The death of the slow car
Discussion
Is your car by any chance a Honda Civic (2005-12) 1.8 petrol?
Reason I ask, as the bhp and 0-60 are exactly the same as my dads Civic!
If it is, I know you have to thrash the hell out of it to get anywhere near that time. Its a great engine in that its very economical and fairly refined but if you're in a hurry it can feel flat particularly with higher gear overtakes.
It did feel "quick" though compared to a 2005 Mercedes A160CDI ( 2 litre but just 82 bhp)that I was using for a few days. Very high gearing as well (0-60 in 15sec!)
Edited by oceanview on Thursday 23 February 19:31
blugnu said:
curlie467 said:
Normal everyday cars are st, that's all it is.
Presumably you consider that to be a constant though? Ergo it doesn't explain how in 2001 140bhp and sub 9 seconds 0-60 felt fast compared to other cars, and now it doesn't?Essentially your car is average and it goes the same speed as other average cars... I'm not quite sure what you're surprised about.
Max_Torque said:
As average 0-60 times fall, it gets more and more difficult to "leave someone for dust".
ime, you need twice and preferrerably 3 or 4 times more power to really leave another car behind, and the more power you have, the harder it is to deploy it legally / safely.
ime, you need twice and preferrerably 3 or 4 times more power to really leave another car behind, and the more power you have, the harder it is to deploy it legally / safely.
You don't need 3-4 times the power of another car to be able to have a significant performance gap. Take for example a 30mph>70mph overtake or a blast down a sliproad my circa 150hp 1300kg car will be left way behind my circa 230hp 1150kg car as the majority of the performance gain is due to being able to do 30-70 in 2nd gear in the latter!
Anyone with over 150hp is likely to win 90% of showdowns by simply going above 2500rpm which appears to be when most drivers think you need to change gear
Personally I now think cars are generally too fast for the environment they are used in. Roads that were designed many decades ago are used by cars more suited for storming down the autobahn. I find them frustrating and dull on UK roads unless it's on a motorway.
My MR2 is pretty "slow" by today's standards but it's absolutely hilarious to keep up with traffic by revving the nads off it, and the same can be said for making progress of a good country road. Too much power and weight is both a waste and a hindrance.
It's a shame that these days a cars worth is only measured in lap times or acceleration figures, which I guess explains some of the ambivalence towards the likes of the GT86. I can see how having an effortless car is good for dull driving but for me I much prefer to thrash something slower as it's simply much more fun.
My MR2 is pretty "slow" by today's standards but it's absolutely hilarious to keep up with traffic by revving the nads off it, and the same can be said for making progress of a good country road. Too much power and weight is both a waste and a hindrance.
It's a shame that these days a cars worth is only measured in lap times or acceleration figures, which I guess explains some of the ambivalence towards the likes of the GT86. I can see how having an effortless car is good for dull driving but for me I much prefer to thrash something slower as it's simply much more fun.
Max_Torque said:
As average 0-60 times fall, it gets more and more difficult to "leave someone for dust".
Back in the day, when a quick-ish hatch say hit 60 in ten or 11 secs (and took something like 30 sec to get to 100) if you had something fast, say a 5 sec car, then your car was fast enough to pull out a decent gap on the road, in the short time you have.
In 2017, when boggo family cars are in the 7's and often 6s now, even your 4sec car is not that much quicker. ime, you need twice and preferrerably 3 or 4 times more power to really leave another car behind, and the more power you have, the harder it is to deploy it legally / safely.
it also makes the driver much more important. Delay by a sec off the lights, which, lets face it is no time at all on a human scale, and you're going to have a much much faster car to keep up, let alone pass the slower, but quicker starting car.
Acceleration has also become more important than max speed. Back in the day, when a quick-ish hatch say hit 60 in ten or 11 secs (and took something like 30 sec to get to 100) if you had something fast, say a 5 sec car, then your car was fast enough to pull out a decent gap on the road, in the short time you have.
In 2017, when boggo family cars are in the 7's and often 6s now, even your 4sec car is not that much quicker. ime, you need twice and preferrerably 3 or 4 times more power to really leave another car behind, and the more power you have, the harder it is to deploy it legally / safely.
it also makes the driver much more important. Delay by a sec off the lights, which, lets face it is no time at all on a human scale, and you're going to have a much much faster car to keep up, let alone pass the slower, but quicker starting car.
Most cars can go faster than most people will risk going, so often off a roundabout or lights, initially the most accelerative car will be in the lead, but the ultimate "winner" will be the one willing to risk breaking the speed limit by the most.
patchb said:
My Audi weighs 1510kg and has 163bhp so a bit over 100bhp/tonne. 0-60 is about 8.6 and it'll do 138mph flat out. I would have seen this as a fairly brisk car when it first came out but to me it seems slow as fk, certainly no quicker than say my mates 130bhp diesel astra.
I always thought my 520d touring was dog slow though, weight about 1700kg and 177bhp and I'm sure it wasn't anywhere near its 0 to 60 claim of 8.3 secs. Yet I always thought my XR4x4 was quick and that did 0 to 60 in 8.2 secs with 150bhp/1200ish kg.
I just can't put my finger on why the 520d felt so gutless other than its heavy kerb weight.
I think expectations have changed and once upon a time 0 to 60 in 8 secs was considered fairly quick, nowadays it feels like milk float pace.
TurboHatchback said:
IMO you really don't need very much power on the road, after about 100bhp/ton it gets ever more difficult to actually ever use it all.
I'm not sure that's true. My car has ~250bhp and apparently weighs 1437kg and I can regularly foot-to-the-floor it and deploy all the power.Chris
curlie467 said:
Normal everyday cars are st, that's all it is.
I remember when normal, everyday cars really were st. When, during winter mornings, one in three just wouldn't start. When they overheated regularly in what passes for a British summer.Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
Blib said:
I remember when normal, everyday cars really were st. When, during winter mornings, one in three just wouldn't start. When they overheated regularly in what passes for a British summer.
Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
Completely agree, and you do forget how bad older cars were, I've had plenty of cars years ago that did what you've mentioned, we should be grateful for sure. Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
zarjaz1991 said:
gert biggens said:
I remember standing at the school bus stop, watching cars going past, and slowing down for a bend, thinking "you know, when I'm grown up and driving, and all that, cars will be coming along here at about 200MPH, and prob'ly slowing down a bit for that bend".
My younger self would probably have been slightly disappointed in the progress made in that regard.
These days, kids stand at the school bus stop, watching cars going past, thinking "when I'm grown up I"m going to do all I can to stop people from driving because it destroys the planet". My younger self would probably have been slightly disappointed in the progress made in that regard.
Bah!
The biggest shift for me is not the 0-60 necessarily, so much as the speeds required to see the difference between an average car (that runs out of puff a little north of 100mph) and something really quick are just not appropriate for 99% of roads. The only advantage is you can drive a fast car slowly, but it's more difficult to drive a slow car quickly. You have more options.
I wonder if you timed the typical through-the-gears acceleration run to 60mph when not trying, how that compares to the quoted WOT times.
Ahbefive said:
100bhp/ton is pretty weak to be fair.
Not really really slow but not likely to be able to overtake many cars that don't want to be overtaken.
I think the point I was trying to make was that it's not so long ago that that sort of power felt genuinely quick, and indeed when I took a car with that kind of power (albeit with considerably more torque than the current car) up to the north of Scotland, it felt like having lots more power would be pointless - on real roads in real conditions (albeit ones more suited to 'spirited' driving than most of the country) the Alfa was quicker than most things, and able to keep in sight or hold off much more powerful cars. It was comically easy to catch up and pass other cars in it - you'd see a car ahead, you'd catch it within a mile or two, and you'd blast past it on the first clear straight. Not really really slow but not likely to be able to overtake many cars that don't want to be overtaken.
And I was young then too - I am only just over 40 but I know my reactions are not as quick as they were 16 years ago - that's what age and children do to you. I can only assume it's the slew of electronics that stops more of these 200bhp + cars ending up in ditches because I came close once or twice with 140bhp on a car with no electrical assistance other than ABS.
oceanview said:
Is your car by any chance a Honda Civic (2005-12) 1.8 petrol?
It is strange how different cars can feel though. I also have a 73bhp 'city' car (0-60 14 seconds it says here) but presumably because of the gearing fitted it optimised for low speed town stuff. it feels way more lively than the Civic up to about 30mph.
oceanview said:
If it is, I know you have to thrash the hell out of it to get anywhere near that time. Its a great engine in that its very economical and fairly refined but if you're in a hurry it can feel flat particularly with higher gear overtakes.
It is. It took me a while to get used to having a petrol engine again, and so for a while I wasn't dropping enough gears when overtaking - it definitely feels flat in higher gears: it essentially doesn't accelerate at all in 6th - you get to the speed you want in a lower gear, change to 6th and stick cruise on. Maybe it is the lack of torque that makes it seem slow in the real world? I notice it has less than my dad's 1989 Cavalier had, for example - so you need to allow time to rev the thing up, whereas with a diesel you don't - on a drag from a roundabout the Honda is taking maybe a second or two to get from low revs to where the power is, whilst the Roomster was presumably producing almost full torque at idle.It is strange how different cars can feel though. I also have a 73bhp 'city' car (0-60 14 seconds it says here) but presumably because of the gearing fitted it optimised for low speed town stuff. it feels way more lively than the Civic up to about 30mph.
cerb4.5lee said:
patchb said:
My Audi weighs 1510kg and has 163bhp so a bit over 100bhp/tonne. 0-60 is about 8.6 and it'll do 138mph flat out. I would have seen this as a fairly brisk car when it first came out but to me it seems slow as fk, certainly no quicker than say my mates 130bhp diesel astra.
I always thought my 520d touring was dog slow though, weight about 1700kg and 177bhp and I'm sure it wasn't anywhere near its 0 to 60 claim of 8.3 secs. Yet I always thought my XR4x4 was quick and that did 0 to 60 in 8.2 secs with 150bhp/1200ish kg.
I just can't put my finger on why the 520d felt so gutless other than its heavy kerb weight.
I think expectations have changed and once upon a time 0 to 60 in 8 secs was considered fairly quick, nowadays it feels like milk float pace.
cerb4.5lee said:
Blib said:
I remember when normal, everyday cars really were st. When, during winter mornings, one in three just wouldn't start. When they overheated regularly in what passes for a British summer.
Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
Completely agree, and you do forget how bad older cars were, I've had plenty of cars years ago that did what you've mentioned, we should be grateful for sure. Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
You felt lucky when there was no welding needed to get through the test in cars that were only 4 or 5 years old.
Not to mention that the service schedule for the Mini stated attention required every 500 miles.
Nowadays that journey to the seaside that required a special service is done there and back as a casual day trip, no question of not getting there and back, and if you check lights, levels and tyre pressures before setting off many think you're being a bit of an old woman.
Max_Torque said:
cerb4.5lee said:
patchb said:
My Audi weighs 1510kg and has 163bhp so a bit over 100bhp/tonne. 0-60 is about 8.6 and it'll do 138mph flat out. I would have seen this as a fairly brisk car when it first came out but to me it seems slow as fk, certainly no quicker than say my mates 130bhp diesel astra.
I always thought my 520d touring was dog slow though, weight about 1700kg and 177bhp and I'm sure it wasn't anywhere near its 0 to 60 claim of 8.3 secs. Yet I always thought my XR4x4 was quick and that did 0 to 60 in 8.2 secs with 150bhp/1200ish kg.
I just can't put my finger on why the 520d felt so gutless other than its heavy kerb weight.
I think expectations have changed and once upon a time 0 to 60 in 8 secs was considered fairly quick, nowadays it feels like milk float pace.
I hated the unrefined engine in the 520d, whereas in the XR4x4 I had to buy a magnex exhaust so I could enjoy the noise it made more.
The XR4x4 was also brilliant at cruising at high speed(back then you could get away with it too), I do get what your saying about them being a different type of car though(with a decent engine under the bonnet at least).
FiF said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Blib said:
I remember when normal, everyday cars really were st. When, during winter mornings, one in three just wouldn't start. When they overheated regularly in what passes for a British summer.
Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
Completely agree, and you do forget how bad older cars were, I've had plenty of cars years ago that did what you've mentioned, we should be grateful for sure. Normal, everyday cars of today are flippin miracles of reliable engineering.
You felt lucky when there was no welding needed to get through the test in cars that were only 4 or 5 years old.
Not to mention that the service schedule for the Mini stated attention required every 500 miles.
Nowadays that journey to the seaside that required a special service is done there and back as a casual day trip, no question of not getting there and back, and if you check lights, levels and tyre pressures before setting off many think you're being a bit of an old woman.
To some degree, but not completely, speed is commoditising. Tech today is so good, so cheap, and so widely available. You can spend ~£40k on a Golf R and a remap and make it as fast as a ~£240k Ferrari F12. And still do the B&Q run in it. The gap between supercars and everyday cars is closing faster than ever.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff