Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
yonex said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Already got a 640d so that suits me fine(if it didn't sound so s
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 
£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
I find it frustrating that the E46 M3 had poor brakes yet BMW still didn't learn and launched the E92 with equally poor brakes and its something that annoys me for what is meant to be the top of the range performance 3 series.My mrs wants to tick the 911 box one day and I have never even sat in one never mind driven one but those that have rave about them, and at least Porsche treat them as a sports car and fit adequate brakes from the off...BMW obviously thought they were still building a 318d when it came to brakes for the M3!
One of my cars is a 1990 BX 16v, so hopefully I'm well-placed to judge. 160bhp (it frequently nudges that on the dyno) and it's lots of fun. Book times weren't bad for the day (mid 7s to 60mph, and that includes two gear changes). Kerb weight is quoted at about 1075kg, so about 150bhp/ton give or take. Lots of more modern stuff has more power, but also weighs lots more, so you're probably looking at similar bhp/ton figures. The newer cars often have the power/torque spread out wider across the rev-band, and faster changing gearboxes too. Oh, and start-line grip. They've definitely got more of that.
Harder thing to judge is what 'quick' actually is. The BX feels quite quick, as it's less refined, has short gearing and makes lots of drama if you start to cain it. Are you actually getting down the road any faster than an Octavia TDI? Hard to tell! I had a play with a Golf GTD a few months back and the BX had a really hard time! Back in the 90's it could stick (or better) a VR6. I know, because I tried more than once. That was the fastest Golf, but today it's a Golf R (I think?) Miles and miles quicker, not even in the same league. The top Focus is faster, the top Astra faster, top Leon etc. Everything's faster, and the fastest version of my car is now on a level pegging with a warm version of a modern car, if it's lucky. If you compared a Passat diesel from 1992 to a Passat diesel from 2015, the newer one would be miles faster. I suspect the only advantage of the old one would be clean emissions
All that said, if someone asks me "Is your BX 16v a quick car?" my answer is still normally "Yeah, it's not bad" because I think you have to take into account what a car is to say whether it's quick or not.
Example - BX is only a 1.9 lump, no turbo, no VVT, nothing. 160bhp, or 84bhp/litre, which was good for 1986 when the engine was ready for production. For what it is, the BX 16v is pretty decent at sprinting. Seat Leon Cupra R - 225bhp. Faster than the BX to 60mph, higher top speed, quicker in-gear blah blah blah. I've driven two of them. Did I remember it being quick? Not really. And that's about as scientific as it gets I think. 'Quick' is an opinion. Some people think 10secs to 60mph is quick. Most don't, but I bet a 2CV that could do 0-60 in 10secs would feel batst fast!
So I'd say cars from the 90's are slower than today, without question. But I'd also argue they can still be quick.
Harder thing to judge is what 'quick' actually is. The BX feels quite quick, as it's less refined, has short gearing and makes lots of drama if you start to cain it. Are you actually getting down the road any faster than an Octavia TDI? Hard to tell! I had a play with a Golf GTD a few months back and the BX had a really hard time! Back in the 90's it could stick (or better) a VR6. I know, because I tried more than once. That was the fastest Golf, but today it's a Golf R (I think?) Miles and miles quicker, not even in the same league. The top Focus is faster, the top Astra faster, top Leon etc. Everything's faster, and the fastest version of my car is now on a level pegging with a warm version of a modern car, if it's lucky. If you compared a Passat diesel from 1992 to a Passat diesel from 2015, the newer one would be miles faster. I suspect the only advantage of the old one would be clean emissions
All that said, if someone asks me "Is your BX 16v a quick car?" my answer is still normally "Yeah, it's not bad" because I think you have to take into account what a car is to say whether it's quick or not.
Example - BX is only a 1.9 lump, no turbo, no VVT, nothing. 160bhp, or 84bhp/litre, which was good for 1986 when the engine was ready for production. For what it is, the BX 16v is pretty decent at sprinting. Seat Leon Cupra R - 225bhp. Faster than the BX to 60mph, higher top speed, quicker in-gear blah blah blah. I've driven two of them. Did I remember it being quick? Not really. And that's about as scientific as it gets I think. 'Quick' is an opinion. Some people think 10secs to 60mph is quick. Most don't, but I bet a 2CV that could do 0-60 in 10secs would feel bats
t fast!So I'd say cars from the 90's are slower than today, without question. But I'd also argue they can still be quick.
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 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.
I'd suggest the guy who rebuilt the V6 engine didn't get something quite right. Either that or you had a hidden turbo in your Maestro engine bay 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.
Seriously, the XR was no ball of fire but I would've expected it to easily stay with a 2 litre Maestro
Hol said:
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...
CorvetteConvert said:
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.
Fair enough, if that's what appeals to you.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 just find that pretty much anything modern that's billed as 'quick' is actually pretty boring until you get to licence-losing speeds, and I don't have the money/time to do lots of trackdays or road trips.
Equally, modern 'warm' cars are generally even more dull as they've just got stock suspension/steering/brakes and a slightly more powerful engine than normal.
(Don't get me wrong...they're arguably better daily ownership propositions than the older cars, they just don't engage the driver in the same way...)
...hence why I think that something where the limits are lower, where the NVH isn't as comprehensive, the weight is lower (THIS makes a massive difference to the way a car feels/behaves), the PAS is hydraulic, the throttle-response isn't artificially-enhanced DBW and generally you get a better feel for how the car is behaving under you...is more 'fun'...certainly at 2-figure speeds.
I could list a dozen examples of where 'progress' isn't, from that perspective, but I suspect our values are different and your primary focus is outright speed/grip/response.
andy-integrale said:
I have come to the conclusion that it's better to have a road car that's good fun and enjoyable to drive without going massively quick. 80's and 90's performance cars probably fit that bill. My integrale is still brisk but can induce a smile at fairly moderate speeds.
i.e. I'm like Andy.(For reference, I'd have another DC2 ITR in a heartbeat if I had another garage space and £5k to spare. 133lb ft means it's an effort to drive in give-and-take traffic, top is 17.8mph/1,000rpm, there's no NVH, no 'toys' beyond a stereo, e/w and optional a/c...it's not a great daily driver. BUT...it's just SO engaging, so communicative, so adjustable, so immersive an experience that you soon forget all of the modern stuff that we keep being told you HAVE to have in a car and just revel in driving the tits off the car and feeling it keep upping its game in response. I've not driven another car like it this side of an Elise (and even there I'd take the 'teg) or Caterham for pure, unfiltered 'fun'. The E30 M3 and Integrale are different in approach but VERY close siblings in character/performance/engagement.)
ORD said:
The A45 AMG? Probably epitomises just about everything crap about modern cars. Bling styling, horrid engine, embarrassing farty exhaust. Fast and st.
Hmmm.t.Alternatively, it is a top quality, 5 door, do everything car, great down a b road in summer or winter with it's 4wd, happy doing the school run or the trip to Barcelona, well equipped and with acceleration to sadden many a 911 driver from just 1991cc!
Different ways of seeing many things!
[quote=Kitchski]One of my cars is a 1990 BX 16v, so hopefully I'm well-placed to judge. 160bhp (it frequently nudges that on the dyno) and it's lots of fun. Book times weren't bad for the day (mid 7s to 60mph, and that includes two gear changes). Kerb weight is quoted at about 1075kg, so about 150bhp/ton give or take. Lots of more modern stuff has more power, but also weighs lots more, so you're probably looking at similar bhp/ton figures. The newer cars often have the power/torque spread out wider across the rev-band, and faster changing gearboxes too. Oh, and start-line grip. They've definitely got more of that.
Kitchski, i put 107,000 miles on a BX 16V. J610DNU.
It really was a good car, quirky, quick-ish and although fit and finish was sometimes not great the engine was a peach. Keep the spheres charged and the ride was good too.
Kitchski, i put 107,000 miles on a BX 16V. J610DNU.
It really was a good car, quirky, quick-ish and although fit and finish was sometimes not great the engine was a peach. Keep the spheres charged and the ride was good too.
CorvetteConvert said:
She puts the lotion in the basket said:
No
Next question
+1 but some will never admit it!Next question
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Sunday 11th October 07:33
It's also clear you don't have to be able to piss the highest to enjoy cars and driving. I found the 400bhp V8 M3 to be extremely quick on a dual carriageway, but I also found it heavy, lacking in feel and driver involvement and pretty bland to look at. Personally, I much prefer the E30 M3, despite it being slower. (on paper anyway) I will take the E30 for a hoon just for the hell of it but I never did that with the V8 and its flappy paddle gear change. Yes, I'm sure the paddles offer quicker changes but I much prefer heel and toe, with the satisfaction that comes with getting it right.
People want different things from their cars and a bit of diversity never hurt anyone, but that doesn't mean old = slow.
You are right though in that cars from the 90s and even 80s and 70s can be great fun.
It's just that something like a Focus RS MK1 (and that was 2003) is now so made to look so slow by the new one.
I am curious. Which would you have if you were given one to drive for a year then hand back.
The Focus RS MK1 or the Mk3?
A 1995 Golf GTI or the new Golf R?
A Porsche GT3 2015 or the first one?
It's just that something like a Focus RS MK1 (and that was 2003) is now so made to look so slow by the new one.
I am curious. Which would you have if you were given one to drive for a year then hand back.
The Focus RS MK1 or the Mk3?
A 1995 Golf GTI or the new Golf R?
A Porsche GT3 2015 or the first one?
CorvetteConvert said:
You are right though in that cars from the 90s and even 80s and 70s can be great fun.
It's just that something like a Focus RS MK1 (and that was 2003) is now so made to look so slow by the new one.
I am curious. Which would you have if you were given one to drive for a year then hand back.
The Focus RS MK1 or the Mk3?
A 1995 Golf GTI or the new Golf R?
A Porsche GT3 2015 or the first one?
Without any hesitation:It's just that something like a Focus RS MK1 (and that was 2003) is now so made to look so slow by the new one.
I am curious. Which would you have if you were given one to drive for a year then hand back.
The Focus RS MK1 or the Mk3?
A 1995 Golf GTI or the new Golf R?
A Porsche GT3 2015 or the first one?
- Focus Mk1
-Golf R (the 1995 Mk3 Golf was crap). Though I would take a 306 Rallye over an R any day.
-Mk1 996 GT3
Reason being they are more than quick enough (can easily see 100 mph on the road in a short straight), have feel and finesse than no new car can match. And you can probably breach their chassis limits at will, in safety on the road at reasonable speeds.
Sorry but I don't want a new car with no steering feel or ability to tweak the back axle at 30 mph. Even if it would be doing 120 down that straight. It's all a bit pointless for the sorts of driving I do (90% road, 10% track).
The sacrifice for faster speed is enormous these days. In all honesty, 90s cars are probably not quicker than today's. But are they more than fast enough (ie can easily get you into licence losing speeds): Yes. Are they far more fun on road and probably track than a new car:Yes. No competition IMO.
CorvetteConvert said:
Yeah but how many cars did under 5 seconds 20 years ago? You are talking about a tiny minority of cars surely? The normal 'fast car' from 1990s, like my 1993 BX 16 valve is just very slow today, even diesel repmobiles would murder it.
Between 5 & 6 seconds is more realistic. There are sub 5 sec cars but even today, they're a minority I imagine. Between 4 and 5 seconds.
TVR Chimaera 5.0 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 4.1 seconds
TVR Griffith 4.3 - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 4.1 seconds
TVR Griffith 500 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 4.1 seconds
Aston-Martin Vantage 600 - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 4.3 seconds
Ferrari 360 Modena F1 - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.3 seconds
Ferrari 550 Maranello - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.3 seconds
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo IV RS - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 4.3 seconds
Ford Mustang FR 500 - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.5 seconds
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo III - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 4.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V3 - Classic (JDM) - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 4.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX Type RA - Classic (JDM) - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 4.5 seconds
Aston-Martin Vantage V8 550 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Dodge Viper SRT/10 8.0L V10 - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Lotus Esprit S4 3.5 V8 Turbo - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Nissan Skyline R34 GTR - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Porsche 911 Carrera 996 - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V1 - Classic (JDM) Wagon - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Chevrolet Corvette C4 ZR1 - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Ferrari 355 F1 Berlinetta - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo V GSR - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Porsche 968 3.0 Turbo S - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V1 - Classic (JDM) - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V3 Type R - JDM - Classic - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V3 V-Limited - Classic (JDM) - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V4 - Classic (JDM) - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V5 Type R - JDM - Classic - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V5 Type RA - JDM - Classic - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V5 V-Limited - Classic (JDM) - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V6 - Classic (JDM) - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V6 Type RA - JDM - Classic - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX Type RA - Classic (JDM) - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds
Audi 80 RS2 Avant - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 4.8 seconds
Caterham 7 Superlight - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 4.8 seconds
Ferrari 512 M - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 4.8 seconds
Ferrari 512 TR - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 4.8 seconds
Honda NSX R 3.0 V6 - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 4.8 seconds
Mercedes SL Class 73 AMG V12 R129 - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.8 seconds
BMW 5 Series M5 E39 - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 4.9 seconds
Mazda RX7 RZ - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 4.9 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 4.9 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V2 - Classic (JDM) - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 4.9 seconds
Honda NSX T 3.2 V6 - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Nissan Skyline R33 GTR - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI - Classic 22B - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V2 - Classic (JDM) Wagon - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX Type RA - Classic (JDM) - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Between 5 and 6 seconds.
Ferrari 456 GT 5.5 V12 - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Ferrari 456 M GT 5.5 GT - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Lamborghini Diablo VT 5.7 V12 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Lotus Esprit 2.0 Turbo GT3 - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Maserati 3200 GT FH 3.2 Turbo - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Maserati Shamal 3.2L V8 BiTurbo - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Mazda RX7 Turbo - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo I RS - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo II - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Toyota Supra 3.0 Turbo - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Aston-Martin DB7 3.2 V6 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Aston-Martin DB7 Vantage - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Ferrari 465 M GT - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Ford Mustang 4th Gen SVT Cobra Coupe - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Jaguar XK R Coupe 4.0 V8 Supercharged - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Lotus Carlton 3.6 Turbo - [1990]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Maserati Ghibli 2.0 Turbo Cup - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Porsche 911 Carrera 2 - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
TVR Chimaera 4.5 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.2 seconds
BMW 3 Series M3 Evolution E36 - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 5.3 seconds
Mercedes CLK 55 AMG - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.3 seconds
Mercedes E Class 60 AMG 6.0 V8 W124 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.3 seconds
Toyota Mark II 2.5 Tourer V - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.3 seconds
BMW 3 Series M3 E36 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
BMW Z3 M Coupe 3.2 2d - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Mercedes C Class 55 AMG - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Mitsubishi 3000 GT VR-4 - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Nissan Silvia S15 Spec R - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Porsche 928 GTS 5.4L V8 - [1991]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Renault Alpine A610 3.0 V6 Turbo - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Audi A4 S4 2.7T Quattro - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS 5.7 V8 - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Honda NSX 3.2 V6 - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Mazda RX7 FD Turbo - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Mitsubishi 3000 GT - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Porsche Boxster 3.2 S 260 - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) Wagon - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) Wagon - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX - Classic (JDM) Wagon - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX STI V3 V-Limited - (JDM) Wagon - [1997]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Subaru Impreza WRX Wagon - Classic (JDM) - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
TVR Chimaera 4.0 - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Ford Sierra Sapphire RS Cosworth 4x4 - [1990]0 to 60 mph time - 5.6 seconds
Nissan 300ZX 3.0 V6 Turbo - [1990]0 to 60 mph time - 5.6 seconds
Nissan Skyline R32 GTR - [1990]0 to 60 mph time - 5.6 seconds
Toyota Supra 3.0 Turbo Auto - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.6 seconds
Alpine A610 3.0 V6 - [1991]0 to 60 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Bentley Mulsanne Turbo RT - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Chevrolet Camaro 5.7 V8 Z28 - [1991]0 to 60 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Honda NSX 3.0 V6 - [1990]0 to 60 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Toyota MR2 Mk2 Turbo Rev 3 - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Audi Coupe S2 2.2T Quattro - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.8 seconds
BMW 3 Series M3 GT E36 - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 5.8 seconds
Bentley Continental T 6.8 V8 Turbo - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 5.8 seconds
Ford Escort RS Cosworth - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.8 seconds
Lotus Elise S1 - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 5.8 seconds
Porsche 944 Turbo Cabriolet - [1991]0 to 60 mph time - 5.8 seconds
Audi A6 S6 4.2 Quattro - [1999]0 to 60 mph time - 5.9 seconds
Audi Coupe S2 2.2T Quattro - [1991]0 to 60 mph time - 5.9 seconds
BMW 5 Series M5 E34 - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.9 seconds
Mercedes SL Class 600SL V12 R129 - [1992]0 to 60 mph time - 5.9 seconds
Nissan Skyline R33 GTS25t Coupe - [1993]0 to 60 mph time - 5.9 seconds
Toyota Celica GT Four ST205 - [1994]0 to 60 mph time - 5.9 seconds
Caterham Super 7 1.4 Supersport - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 6.0 seconds
Caterham Super 7 1.6 16v - [1995]0 to 60 mph time - 6.0 seconds
Fiat Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo - [1996]0 to 60 mph time - 6.0 seconds
Lancia Delta HF Integrale 16v - [1991]0 to 60 mph time - 6.0 seconds
Porsche 911 Carrera 4 996 - [1998]0 to 60 mph time - 6.0 seconds
CorvetteConvert said:
Yeah but how many cars did under 5 seconds 20 years ago? You are talking about a tiny minority of cars surely? The normal 'fast car' from 1990s, like my 1993 BX 16 valve is just very slow today, even diesel repmobiles would murder it.
You're right in the number of performance cars that could dip below 5's was a handful, however there are also only a handful of cars today that can perform the same feat. So on that front, I'd call it a draw.Comparing a BX today is akin to comparing modern C2 VTS which modern repmobiles will do the same too.
The truth with diesel cars today is, all but the fastest performance cars of both era's may find it very difficult to get away from them.
Since the 90s we`ve had the rise and mechanical advancement of the Turbo diesel. A lot has went on and a lot of progress has been made in this field and the modern turbo diesel black soot machine is more than a match for it`s similarly sized naturally aspirated petrol equivalent. This, in itself should tell you that cars (in general) are quicker now than they were 20 years ago.
But. There will always be the exceptions to the rule and remember the `power battles` by manufacturers in the `90s to procure sales weren`t as competitive as they are now. Things were `limited` for one reason or another and cars were literally detuned for sale to the untrusting public. Cosworth with 220hp running 7lb of boost? Come on? These cars were just as reliable with 280-300 and I know as I had two of them and that was in the EIGHTIES. If they were breathed on slightly as opposed to restricted the car`s would have been quicker back then than what they were because it`s not like the technology, tolerances, extra fuelling and boost wasn`t available.
But let`s not get away from it. Yes, in most cases cars now are quicker than what they were and in 20 years they`ll be quicker again .
But. There will always be the exceptions to the rule and remember the `power battles` by manufacturers in the `90s to procure sales weren`t as competitive as they are now. Things were `limited` for one reason or another and cars were literally detuned for sale to the untrusting public. Cosworth with 220hp running 7lb of boost? Come on? These cars were just as reliable with 280-300 and I know as I had two of them and that was in the EIGHTIES. If they were breathed on slightly as opposed to restricted the car`s would have been quicker back then than what they were because it`s not like the technology, tolerances, extra fuelling and boost wasn`t available.
But let`s not get away from it. Yes, in most cases cars now are quicker than what they were and in 20 years they`ll be quicker again .
AntiLagGC8 said:
You're right in the number of performance cars that could dip below 5's was a handful, however there are also only a handful of cars today that can perform the same feat. So on that front, I'd call it a draw.
My escort Cosworth had 227 laggy bhp. The new Focus RS with all the restrictions a modern car has put on it has 345 much less laggy bhp!A single turbo BMW 330D from 2015 would murder a Sierra Cosworth, even with it's diesel lump!
There is simply no comparison and the reason i know is i had many of the fast cars from the 90s and many of today's too. I have seen and felt the difference over and over again.
I was out in the Corvette this morning and i came across a white BMW M4, which looked stunning in the flesh by the way. Yes i was easily able to stay behind him as he turned the wick right up, but for a well mannered car with under 3 litres of capacity that thing absolutely flew. In a way no standard 1990s saloon could hope to match. I had a Lotus Carlton and that had 377 bhp but it had a light switch powerband. Typical old technology engine with lots of boost and big turbos. Today's cars manage to not just be faster but also to be much safer and more reliable. The engines have benefitted from 20 years of development and technology.
It ain't rocket science really.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Sunday 11th October 13:59
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff