Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[thegreenhell]

e21Mark said:

Kawasicki said:

e21Mark said:

Kawasicki said:

are 1930's performance cars still quick?

The quick ones are, yes.

I'm looking for a time where the performance cars are slow, by modern standards.

That's a different question to the original one at start of the thread but I guess it also depends on what you deem as being quick? A car that could hit 60 in sub 6 seconds is quick no matter when it was built surely? It's pretty clear that technology has moved on though and the performance of cars generally, has improved.

When Autocar magazine tested a 1928 Bugatti T35 back in the '80s they recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds. That's still pretty fast today, and from what is a road-legal two-seater with a mere 2.3 litres built almost 90 years ago.

[Saabaholic]

s m said:

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

Just to note the graphic you post there is not of a performance Saab.
Its just a standard 9000 2.3, of the earlier flat front era.

It was the 9000 Aero that was famed for being faster mid range than a Diablo, M3, DB7, and the Volvo T5.

[schmunk]

thegreenhell said:

When Autocar magazine tested a 1928 Bugatti T35 back in the '80s they recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds. That's still pretty fast today, and from what is a road-legal two-seater with a mere 2.3 litres built almost 90 years ago.

Impressive figures for the age, but let's not forget that those 2.3 litres were supercharged.

The most directly comparable modern vehicle is the Caterham 7, which gets significantly better performance from a N/A 1.6 litres.


Edit: fix typo

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 14th October 07:55

[CorvetteConvert]

Jinjur said:

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

This is right. It's the same with all my cars, pretty much, in all classes of car.
Reason?
Technology. Development. Materials. A market for faster cars.
Despite having to weigh more via safety, noise and emissions regulations modern cars, say the hot hatches eg, are much quicker than the ones of old, even though as you rightly say the old ones were made of cardboard and will kill you in a crash above 20 mph very often, a crash today's cars would shrug of with a cat D repair.
My Lotus Sunbeam was the envy of the town when i bought it, a very lightweight hot hatch with an amazing for the time 150 bhp. It was considered a rocketship at the time. I wish i'd kept it for it's value now but performance? It wouldn't see which way a Corsa VXR went and that, nowadays is a very basic supermini with luke warm acceleration.

[s m]

Saabaholic said:

s m said:

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

Just to note the graphic you post there is not of a performance Saab.
Its just a standard 9000 2.3, of the earlier flat front era.

It was the 9000 Aero that was famed for being faster mid range than a Diablo, M3, DB7, and the Volvo T5.

That is true, I couldn't find an Aero test with all the in-gear figures at the time but the figures above would be roughly correct for the automatic version of the Aero which didn't get the bigger turbo and extra 25bhp of the manual I believe?

Interestingly, I notice that Saab have used the figures from the earlier Saab 9000 TCS road test posted above for the 50-70 pull in 5th gear ( 5.6 ) in the later Saab Aero advertising that you put up? Either that or they were coincidentally the same?

By the way, nice car you have

[schmunk]

The '50-70 in top gear' test is, of course, nonsense.

The Saab was only geared for 140mph, whilst the Lamborghini was geared for 200mph.

Drive the car like a real person and the Saab would be left behind...

[coppice]

schmunk said:

Impressive figures for the age, but let's not forget that those 2.3 litres were supercharged.

The most directly comparable modern vehicle is the Caterham 7, which gets significantly better performance from a N/A 1.6 litres.


Edit: fix typo

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 14th October 07:55

You can't really compare - and I own a Seven. The quicker Sevens now have the power to weight ratio of 50s Grand Prix cars but remember the original Seven had a 30odd bhp engine and skinny tyres . Twenty years on from the T35 it wouldn't have seen which way it went .

But, numbers apart, a Type 35 is one of the few cars which genuinely was iconic ; sublime styling , fantastic engine (s/c straight 8 of course) and a sound which no Seven ever could emulate . I am delighted that some owners still rag the arse off them too- watching a T35 at Cadwell is a truly wonderful experience at VSCC meetings and a well driven one would shame some of the more vocal legends in their own lunchtime of the trackday world ...

[e21Mark]

<div id="fb-root"></div><script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-video" data-allowfullscreen="1" data-href="/RallyCenterRacingSchool/videos/vb.124043320967900/925028717536019/?type=3"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/RallyCenterRacingSchool/videos/925028717536019/"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/RallyCenterRacingSchool/videos/925028717536019/"></a><p>Viejunísimo, pero fetén. &#1043359;</p>Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RallyCenterRacingSchool">RallyCenter</a> on Monday, 24 August 2015</blockquote></div></div>

[s m]

e21Mark said:

<div id="fb-root"></div><script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-video" data-allowfullscreen="1" data-href="/RallyCenterRacingSchool/videos/vb.124043320967900/925028717536019/?type=3"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/RallyCenterRacingSchool/videos/925028717536019/"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/RallyCenterRacingSchool/videos/925028717536019/"></a><p>Viejunísimo, pero fetén. ??</p>Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RallyCenterRacingSchool">RallyCenter</a> on Monday, 24 August 2015</blockquote></div></div>

I guess you have to subscribe to decode that link Mark?

[Kawasicki]

schmunk said:

thegreenhell said:

When Autocar magazine tested a 1928 Bugatti T35 back in the '80s they recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds. That's still pretty fast today, and from what is a road-legal two-seater with a mere 2.3 litres built almost 90 years ago.

Impressive figures for the age, but let's not forget that those 2.3 litres were supercharged.

The most directly comparable modern vehicle is the Caterham 7, which gets significantly better performance from a N/A 1.6 litres.


Edit: fix typo

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 14th October 07:55

Let's keep with the logic of the thread though. 60 mph in 6 seconds is still quick today. I think it is fair to say that a quick car from any time would still be quick today.

[schmunk]

Kawasicki said:

schmunk said:

thegreenhell said:

When Autocar magazine tested a 1928 Bugatti T35 back in the '80s they recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds. That's still pretty fast today, and from what is a road-legal two-seater with a mere 2.3 litres built almost 90 years ago.

Impressive figures for the age, but let's not forget that those 2.3 litres were supercharged.

The most directly comparable modern vehicle is the Caterham 7, which gets significantly better performance from a N/A 1.6 litres.


Edit: fix typo

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 14th October 07:55

Let's keep with the logic of the thread though. 60 mph in 6 seconds is still quick today. I think it is fair to say that a quick car from any time would still be quick today.

Agreed, but the Type 35 was effectively a Formula 1 car in its day.

[thegreenhell]

schmunk said:

Kawasicki said:

schmunk said:

thegreenhell said:

When Autocar magazine tested a 1928 Bugatti T35 back in the '80s they recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds. That's still pretty fast today, and from what is a road-legal two-seater with a mere 2.3 litres built almost 90 years ago.

Impressive figures for the age, but let's not forget that those 2.3 litres were supercharged.

The most directly comparable modern vehicle is the Caterham 7, which gets significantly better performance from a N/A 1.6 litres.


Edit: fix typo

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 14th October 07:55

Let's keep with the logic of the thread though. 60 mph in 6 seconds is still quick today. I think it is fair to say that a quick car from any time would still be quick today.

Agreed, but the Type 35 was effectively a Formula 1 car in its day.

Not just that though. It was very much an all-rounder, Grands Prix, road races and rallies, and was road legal and available to anybody with the funds to buy one. Many were, and some still are, used on the roads as the ultimate sports car of the time. If you'd wanted to buy one purely for road use you could. It was only a few years later that GP cars became specialised single-seaters.

[Kawasicki]

schmunk said:

Kawasicki said:

schmunk said:

thegreenhell said:

When Autocar magazine tested a 1928 Bugatti T35 back in the '80s they recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds. That's still pretty fast today, and from what is a road-legal two-seater with a mere 2.3 litres built almost 90 years ago.

Impressive figures for the age, but let's not forget that those 2.3 litres were supercharged.

The most directly comparable modern vehicle is the Caterham 7, which gets significantly better performance from a N/A 1.6 litres.


Edit: fix typo

Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 14th October 07:55

Let's keep with the logic of the thread though. 60 mph in 6 seconds is still quick today. I think it is fair to say that a quick car from any time would still be quick today.

Agreed, but the Type 35 was effectively a Formula 1 car in its day.

Similarly, a slow car from any time would also be considered a slow car today.

This thread really has helped my understanding of the world.

[Kitchski]

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.

Mmmm, not trying to play the BX fanboi role or anything, but 150bhp/ton today is really top of the range modern diesel performance today (regular cars like a Mondeo, not 6-cyl £35k stuff). Most diesels have say 140bhp, but weigh 1500kg or more. Overall they're still slower cars. I agree by today's standards 7secs or whatever to 60mph isn't lightning (certainly not what it was considered in the 80's or 90's) but it takes a pretty quick diesel to get near something comparable era/performance-wise of the BX (whether it's 405Mi16, Jetta GTi 16v etc). I know from experience I've struggled to shake off a new shape Golf GTD before, and I'll never forget the day when our Mondeo ST200 couldn't get past an Octavia TDI (and it wasn't even a performance model) but at the same time, the BX can stick with the majority of things on the road today, including leaving a Merc CLS (the bottom of the range diesel model) rather embarrassed when he got into the wrong lane and tried to beat me off the line to cut into my lane. I was feeling rather immature that day, and the BX didn't let me down

As I said above, I do think there is still a case to say 1990's cars are quick, because everything's relative. I did 50mph in a Fiat 126 the other day, and that felt batst fast! So being that 'quick' is a purely the opinion of the person who drives it, I think it's possible to argue that 1990's cars are quick, and some 1980's cars, and some 70's cars and so on. Where the water muddies is when you try to compare them with modern cars. It's comparing apples and oranges. The modern equivalent of a BX 16v (someone on crack higher up saying it's a C2 VTS....a warm hatch, more likely a modern version of an AX GT) would be something like a Focus ST, in terms of cost and progression. No good comparing them now, as the BX wouldn't see which way the Focus went, but I'd still say the BX is pretty quick and still say the Focus is pretty quick, because they're quick in their own rights.

This could drag on forever

ETA: If you had a 1993 BX 16v, you wouldn't have been amazed at the performance as they lost a fair chunk of power with the fitting of a catalyst, and don't feel particularly fast on the road compared with the older models which were catless.

Edited by Kitchski on Friday 16th October 14:00