Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[CorvetteConvert]

Something else to consider. The cars from the 90s weighed a lot less, so if any of them ARE in the running compared to today's cars, it's their weight or lack of which is the reason.
Today's cars are saving lives every day, because if the drivers had been in some of the 80s and 90s cars i had they would have folded like a tin of sardines and killed the occupants.
It's something i am very aware of when i take the Caterham out on the road. I am sure it would fold in a crash. Today's mainstream cars are not just faster but safer, better equipped and much kinder to the planet. Win win win.

A Peugeot 306 instead of a Golf R with it's 300 bhp?
Right, each to their own!

[AntiLagGC8]

CorvetteConvert said:

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 restrcitions 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.

I think your main issue is you keep comparing cars that were fast back then but no where near the fastest performance cars of their era.

The 330D you mention is also incidentally far faster than majority of the performance cars of today!

I'm not arguing technology hasn't moved on but I am arguing that lots of 1990's cars are still very fast today.

Technology has certainly moved on and performance is very accessible thanks to launch control and other systems but unfortunately the downside is also significant in terms of weight and loss of the driving experience. You mention cars are more reliable, I think this area is a little in question as many of the highest performance cars of today still have reliability issues.

[Hol]

St John Smythe said:

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...

This 'hyper hatch' phrase is cringeworthy.

Im not even sure who invented it. Probaby a Saxo owner.

[AreOut]

AntiLagGC8 said:

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.

the truth is diesels nowadays are tuned from the factory to the (almost) maximum boost, a tuned turbo hatch from 1990s will easily go past 600 hp with the same reliability of a modern diesel

and it will run rings around it

[SidewaysSi]

CorvetteConvert said:

Something else to consider. The cars from the 90s weighed a lot less, so if any of them ARE in the running compared to today's cars, it's their weight or lack of which is the reason.
Today's cars are saving lives every day, because if the drivers had been in some of the 80s and 90s cars i had they would have folded like a tin of sardines and killed the occupants.
It's something i am very aware of when i take the Caterham out on the road. I am sure it would fold in a crash. Today's mainstream cars are not just faster but safer, better equipped and much kinder to the planet. Win win win.

A Peugeot 306 instead of a Golf R with it's 300 bhp?
Right, each to their own!

Yes, each to their own. You seem to play the same bloody record on this thread. If you actually believed what you just posted, I think you would have given up long ago.

The 306 Rallye is one of the greats. Guess what, I would prefer a Clio Williams, a 205 GTI and a even an old Honda above a new Golf R. And yes, I know the Golf has 300 bhp, would probably save me in a crash and and would get me where I wanted faster than all the others. But I bloody well wouldn't care less. And i would say the B18c engine in a DC2 is a lot better than the Golf's by some distance.

To be honest your Corvette would do nothing for me. I think there are many types of car enthisiast out there, all wanting different things. Our views do not converge.

[bigkeeko]

AreOut said:

the truth is diesels nowadays are tuned from the factory to the (almost) maximum boost, a tuned turbo hatch from 1990s will easily go past 600 hp with the same reliability of a modern diesel

and it will run rings around it

I tend to agree with that and trying not to head down the diesel/petrol debate but same cc and same amount of turbos the petrol cars are faster. I said a few pages back about my friends 1994 TT Supra and a work colleagues 535d. Two 3.0L engine both with two turbos . From the factory the old Toyota is faster to 60 by a fair bit and faster over the 1/4 by a fair bit. Modified they`re miles apart the diesel simply cannot compete with the old 90s Toyota.

[e21Mark]

The question seems to have changed from ''Are 1990's performance cars still quick?'' to ''Are modern cars quicker than 1990's cars?''

[r129sl]

The 1990s cars are as quick as they ever were. Given nobody else seems to be racing, I'm sure you can make just as much progress now as then.

As for modern cars, well, it's had to get excited about a Golf R, especially when everyone's got one.

[Patrick Bateman]

e21Mark said:

The question seems to have changed from ''Are 1990's performance cars still quick?'' to ''Are modern cars quicker than 1990's cars?''

Only for one person it would seem, even after this has been pointed out to him.

[Digby]

Depends on the route.On a rather boring drag strip, no doubt many 90's cars will seem slow compared to today.Where it matters, around the twisty back roads, you'll have trouble shaking off a well driven 205 Gti or MX-5 for example in many modern motors.

And anyway, modern stuff is boring as hell and far too 'safe' and bloated to be thrilling.It's all just subtle variations on a theme these days and all the themes seem to relate to making them look like Xbox pads inside whilst throwing gadgets at you hand over fist.That's fine for having a fast, comfy daily you can go on holiday in; but that's not where I would be looking for a more pure driving experience.

As for the E30 vs v8 suggestion, you can chalk me up as another who wouldn't even notice the V8 if it were parked beside an E30.The modern BMW could do 0 to 60 in half a second and top 400 mph, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference for me.One is a drivers car of legendary status and the other..........isn't.

[s m]

AntiLagGC8 said:

CorvetteConvert said:

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 restrcitions 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.

I think your main issue is you keep comparing cars that were fast back then but no where near the fastest performance cars of their era.

The 330D you mention is also incidentally far faster than majority of the performance cars of today!

I'm not arguing technology hasn't moved on but I am arguing that lots of 1990's cars are still very fast today.

Technology has certainly moved on and performance is very accessible thanks to launch control and other systems but unfortunately the downside is also significant in terms of weight and loss of the driving experience. You mention cars are more reliable, I think this area is a little in question as many of the highest performance cars of today still have reliability issues.

Does that mean unless your 2015 performance car can drop a 330 diesel like a hot potato in a straight line then it's not even classed as "quick"? In which case, all the stuff like the Cupra 280 and basic Cayman Porsche are slow?

Or is it that a new 330d is just a very fast car nowadays?

[CorvetteConvert]

SidewaysSi said:

Yes, each to their own. You seem to play the same bloody record on this thread. If you actually believed what you just posted, I think you would have given up long ago.



To be honest your Corvette would do nothing for me. I think there are many types of car enthisiast out there, all wanting different things. Our views do not converge.

No more than you are 'playing the same bloody record'.
I OWNED most of the 1990s hatches you are talking about and compared to what we have today they are poor. The 306 was very ordinary.
I am also curious as to why the Corvette would do nothing for you. That may well explain why you prefer all the old chuggers to genuinely fast modern cars.
But even so, why would a PHer NOT like a sports car:-

With 566 bhp of natural aspiration, produced by a 7,011 cc V8? (505 standard).
The weight of a Ford Focus.
Which handles fantastically well as standard.
That looks superb from almost every angle.
Has many expensive engine internal upgrades from the factory as stock that make it able to produce 750-900 bhp with a simple supercharger/improved cooling conversion.
That has one of the best engine sounds in automotive history.
I currently own an SL55 AMG, a Caterham R500 Superlight and the Corvette. The latter is the one i would keep if i could only have one of them. Without question.
But yes, i did mean it, you enjoy what you enjoy, it will hardly impact on the fun my cars give me will it? Doh!

Edited by CorvetteConvert on Sunday 11th October 15:40

[CorvetteConvert]

Patrick Bateman said:

e21Mark said:

The question seems to have changed from ''Are 1990's performance cars still quick?'' to ''Are modern cars quicker than 1990's cars?''

Only for one person it would seem, even after this has been pointed out to him.

So are 1950s cars still quick then??

[CorvetteConvert]

So the E30 is a classic driver's car but the M4 isn't?
When the E30 was brand new people would have said exactly the same, that the very first cars in that classs had more appeal.
In 20 years' time the M4 will be held in high regard no doubt, as ''better than what we have now''.
It's called ROSE TINTED GLASSES and far too many people wear them and it applies to motorcycles too. A bloke at Matlock Bath last week told me that he thought the sports bikes from the 70s were better than what we have today!
It's the same nonsense. A Kawasaki Z1 (i owned one) or my Ducati? As a sports bike? He actually believed the 70s bike was better! Rose tinted glasses.

[e21Mark]

CorvetteConvert said:

Patrick Bateman said:

e21Mark said:

The question seems to have changed from ''Are 1990's performance cars still quick?'' to ''Are modern cars quicker than 1990's cars?''

Only for one person it would seem, even after this has been pointed out to him.

So are 1950s cars still quick then??

Only the quick ones.

Jaguar D Type 3.4L - [1954]0 to 60 mph time - 4.7 seconds

Between 5 and 6 seconds.
Ferrari 410 Superamerica Series 3 - [1959]0 to 60 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Ferrari 410 Superamerica Series 1 - [1955]0 to 60 mph time - 5.6 seconds
Chevrolet Corvette C1 283 Convertible - [1957]0 to 60 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Ferrari 340 Mexico - [1952]0 to 60 mph time - 6.0 seconds

Any car that can hit 60 in under 6 seconds is quick. It's year of manufacture is irrelevant.

CorvetteConvert said:

So the E30 is a classic driver's car but the M4 isn't?
When the E30 was brand new people would have said exactly the same, that the very first cars in that classs had more appeal.
In 20 years' time the M4 will be held in high regard no doubt, as ''better than what we have now''.

They didn't. The E21 323i wasn't really held in high regard at all and certainly wasn't seen as a worthy successor to the 2002tii it replaced. The E30 was seen as a significant step forward, in both looks and performance. The general consensus regarding the E30 M3 though, is that it is one of the best handling saloon cars ever. You can label this rose tinted spectacles if you wish, but this is a label it has had for the past 25 years. (Yes, I'm biased as I own one and have been known to appreciate the occasional Bavarian motor)

[CorvetteConvert]

But Mark will you accept that there is a school of thought that ''the older stuff was better''.
You know, like the Lancer Evo Makkinen was the best Evo even though it certainly wasn't as good or fast as the MK9 360?
How on earth can a 306 Rallye be better than say a Megane RS275 Cup?

[CorvetteConvert]

Ok, enough.
1990s cars are still quick; in some peoples' eyes.
But i certainly want more performance than 99% of them give me.
I had stacks of 1990s 'fast' cars but they are all a lot slower than my recent stuff. They just are. I'll stick with modern unless i want timeless appeal visually and romantically, then yes, some older classics are amazingly amazing!

[TheInternet]

CorvetteConvert said:

A bloke at Matlock Bath last week told me that he thought the sports bikes from the 70s were better than what we have today!

We have comfortably established that your idea of better is different to someone else idea of better. Did you ask him how he felt they were better?

Out of interest, do you like karting?

[AreOut]

r129sl said:

The 1990s cars are as quick as they ever were. Given nobody else seems to be racing, I'm sure you can make just as much progress now as then.

As for modern cars, well, it's had to get excited about a Golf R, especially when everyone's got one.

you'd have to spend more than 7K on that R to compete with this which costs 7K in total

http://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/details.html?id=...

[markcoznottz]

CorvetteConvert said:

But Mark will you accept that there is a school of thought that ''the older stuff was better''.
You know, like the Lancer Evo Makkinen was the best Evo even though it certainly wasn't as good or fast as the MK9 360?
How on earth can a 306 Rallye be better than say a Megane RS275 Cup?

Evo 5-6 was the high point though, it's very easy to decat/sports cat and have a remap to give the earlier cars the same bhp as the 9. This is what Mitsubishi did to the 9 to increase power. The early cars have more connection to their rallying cousins, and the five speed gearbox is much sweeter than the later six speed.