Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?
Discussion
I own a '93 integrale. Its still very capable and quick, but as was said above, the driver satisfaction is greater. A quicker modern car wont give me the driver enjoyment, which is more important than out right speed.
90's performance cars are not slow, 80's either. maybe if you back to the 50's or 60's.
90's performance cars are not slow, 80's either. maybe if you back to the 50's or 60's.
swerni said:
japaneseskoda said:
Just a decat pipe and change of air filter box. Nothing much. They were 241bhp as standard and weighed 1,275kg so still reasonable today, plus mid engine RWD lay down of power from roundabouts is an excellent way of moving the car. If modern car has mild mods too, then things may be different, but it's still very quick, 5.5 secs 0 - 60 in standard form is surely reasonable pace today?
my 2 tonne 4x4 will do that.quick but it's hardly going to blow most things in to the weeds up to 80
i.e. pretty much anything you can see in this picture:
Is vastly slower.
90s Saab Turbos should still hold up fairly well vs today surely?
Saab 93 would be up against the mid sized VAG cars of today. The Saab Aero would be 250bhp so good to go against todays cars.
The bigger 95 wold have the same engine in the aero version but might struggle against some of the higher performance executive cars from todays sales room, but surely not that far off?
They might struggle against new FWD with fancy diffs and electronics but once moving the Saabs get up and go was always pretty swift.
Saab 93 would be up against the mid sized VAG cars of today. The Saab Aero would be 250bhp so good to go against todays cars.
The bigger 95 wold have the same engine in the aero version but might struggle against some of the higher performance executive cars from todays sales room, but surely not that far off?
They might struggle against new FWD with fancy diffs and electronics but once moving the Saabs get up and go was always pretty swift.
J4CKO said:
0-100 in 11 sec, still definitely quick but a lot has caught up, a 135i does it in 11.7, Golf R in 12
But how many 135i's do you seriously see every day? Let alone Golf R's. I see lots and lots and lots of 116 and 118 BMW's and a few 120d's. But 135i's. Probably less than 1 a week (unless it's the same one again and again). And I must see 1000 cars+ every day on my commute.J4CKO said:
wonder what the nearest modern equivalent is to the Carlton.
Probably nothing UK market. Suspect some of the Hennessey cars are similar in ethos:http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/
Or if we are talking factory then maybe the Charger Hellcat.
J4CKO said:
375 bhp used to be massive, massive power
It is still a lot IMO. I mean how many people do you know personally who own cars with more power? I suspect the number isn't massive.Or simply tally up many cars you drive past on your way home from work that have 375 ponies or more.
J4CKO said:
a Sierra Cosworth was considered very fast with 204, which barely rates as a warm hatch now
I think there are two things here. Firstly power to weight. The Sierra is lighter than many modern cars. Also while 200hp seemed a lot in the UK, it really wasn't when you consider a wider global market.ikarl said:
90's performance cars;
E36 M3
200sx turbo
Mr2 turbo
300zx tt
Supra tt
3000gto
944 turbo
Impreza
Evo
Still pretty quick IMO
Why no Skyline? E36 M3
200sx turbo
Mr2 turbo
300zx tt
Supra tt
3000gto
944 turbo
Impreza
Evo
Still pretty quick IMO
Agree with other's though, modern stuff is vastly quicker. The much lauded and mentioned Golf R especially, fabulously quick - zero emotion (the one I tried was). I went for the older car and don't regret it for an instant.
spats said:
90s Saab Turbos should still hold up fairly well vs today surely?
Saab 93 would be up against the mid sized VAG cars of today. The Saab Aero would be 250bhp so good to go against todays cars.
The bigger 95 wold have the same engine in the aero version but might struggle against some of the higher performance executive cars from todays sales room, but surely not that far off?
They might struggle against new FWD with fancy diffs and electronics but once moving the Saabs get up and go was always pretty swift.
Saabs don't get going properly till they are in third gear as they are torque limited by the ECU in 1st and 2nd so as to control wheel spin.Saab 93 would be up against the mid sized VAG cars of today. The Saab Aero would be 250bhp so good to go against todays cars.
The bigger 95 wold have the same engine in the aero version but might struggle against some of the higher performance executive cars from todays sales room, but surely not that far off?
They might struggle against new FWD with fancy diffs and electronics but once moving the Saabs get up and go was always pretty swift.
The only 9-3 with the 2.3 engine was AFAIK the Viggen - all the rest had the 2 litre in either B204 or B207 formats (the latter being the Vauxhall engine).
I think the quickest off the shelf Saab may well have been the 2.8 V6 turbo in the last generation 9-3.
ORD said:
The MX5 is far more like a 1990s car than most, as is the GT86. Neither is well loved on here!
Can't quite get if this is sarcasm or not.Agree with your points mind, though I wonder whether the gap between a new car now and its equivalent from '95 is as large as the gap between '95 and '75.
Edited by DrTre on Monday 14th September 17:05
Welshbeef said:
They will probably feel faster due to more noise - but sadly all of those are beaten and well beaten by diesels these days. Heck not even the fastest diesel is needed to do it.
Just no 
Welshbeef said:
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
I think this is where the stats don't really work well.But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
The M3 (or is it M4) will have a launch control mode, if it's a fancy DSG auto, then it'll shift uber quick and of course big fat wide tyres.
This means it's not really a good like for like comparison.
Start off at 40mph and run to 100-120mph, so you remove all the launch control and traction improvements, and things are likely to be a lot closer.
The M4 is probably still the quicker, but the perceived gap is probably less so.
300bhp/ton said:
J4CKO said:
0-100 in 11 sec, still definitely quick but a lot has caught up, a 135i does it in 11.7, Golf R in 12
But how many 135i's do you seriously see every day? Let alone Golf R's. I see lots and lots and lots of 116 and 118 BMW's and a few 120d's. But 135i's. Probably less than 1 a week (unless it's the same one again and again). And I must see 1000 cars+ every day on my commute.J4CKO said:
wonder what the nearest modern equivalent is to the Carlton.
Probably nothing UK market. Suspect some of the Hennessey cars are similar in ethos:http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/
Or if we are talking factory then maybe the Charger Hellcat.
J4CKO said:
375 bhp used to be massive, massive power
It is still a lot IMO. I mean how many people do you know personally who own cars with more power? I suspect the number isn't massive.Or simply tally up many cars you drive past on your way home from work that have 375 ponies or more.
J4CKO said:
a Sierra Cosworth was considered very fast with 204, which barely rates as a warm hatch now
I think there are two things here. Firstly power to weight. The Sierra is lighter than many modern cars. Also while 200hp seemed a lot in the UK, it really wasn't when you consider a wider global market.I said 375 is still a lot but it isnt an amazing number like in 1990, hot hatches are knocking on 350/360, its S (as opposed to RS) Audi Power, not quite M power BMW level, higher spec E class Merc but not AMG level power, still a substantial amount, especially in a Carlton which isnt all that heavy but it needs 600 bhp to raise eyebrows these days.
Weight is part of it but modern cars do seem to make good use of the power and some of the performance lost to additional weight is gained back with clever gearboxes, if not the same raw feel.
My 944 would have felt ballistic to me back in 1990 when it was new, with 204 bhp, it wasnt slow, but neither did it feel that fast, the 350Z is a bit quicker, but still, most of the time I could do with a bit more, and that is the crux of it, expectations have changed, my cousin pops round occasionally in something daft (991 turbo last time) and my definition of quick have been set very high, even relative to going in a 911 turbo back then.
God knows where it is going, I need a go in a Tesla P85D
300bhp/ton said:
Welshbeef said:
11 seconds (Lotus Carlton) is E46 M3 fast and Jag XJR
But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
I think this is where the stats don't really work well.But the new M3 is what 8 seconds ?/not that much slower than an F40 to 100mph!
The M3 (or is it M4) will have a launch control mode, if it's a fancy DSG auto, then it'll shift uber quick and of course big fat wide tyres.
This means it's not really a good like for like comparison.
Start off at 40mph and run to 100-120mph, so you remove all the launch control and traction improvements, and things are likely to be a lot closer.
The M4 is probably still the quicker, but the perceived gap is probably less so.
Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
300bhp/ton said:
Start off at 40mph and run to 100-120mph, so you remove all the launch control and traction improvements, and things are likely to be a lot closer.
The M4 is probably still the quicker, but the perceived gap is probably less so.
How about this, a Ferrari F40 does 30mph-70mph in 2.8 seconds the BMW M4 3.5 seconds, for perspective a 2001 BMW M5 takes 4.8 seconds, a 2013 BMW 320D takes just under 8 seconds.The M4 is probably still the quicker, but the perceived gap is probably less so.
Also consider a 1994 Lotus Esprit Turbo & Lotus Carlton manage 30-70 in 3.8 seconds so only ever so slightly behind a M3 and considerably better than a 320D - the supposed benchmark for an average car these days....
NotNormal said:
The Carlton was recorded at 10.6 to 100mph by Performance Car back in '91.
Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
High torque doesn't make a car quick its power - else that last line will have diesel drivers dribbling ohh my big torque will do it not the power Owning both an E46 and an LC I can safely say the LC (in a straight line) will leave the E46 very much in its wake.
Its not the bhp you need to get hung up on, its the 420 lb/ft torque (350 lb/ft from 2k rpm) that the LC has which gives serious shove once on the move.
No, they don't feel quick anymore but the good ones are still a pleasure to drive. Especially latest mega/hot hatches are so quick. A couple of months ago I was driving a E36 M3 3.2 a friend has recently bought and restored a bit, it feels it is making the claimed 300+ hp but a latest gen S3 of another mutual friend with standard specification disappeared at every straight.
aka_kerrly said:
300bhp/ton said:
Start off at 40mph and run to 100-120mph, so you remove all the launch control and traction improvements, and things are likely to be a lot closer.
The M4 is probably still the quicker, but the perceived gap is probably less so.
How about this, a Ferrari F40 does 30mph-70mph in 2.8 seconds the BMW M4 3.5 seconds, for perspective a 2001 BMW M5 takes 4.8 seconds, a 2013 BMW 320D takes just under 8 seconds.The M4 is probably still the quicker, but the perceived gap is probably less so.
Also consider a 1994 Lotus Esprit Turbo & Lotus Carlton manage 30-70 in 3.8 seconds so only ever so slightly behind a M3 and considerably better than a 320D - the supposed benchmark for an average car these days....
markcoznottz said:
Serious mechanical deficiencies in those period cars though, lotus Carlton, f40, and esprit all have duff gearboxes, the F40 rubbish brakes too. An m4 most definitely would be real world quicker in air conditioned leather comfort. Instantly forgettable though, like just another iPhone.
M3/M4 clinical and sumptuous economical reliable F40 the rise which will have you grinning so much it hurts and if your lucky enough to ever passenger ride one a memory and story you'll be telling ticket the rest of your life.
These are quite entertaining tests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EUaPlGlSIk
There are many tests in the series,this was just the 1st one in my youtube history.
There are many tests in the series,this was just the 1st one in my youtube history.
I do sprints. The classes are based on engine capacity, with penalties for forced induction. So things like the 205 GTi and 106 Rallye are light and fit into the "up to 1.6" category, whereas modern hot hatches are 1.6 turbos so in the "above 2 litre" category with the Porsche GT3s.
I run a Saxo VTS which isn't quick by modern standards, but at a tight venue like North Weald I can be halfway up the overall field. Faster than 50% of cars entered in a sprint seems to me to be pretty fast?
I run a Saxo VTS which isn't quick by modern standards, but at a tight venue like North Weald I can be halfway up the overall field. Faster than 50% of cars entered in a sprint seems to me to be pretty fast?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff