Classic Cars with Good Handling

[GOG440]

Johnny 89 said:

I haven't driven either but would expect them to handle quiet well.. TVR S Series or Wedge?

Alternatively, an FC RX-7 is bound to be good?

I have a wedge (350i) it goes really well and is better than I expected on track BUT my mates mx5 will comprehensively out handle it on track, much better turn in and more adjustable on the throttle. With the TVR the turn in isnt bad but the rear end is either gripping or you are spinning with very little middle ground. The TVR puts its power down pretty well with its LSD.

[blade7]

A guy I knew worked at a Ford main dealership back in 81, he took a brand new 2.8 injection Capri out on the local dual carriageway after it's PDI, it just touched the limiter in 4th which was around 129 mph I think.

[veevee]

Has anyone driven a 260Z? They look interesting!

Quite like the 70s Merc SL too, but I'm guessing handling on them isn't razor sharp!

[300bhp/ton]

veevee said:

I like cars.

(Usually) My main criteria for owning a car is good handling.

I also like classic cars. Not really old ones, the kind you can drive more than twice a year without having to do a bare shell rebuild.

I've driven a couple and been quite underwhelmed by the handling, especially compared to more modern cars. I'm not 100% convinced by some of the older suspension setups! Can anyone suggest any which would make a good regular driver, and have comparable handling (not comfort!) to newer cars. And obtainable for under say £10k.

Are you maybe confusing handling with road holding?

[Atmospheric]

I'm certain he means handing.

[Mr2Mike]

s m said:

2.8i Capri?

They really weren't all that great. With the extremely heavy Cologne engine up front (heavier than many V8s) they naturally want to understeer, you have to provoke it quite hard to get the back to step out.

[s m]

Mr2Mike said:

s m said:

2.8i Capri?

They really weren't all that great. With the extremely heavy Cologne engine up front (heavier than many V8s) they naturally want to understeer, you have to provoke it quite hard to get the back to step out.

Opinions will obviously vary depending on individuals and their experiences. I nominated the Capri 2.8, not the vanilla versions or the older 3litre, specifically though as I think they were much improved over other Capris as they came from the factory. Also the OP wanted something pre-90 that he could use every day without a rebuild and also the Capri 2.8 was reviewed very well for its handling amongst its contemporaries ( some of which are mentioned in the posts above without question ). These were the same people as were recommending stuff like the E30 M3, Porsche 944 and Mazda MX5 for their handling around the same time or a few years later. Also in consideration, I think he could get a useable 2.8 Capri for his 10k budget or under and not lose much money if he seriously wants to buy something for a year or few months.

I've had a few cars that some people would say were decent handling, 309Gti, Saxo VTS etc, driven a few others that I'd definitely agree with, R5 GT Turbo, Mk1 MR2 and I put forward the 2.8 Capri after driving a few nearly new ones** and considering it a very good handling car

However, as an unknown, my opinion is basically worthless as I might be the most ham-fisted badge snob driver or a Capri fanboy so here are a few opinions of the car at the time from people who have test driven and compared many more cars than me, journos of the time, people who were invited onto magazine Handling Days where the article went on to proclaim stuff like the MX5, 944, 309Gti etc as great handling cars.
Whether you trust their summation of the car is another matter.


Review of 2.8i Capri in MOTOR SPORT magazine




Tested against the Alfa GTV 2.5 in CAR magazine



Autocar review verdict in 1981





Autocar review road behaviour in 1981




Motor review road behaviour in 1981r




Review of 2.8i Capri in AUTOSPORT magazine

• - money where mouth is, did I buy one at the time. No, I would have liked one but when I was looking they were just out of reach price wise for me in the early 80s so I opted for the US equivalent, a 351 Mustang , and 'scratched the V8 itch' as some on here would say for a third of the price (£1500) of the cheapest 2.8 Capri at the time. I did get to drive one the length of the A49 from Shropshire, through the Wye Valley, and down to Bristol. Did it handle well to me? Absolutely, completely standard one.

Could you make another Capri variant handle the same with 2.8i mods? Undoubtedly


No idea what sort of car the OP was thinking of anyway and handling is very subjective and emotive, but from the title 'Classic Cars with Good Handling' I'd say my view on the 2.8 Capri wasn't entirely an isolated one

Back to the OP's last post.

Is the 260Z the sort of car you're looking at rather than hot hatches/small roadsters or sports cars?

[300bhp/ton]

Atmospheric said:

I'm certain he means handing.

It's more their last paragraph. That the claim they have driven several and been unimpressed compared to modern cars. While there are exceptions, most modern cars have a lot more grip, rather than actually handle better than older cars of the same type.

[Mr2Mike]

s m said:

Opinions will obviously vary depending on individuals and their experiences. I nominated the Capri 2.8, not the vanilla versions or the older 3litre, specifically though as I think they were much improved over other Capris as they came from the factory.

There were better without a doubt, I drove a 2.8i on an epic Euro trip about 15 years ago doing about 2500 miles in two weeks. Fantastic gearing for motorway cruising, and enough power to hold 100+ all day long. Handling was reasonable, but the sheer mass of the boat anchor under the bonnet was very noticeable, it naturally wants to push on. The brakes were crap, far too small for the weight and power of the car so fade was something you learned to cope with. The Recaros were lovely to sit in, not at all nice to sleep in

I suppose when compared with other cars of the era it probably was a good handling car, but not really by modern standards.

[skyrover]

The 2.8 was a crap engine.

The essex was much better

[Mr2Mike]

skyrover said:

The 2.8 was a crap engine.

The essex was much better

They were both boat anchors; massively heavy for the power they made.

[marcosgt]

Mr2Mike said:

skyrover said:

The 2.8 was a crap engine.

The essex was much better

They were both boat anchors; massively heavy for the power they made.

Interesting - I don't think I've EVER heard anyone rate the Essex over the 2.8 before.

The Essex is nice and torquey, but lacks power in standard form and is bloody heavy...

Tuning an Essex isn't cheap either.

On topic, Opel Manta - Great handling RWD coupe - All the period reports say the same thing - The Manta handled better than the Capri (maybe NOT the 2.8i, but that was heavily modified from earlier cars).

M.

[SlimJim16v]

I don't think I've EVER heard anyone rate the 2.8 as better than the 3.0 Essex. The Essex has one exhaust port per cylinder, not two per bank.

It's also very easy to get 200bhp, without touching the bottom end, jush heads, cam and carb.

[skyrover]

Essex is far nicer to drive with plenty of low end torque.

Much more tractable, tough as old boots and is not lumbered with the K-Jetronic ignition system either.

It also sounds better IMO.

[lostkiwi]

3.0 does suffer that stupid plastic/fibre timing gear. Had one of those let go in mine - 9 bent valves later....
The 3.0 is also a bit heavier than the 2.8 so does upset the handling a bit more.

As for handling/grip
Grip is roadholding. Handling is what happens when the grip runs out.....

As for the 70s Mercs - the handling on those was pretty crude as the rear suspension was a bit erm... basic (effectively a variation on a swing axle).

The r129 SL (from the late 80s/90s/early 00s) handling is significantly better (it has a proper 5 link independent rear) but still not a patch on modern cars.

[Lowtimer]

marcosgt said:

Mr2Mike said:

skyrover said:

The 2.8 was a crap engine.

The essex was much better

They were both boat anchors; massively heavy for the power they made.

Interesting - I don't think I've EVER heard anyone rate the Essex over the 2.8 before.

The Essex is nice and torquey, but lacks power in standard form and is bloody heavy...

Tuning an Essex isn't cheap either.

On topic, Opel Manta - Great handling RWD coupe - All the period reports say the same thing - The Manta handled better than the Capri (maybe NOT the 2.8i, but that was heavily modified from earlier cars).

M.

You haven't heard me, then The Essex is a much better engine than the Cologne (Cosworth-headed 24v Colognes excepted), far more tunable, much stronger and infinitely more charismatic. I agree both are heavy old lumps.

I agree a well set up Manta is very lovely. They do benefit from brake upgrades. My pick from the Autocar list would be (and, in the garage, actually is) a 944. You can get a very good normally aspirated one and make the suspension completely fresh within £10K, whereas with a 968 at that money it'll probably be pretty worn out.

[Batfink]

s m said:

Another suggestion for under 10k - the AE86 Corolla - still get them in that budget

Just about. prices are going up and up! I have an AE86 and its a hugely entertaining car to drive although can be deemed a little slow. Its more rewarding steering wise to my Peugeot 205 and you sit lower although overall probably less capable as a car A-B in sheer performance. The 205 is best with an Mi16 engine to give it some modern performance. The 309 has better weight distribution and handling with the Achilles heel being its butt ugly. Peugeot 205 XS would get my vote as its less front heavy than the GTI with nicer steering like the 309. Down on power but such a hoot down the lanes.

[Sf_Manta]

Surprised no-one's mentioned Opel Mantas in the mix.
Can be a real peach given double wishbone front suspension, and a properly located rear live axle. Had a few, (still got 2...) and my 1.8 hatchback was actually a real hoot to drive.
Thing is though they do rust and increasingly hard to find. However with most cars of this vintage that's a given, and if you end up with a 1.8 you can quite easily upgrade performance with an XE / EcoTEC upgrade.

[s m]

Mr2Mike said:

s m said:

Opinions will obviously vary depending on individuals and their experiences. I nominated the Capri 2.8, not the vanilla versions or the older 3litre, specifically though as I think they were much improved over other Capris as they came from the factory.

I suppose when compared with other cars of the era it probably was a good handling car, but not really by modern standards.

To be fair, that's really all they could compare them to in the road tests above. The thing about the handling was that it was, at least according to the road tests of the time, predictable and adjustable. That was my impression of it too. That probably led to the accolades it got judged against its contemporaries.

People are citing the 205, but as the guys that did the later Peugeots said, they wouldn't be allowed to make a car that handled like that nowadays - if they did it would be reined in by electronics.

Even now, handling is very subjective

[s m]

Sf_Manta said:

Surprised no-one's mentioned Opel Mantas in the mix.
Can be a real peach given double wishbone front suspension, and a properly located rear live axle. Had a few, (still got 2...) and my 1.8 hatchback was actually a real hoot to drive.
Thing is though they do rust and increasingly hard to find. However with most cars of this vintage that's a given, and if you end up with a 1.8 you can quite easily upgrade performance with an XE / EcoTEC upgrade.

I was going to suggest them but they were as nose heavy as the 2.8 Capri and the brakes were as bad

I did like the handling of mine though.

Even out the box