Slowest "Performance" Brand Car ?
Discussion
Davie said:
Mafffew said:
The whole idea of brand dilution is nonsense. Look at what has happened to Porsche since they announced the Cayenne, still producing great sports cars...
So if for example, Porsche decided to adorn the diesel Cayenne with RUF branding or such like... that'd be fine? Mercedes still produce great cars, even greater AMG models but sadly they've opted to boost sales by chucking AMG badges at in essence, basic models in the same way BMW has with the M badge and to an extent as has Ford and Vauxhall with their ST Line and VX line. It reeks of the good old days when you used to roll around in a 1.3 CVH Escort with a Cossie kit... or a 316 with M3 arches and wheels. May look cool, but it's just not... more so when your mate wasted you in his Mum's old Micra.GTEYE said:
MorganP104 said:
Grahamdub said:
Jakg said:
Howard- said:
Mk4 Golf GTI
Winner.2.0 N/A
115HP
0-60 in 10.2 seconds.
And it was actually sold as a GTI model (admittedly, only in the UK!)
As a for example, VW still thought it acceptable to put out 1.4 Golfs with only 60 bhp, so 115 for the GTi was like a "relative" rocket-ship.
Seems almost laughable now, but everyday cars used to be pretty slow.
Chris
ScoobyChris said:
Is that right? I remember the sporty Astras of the late 80s/90s being 130-150bhp and light years ahead of the Golf’s performance
Chris
Mk2 GTE was marginally quicker than a Mk2 GTI right up until a corner. The Golf had far sweeter handling than the Astra. The Mk3 GSI was quicker, but then the Mk3 Golf GTI wasn't really a highlight compared to earlier Golfs. That said I quite liked my Mk3 8 valve, it just wasn't quick!Chris
culpz said:
Integroo said:
AMG-Line is a trim level - it isn't a proper AMG car.
Correct. The car in question is not a "performance" brand car.Better examples would be something like the Fiesta ST150 or the Focus ST170. Not really new examples though, but they still did not live up to their proper ST performance badges today or even at the time of their release.
Certainly in magazine tests they turned in pretty much the same figures ....yet the 306gti-6 never seems to be labelled as being slow. Maybe the engine/gearbox ratios make the 306 feel more urgent.
The handling on the Focus certainly enables it make good use of the power it had got in track tests.
It seems as the ST170 ages problems with fuel pump and/or IMRC mean they don't put out as much power as they should .....which leads to different opinions on performance if not sorted
Porsche Cayenne GTS 63 plate.
Saw a client boot it from 0 and it made A LOT of noise without actually going anywhere, looked very slow and the engine sounded like it was struggling to shift the car, never seen a car feel so heavy when accelerating! Yes it’s a lot quicker than the cars suggested on this thread but going by the thread title, slowest performance brand car, a Cayenne GTS V8 has got to be the winner as it’s a performance brand AND has the title...GTS.
Putting power and 0-60 times aside, I seriously think an ep3 Type r would spank it anywhere on UK roads bar the motorway.
Saw a client boot it from 0 and it made A LOT of noise without actually going anywhere, looked very slow and the engine sounded like it was struggling to shift the car, never seen a car feel so heavy when accelerating! Yes it’s a lot quicker than the cars suggested on this thread but going by the thread title, slowest performance brand car, a Cayenne GTS V8 has got to be the winner as it’s a performance brand AND has the title...GTS.
Putting power and 0-60 times aside, I seriously think an ep3 Type r would spank it anywhere on UK roads bar the motorway.
ScoobyChris said:
Is that right? I remember the sporty Astras of the late 80s/90s being 130-150bhp and light years ahead of the Golf’s performance
Chris
Yep, the comparable Astra GTE usually had more power than the Golf ( 130 vs 112 and 156/150 vs 139 ) so they were always quicker in road/track tests when tested new by mags like CAR, Autocar and Motor . Strong brakes helped as wellChris
nbetts said:
Yep. The 2.0 litre petrol version was appallingly slow.
The 1.8 turbo with 5-valves per cylinder was actually OK'ish, designated by the red little letter i on the GTi badge.
I had one of these , bought it from new and it really was a bit of a pudding. Build quality was good as were the Leather Recaro's but it was a bit of a pudding all round to be fair.
My 1.8 litre petrol GTI had a solid badge The 1.8 turbo with 5-valves per cylinder was actually OK'ish, designated by the red little letter i on the GTi badge.
I had one of these , bought it from new and it really was a bit of a pudding. Build quality was good as were the Leather Recaro's but it was a bit of a pudding all round to be fair.
Proper pudding though, 5 valves per cylinder regardless
Fast Bug said:
Mk2 GTE was marginally quicker than a Mk2 GTI right up until a corner. The Golf had far sweeter handling than the Astra. The Mk3 GSI was quicker, but then the Mk3 Golf GTI wasn't really a highlight compared to earlier Golfs. That said I quite liked my Mk3 8 valve, it just wasn't quick!
Not what the Press saidhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/set...
There again, I didn't really like my GTE 16v and sold it fairly quickly.
I also had. Mk 3 GTI and it was pretty slow and liked to rust.
captain_cynic said:
culpz said:
832ark said:
Even then it’s not easy to differentiate, an M240i isn’t an M car either.
IIRC a JB4 remap puts it up another 40-60 HP, not that at 335 horsies from the factory is anything to laugh at. The major difference between the M240i and M2 is that the M2 has a mechanical LSD and larger brakes as standard. In a drag race, a mapped M240i may beat an M2 but on a track with corners, the M2 is far superior.
Also £10K more expensive than the M240i. For less than £35,000, its hard to find more car than you'll get in an M240i.
Ares said:
There is no difference between BMW's approach and Mercedes?
Is there?Serious question. I've never looked at the Mercedes/AMG nomenclature so I'm happy for someone to explain it.
Performance cars will always feature but generally folks are happy with the cooking models, the ones that look sporty but don't cost an arm and a leg to insure or maintain. folks are quite happy with that and seem to be happy with all the whistles and bells. RS or S-Line ? I run an A6 sline yes its far from an RS vehicle as you can get although it looks ok and the cabin is comfortable its not going to win a track race, but then again it was never meant for the track. Its a ponderous beast and lithe it is not.
I used to have a 1.4s fiesta and one afternoon it bleached a fiesta RS from the lights. 74hp against a 123hp engine. caught the guy out wasn't prepared for it, and he had to wait on turbo boost but I was in front, soon passed me though.
LuS1fer said:
Fast Bug said:
Mk2 GTE was marginally quicker than a Mk2 GTI right up until a corner. The Golf had far sweeter handling than the Astra. The Mk3 GSI was quicker, but then the Mk3 Golf GTI wasn't really a highlight compared to earlier Golfs. That said I quite liked my Mk3 8 valve, it just wasn't quick!
Not what the Press saidhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/set...
There again, I didn't really like my GTE 16v and sold it fairly quickly.
I also had. Mk 3 GTI and it was pretty slow and liked to rust.
You'd expect that really as the Astra had 10% more engine capacity and hence power.
I had an 1800 GTi and they were put together nicely though.
CAR tested the 16v Astra and 16v Golf together ( May 88 ) and said the Astra would pull away on a twisty road. Astra was a lot more tail happy, like a 205 Gti than the Golf
Mafffew said:
The whole idea of brand dilution is nonsense. Look at what has happened to Porsche since they announced the Cayenne, still producing great sports cars...
And yet the cayanne is still one of the best suvs of all time.No other suv can beat a cayanne when it comes to look,performance and reliability.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff