight and sounds nothing like a V8 and sups like George Best...just isn't going to happen Havoc, i am just being honest. I will occasionally upset a few people along the way, (but 100 arguments a day on PH is normal it seems) but i'd rather that, than troll or lie. The E30 felt slow and, well, is slow, compared to almost every sporty car i have had in the last 15 years. Just how it is. It's like the Delta Integrale that so many people are so impressed with. I found that to have a laggy engine, with far too wide gear ratios and was a poorly made car that many diesels would now leave behind. Yes it is valuable and is going up in value and has classic appeal, but to actually drive daily something like an A45 AMG with the same engine size would massacre it everywhere despite all the gubbins the rules say it has to carry round with it nowadays. I am not saying the older cars are crap, i am pointing out that they are well slow compared to today, that's all.
I apologise if i appeared narrow-minded, i like most cars, take a look at my garage, but most people i know into fast cars and on PH would take the 414 bhp V8 over the E30 every time. Just as i am sure most people to actually drive every day and own would take the new Focus RS over the first one that i bought new in 2003.
I apologise if i appeared narrow-minded, i like most cars, take a look at my garage, but most people i know into fast cars and on PH would take the 414 bhp V8 over the E30 every time. Just as i am sure most people to actually drive every day and own would take the new Focus RS over the first one that i bought new in 2003.
ZX10R NIN said:
It's similar by having the same engine & drive train as the Golf R & being around the same price as a Golf R if you want a Hyper hatch take a look at the RS3 A45 AMG
All of the above have a similar bodyshell, drivetrain and performance to 2007 Impreza STI - does that make it the first true hyper hatch eight years earlier?Or is it excluded because it doesn't have flappy paddles or the latest electronic driver aids? (or German).
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
cerb4.5lee said:
Already got a 640d so that suits me fine(if it didn't sound so st!)...the day I apologise for a car that has crappy brakes, is overweight and sounds nothing like a V8 and sups like George Best...just isn't going to happen
£200 sorts the noise outt!)...the day I apologise for a car that has crappy brakes, is overweight and sounds nothing like a V8 and sups like George Best...just isn't going to happen But the BBK is expensive. All relative, I could trade her in for a 911 and be facing a massive engine bill but a car that has better brakes...and arguably looks nicer in the garage
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff