Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
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?
I accept that some folk think specific cars are / were better but really it's all subjective anyway. My own personal preference is for cars of the 60's, 70's & 80's, when cars were more stylish than they are today. Modern guidelines dictate what car manufacturers can do to a greater extent, as well as sharing chassis and many other components, in an effort to reduce cost etc. As a result modern cars are just a bit too bland for my tastes. They're also heavier and far more removed from the actual driving experience. Modern technology allows the car to do pretty much everything now and I guess this is progress? It's just not what I want from my car though.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?
I have no idea if the Evo Makkinen was the best version, but if there are folk saying it was, it's just their opinion. People simply want and enjoy different things about their cars, which is why there's such a diverse selection on here. I spent 3 years building my road car which is based on a model that was neither particularly popular or quick. I could have bought a Golf R for less but it's just not for me. It's not better, just different, which is what makes it better for me. (It's probably not far off a Golf R in a sprint though)
CorvetteConvert said:
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'. 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.
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
I like the dynamic attributes of my cars to match with none being overwhelmed by another. As well as singularity of focus, the most important for me is steering communication, something largely lost on all new cars.
You seem to think that just because you have owned lots of cars you are somehow 'right'. I don't buy cars that I don't want or which feel 'ordinary'. I have however driven many cars and know what I want and like in a car. Most if which I don't get in a modern machine.
Against something like a Corvette, I would rather have my tweaked Lotus Elise S1 Sport 160. Reason being it is far lighter, still capable of being used everyday, is good fun on track, will power oversteer at will, has probably the best steering of any car ever made and is full of character.
No doubt your Vette would burn me away from the lights but for me, I don't care. Not everyone wants the most powerful car - indeed I personally get less pleasure from some faster cars.
All a matter of opinion. I love my 'old chuggers' as quite frankly they thrill and impress me every time I get behind the wheel and can drive them harder for longer and closer to the limits of their dynamic envelope for more of the time.And like you, your thoughts have no bearing on the pleasure I get from driving.
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?
Are you really this short sighted? Some cars have a cult following and to simply state that newer is better is naive in the extreme.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?
My 90's Performance hatchback is quicker than most things on the road today. I admit its mildly tuned, but not a lot.
0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
you could add yes but whats more fun to drive to this threads original question.....
the modern stuff might pull 0-60 sub 5 or 6 secs through a semi auto box where your german euro box might as well have a robot behind the wheel. foot on brake, other on the gas, stick in D, if you want to get away quickest from the lights in order that you can go buy your Big Mac with fries this is all fine, but i still enjoy making the modern stuff use every single one of its 250-300 horses to beat me to 60 or 100 or whatever by the chasm that is......oh, 1 or 2 long drawn out seconds in my old shed and it still surprises drivers if you actually go neck on neck or even pull ahead.
i think the main difference is in stability and braking. thats where old cars really do fall down.
the modern stuff might pull 0-60 sub 5 or 6 secs through a semi auto box where your german euro box might as well have a robot behind the wheel. foot on brake, other on the gas, stick in D, if you want to get away quickest from the lights in order that you can go buy your Big Mac with fries this is all fine, but i still enjoy making the modern stuff use every single one of its 250-300 horses to beat me to 60 or 100 or whatever by the chasm that is......oh, 1 or 2 long drawn out seconds in my old shed and it still surprises drivers if you actually go neck on neck or even pull ahead.
i think the main difference is in stability and braking. thats where old cars really do fall down.
CorvetteConvert said:
When the E30 was brand new people would have said exactly the same, that the very first cars in that classs had more appeal.
Can't say I remember that happening.I remember people in our street all rushing out to see the new Sierra that one of our neighbours had just purchased and the E30 M3 a few years later was phenomenal by comparison.Times were changing! It was bedroom wall poster territory for many and if you were fortunate enough to see one, you would talk about it for weeks.It was quick where it mattered back then and still will be today in the right hands.ToothbrushMan said:
you could add yes but whats more fun to drive to this threads original question.....
the modern stuff might pull 0-60 sub 5 or 6 secs through a semi auto box where your german euro box might as well have a robot behind the wheel. foot on brake, other on the gas, stick in D, if you want to get away quickest from the lights in order that you can go buy your Big Mac with fries this is all fine, but i still enjoy making the modern stuff use every single one of its 250-300 horses to beat me to 60 or 100 or whatever by the chasm that is......oh, 1 or 2 long drawn out seconds in my old shed and it still surprises drivers if you actually go neck on neck or even pull ahead.
i think the main difference is in stability and braking. thats where old cars really do fall down.
coilovers + better brake pads and modern tires do wondersthe modern stuff might pull 0-60 sub 5 or 6 secs through a semi auto box where your german euro box might as well have a robot behind the wheel. foot on brake, other on the gas, stick in D, if you want to get away quickest from the lights in order that you can go buy your Big Mac with fries this is all fine, but i still enjoy making the modern stuff use every single one of its 250-300 horses to beat me to 60 or 100 or whatever by the chasm that is......oh, 1 or 2 long drawn out seconds in my old shed and it still surprises drivers if you actually go neck on neck or even pull ahead.
i think the main difference is in stability and braking. thats where old cars really do fall down.
Saabaholic said:
My 90's Performance hatchback is quicker than most things on the road today. I admit its mildly tuned, but not a lot.
0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
I remember seeing one of the Traffic Police programs on tv, where they raved about the performance of the 9000 and how they struggled to keep pace with them. 0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
e21Mark said:
Saabaholic said:
My 90's Performance hatchback is quicker than most things on the road today. I admit its mildly tuned, but not a lot.
0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
I remember seeing one of the Traffic Police programs on tv, where they raved about the performance of the 9000 and how they struggled to keep pace with them. 0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
s m said:
e21Mark said:
Saabaholic said:
My 90's Performance hatchback is quicker than most things on the road today. I admit its mildly tuned, but not a lot.
0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
I remember seeing one of the Traffic Police programs on tv, where they raved about the performance of the 9000 and how they struggled to keep pace with them. 0-60 in 5.3. But most impressive is the 70 to 100 stretch in 3rd, which is just 3.5 seconds. There is not a lot that can touch that. Even leaves an R8 for dead in that band.
I give you, the Saab 9000 Aero. The "Quickest" Saab ever produced, and with a heavily over engineered engine that can take a daily 400bhp in stock form with no mods.
e21Mark said:
s m said:
e21Mark said:
I remember seeing one of the Traffic Police programs on tv, where they raved about the performance of the 9000 and how they struggled to keep pace with them.
Not now they have 330 diesels though.....No Mark, I meant the Police nowadays in their 330 diesel X-drive traffic cars wouldn't find the same disparity in performance pursuing a turbo 9000.
The '1990 cars aren't quick' camp would say that such performance is just 'warmish' now
Interesting question and great topic.
My second car was a 1990 Civic 1.6i-16 as at that age, I simply could not afford a VTEC variant.
In my head.....it was the fastestestest thing on earth. heh. Back then, I was comparing it to cars around 2000 and there really was very little competition IMO. After all, it was made from tissue paper and farts and weighed roughly 4Kg with a 130bhp engine.
Grew up a bit and stepped into a 2003 Clio 172, one of the cars I was happily confident the Civic would lay waste to.
Nope. All the nopes.
The difference a few years made to the capability of a hot hatch was breathtaking. The Clio would utterly trounce the Civic.....all day, every day in every situation. Yet, back then it was still bargain basement warm motoring.
Looking at the latest hot hatches (not even looking at the big guns like Focus RS, Gold R etc) and they really are throwing out some crazy figures......figures that I am sure 90 era supercars could not live with.
J
My second car was a 1990 Civic 1.6i-16 as at that age, I simply could not afford a VTEC variant.
In my head.....it was the fastestestest thing on earth. heh. Back then, I was comparing it to cars around 2000 and there really was very little competition IMO. After all, it was made from tissue paper and farts and weighed roughly 4Kg with a 130bhp engine.
Grew up a bit and stepped into a 2003 Clio 172, one of the cars I was happily confident the Civic would lay waste to.
Nope. All the nopes.
The difference a few years made to the capability of a hot hatch was breathtaking. The Clio would utterly trounce the Civic.....all day, every day in every situation. Yet, back then it was still bargain basement warm motoring.
Looking at the latest hot hatches (not even looking at the big guns like Focus RS, Gold R etc) and they really are throwing out some crazy figures......figures that I am sure 90 era supercars could not live with.
J
On a bit of a tangent, I was watching the end of "Police Interceptors" earlier on and the police guy was parked up in an unmarked fairly recent Audi S3. Noticing a car zip past at what he estimated was "well into 3 figures" he managed to catch it and time it at 99mph after a while. Just as he put the lights on to pull the 1984 E30 318i over, he 'lost' the clutch on the Audi.
He was probably glad that 1980s cars aren't quicker!
He was probably glad that 1980s cars aren't quicker!
Kawasicki said:
e21Mark said:
Kawasicki said:
are 1930's performance cars still quick?
The quick ones are, yes.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff