The death of the slow car

[blugnu]

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not at all claiming that my car is fast, sporting or in any way a performance car. It's a five door family car.

That said it has 138bhp and only weighs about 1300kg - so with me in it, it has roughly 100bhp/tonne. It has a 0-60 time of 8.6 seconds, according to Parkers.

When I were a wee lad, they were decent figures - I've always thought that a car gets 'fun' at around 100bhp/tonne, and a sub 9 second 0-60 used to be pretty rapid. On paper it's got similar performance to my Alfa, and I used to be able to leave most cars behind in that.

I've noticed now though that I can hardly leave anything behind. I got into a bit of a drag race out of a roundabout the other day, onto a NSL, straight dual carriageway, and could keep up with (but not get past) a Skoda Roomster - and this seems to be a common thing - if I thrash the thing I can keep up with very mundane cars when the other driver is pressing on, but it doesn't effortlessly overwhelm anything like the Alfa did.

So - has the diesel engine, with it's low down torque, made pretty much every car what once would have been considered 'quite quick' at normal road speeds? Or is my car (full service history, last serviced in November) shagged?

[blugnu]

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?

[blugnu]

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.

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?

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.

[blugnu]

Would it then be a reasonable summary to say that we are experiencing a situation where the performance available in fairly average cars - due to better engine tech, better tyres, electronic aids and so on - is reaching a point where on normal roads, driven by normal people, there is a relatively small gap between them and 'performance' cars? Of course that's not to say that they are absolutely as fast, just that there is a fairly meaningless difference unless you are prepared to risk your licence?

The point about the multi-speed autos was a good one - I've never driven one, but back in the day (15 years ago!) the auto version was the slow, thirsty one for old people - my Mondeo auto was only 3 speed iirc. It's just not the case now - an 8 speed auto that can change gear in a fraction of a second is going to change gear much more quickly than I can, and they have an extra clutch.

(It's also true that I don't truly hammer the Honda - I've just looked for it's power curve and apparently it peaks beyond 6,000rpm. My ears generally force me to change up before then - but that is perhaps part of it too - if you want to overtake in a modern diesel, you don't have to have the engine screaming two gears lower than normal as you come onto a straight just in case there is an opportunity because you'll be sat in the middle of a great wodge of torque regardless of the gear - and if you have a multi-speed auto it really doesn't matter)