Biggest improvement between a car and its direct successor

[Boxster5]

Have to say both original versions of the Porsche Cayenne & Panamera were pug ugly!
Second generation sorted that to some extent and now they have evolved into something much much nicer & cohesive.

[300bhp/ton]

andrew said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Kuwahara said:

Without starting a new thread I wonder how this would work the other way round ,new models that were worse than the previous…

Allegro vs ADO16

tr6 to tr7
e-type to xjs
260z to 280zx

Can't comment on the 260/280, but I'd be very surprised.
The others. gosh golly .... people on here ffs

Dynamically the TR7 was far superior to TR6. Yes the 6 was very cool in a hairy chested manor. I actually like them. But the S6 engine was strangled to death and made less power in most markets than the 2.0 in the TR7. Certainly in many a magazine test the TR7 was quicker in a straight line and round a race track. TR6 used old fashioned construction for a sports car and hugely compromised rear suspension, despite being IRS (it just didn't work all that well). The TR7 might have had a live axle, but it was a very well sorted setup. By any rational metric the TR7 out performed the TR6 bar probably engine sound. But the 7 was always destined to have V8 power.

Likewise the XJ-S was a much better GT car than the E-Type was.

[TameRacingDriver]

According to pretty much every review, the GR86 apparently fixed most, if not all flaws from the original. Though obviously a big downgrade on availability.

[The Wookie]

P38 Range Rover to L322

[Mr Tidy]

Limpet said:

Kuwahara said:

Mk1 Mondeo,liked the late Sierras but they felt old compared to the Mondeo ,not a significant jump like the Focus but a big jump in refinement and road manners…

The Mondeo felt like a much more expensive car than the Sierra from behind the wheel, both in terms of the interior appointments, and the general level of polish to the way it drove. Unlike the Sierra, the lowly models were also just as nice to drive and to sit in as the higher spec ones.

I'd actually love a couple of hours in a fit, healthy lowly 1.8 LX/GLX Mondeo today, just for old time's sake. They were nice cars.

That takes me back!

I bought a 1991 Sierra Sapphire 2.0GLSi in 1993. In 1994 my boss got a Mondeo 1.8LX company car that I used for a few business trips. Build quality in the Mondeo was much better and I really liked how it drove, but it felt huge! Bigger than the 1985 Scorpio I had in the past.

But the Mondeo was probably as big an improvement as the first generation Focus.

[Timberwolf]

mac96 said:

It would be really hard to argue that FWD was not better than RWD for ordinary cars back in the 1960s. Especially if you wanted drive in a straight line on the new motorways on breezy days, or fit more people into a small car. Or drive in snow.
Not everyone drives for pleasure, or to explore the limits of handling. And anyway few cars are more fun than an Austin Mini!

Even in terms of handling - cheap mass market stuff was happily out there being crap long before the transverse FWD layout became the go-to packaging option, and leaf-sprung live axle setups designed for cheapness and ease of maintenance and engineered to doggedly understeer until the point at which they suddenly didn't weren't exactly the last word in vehicle dynamics.

It's quite a surprise to anyone who grew up with BMW advertising flogging the benefits of rear-wheel drive to see ads from the '60s and '70s which talk about front-wheel drive as more agile, more responsive and benefiting from "the feeling of the drive wheels pulling you through the corner". The smaller BMC cars certainly had the reputation of being a decent drive, although how much of that was the wheel-at-each-corner nature and Issigonis' determination to make cars he personally liked rather than what actually appealed to buyers and how much was the drive configuration is up for debate.

(Also a lot of the disadvantages of FWD in modern, heavy, high-powered stuff simply didn't apply in an era when 50bhp was considered pretty normal and that'll-do-nicely-thank-you)

[gonzales_turbo]

Lotus Elan FWD to Lotus Elise !

[Jaguar steve]

Jaguar XJ6 to Jaguar XJ8.

In many ways the 8 was an evolution of the 6 but it was completely transformed when Jaguar put their new V8 and a far better gearbox in it.

[Carguy44]

gonzales_turbo said:

Lotus Elan FWD to Lotus Elise !

The Elan was a brilliant car, fantastic to drive and to look at so that one doesn't work.

[plenty]

Truckosaurus said:

s94wht said:

Old style A Class to new?

The original A-class was a genius piece of design with lots of clever features especially around crash worthiness, all spoiled by the 'moose test'.

The new A-class is pretty much a Megane

The direct successor to the original W168 A-Class was the W169 A-Class which retained the innovative sandwich design and was indeed a massive improvement.

The later A Classes were much less innovative and shared platforms with other models.

[98elise]

mac96 said:

bumskins said:

Mr Peel said:

From Austin A35...


To Mini...

From RWD to FWD being an improvement? Takes all sorts I suppose.

It would be really hard to argue that FWD was not better than RWD for ordinary cars back in the 1960s. Especially if you wanted drive in a straight line on the new motorways on breezy days, or fit more people into a small car. Or drive in snow.
Not everyone drives for pleasure, or to explore the limits of handling. And anyway few cars are more fun than an Austin Mini!

Agreed. FWD is far better for the vast majority of normal drivers.

I live on a steep hill and RWD has zero chance in the snow.

[RECr]

Some of the writers in my dad's 1980s issues of Practical Classics criticise (then) modern FWD cars for heavy steering compared to RWD cars. Of course unassisted steering was still the norm for most cars then.

[BRR]

Alfa 159 > Alfa Giulia
MK4 Golf > MK5 Golf
Jag X-Type > Jag XE
Range Rover Sport L320 > L494

[Halmyre]

mac96 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Kuwahara said:

Without starting a new thread I wonder how this would work the other way round ,new models that were worse than the previous…

Allegro vs ADO16

Allegro had better rustproofing!! (Possibly by accident)

That just means the horrid thing lasts longer before its demise, so not an improvement.

BRR said:

Alfa 159 > Alfa Giulia

Which direction are you going?

I'd say 156 > 159 > Giulia was a gradual disappointment (aesthetically if nothing else)

[Carguy44]

Halmyre said:

mac96 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Kuwahara said:

Without starting a new thread I wonder how this would work the other way round ,new models that were worse than the previous…

Allegro vs ADO16

Allegro had better rustproofing!! (Possibly by accident)

That just means the horrid thing lasts longer before its demise, so not an improvement.

BRR said:

Alfa 159 > Alfa Giulia

Which direction are you going?

I'd say 156 > 159 > Giulia was a gradual disappointment (aesthetically if nothing else)

Have to disagree with you on that one, the Giulia looks fantastic.

[anonymous-user]

300bhp/ton said:

andrew said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Kuwahara said:

Without starting a new thread I wonder how this would work the other way round ,new models that were worse than the previous…

Allegro vs ADO16

tr6 to tr7
e-type to xjs
260z to 280zx

Can't comment on the 260/280, but I'd be very surprised.
The others. gosh golly .... people on here ffs

Dynamically the TR7 was far superior to TR6. Yes the 6 was very cool in a hairy chested manor. I actually like them. But the S6 engine was strangled to death and made less power in most markets than the 2.0 in the TR7. Certainly in many a magazine test the TR7 was quicker in a straight line and round a race track. TR6 used old fashioned construction for a sports car and hugely compromised rear suspension, despite being IRS (it just didn't work all that well). The TR7 might have had a live axle, but it was a very well sorted setup. By any rational metric the TR7 out performed the TR6 bar probably engine sound. But the 7 was always destined to have V8 power.

Likewise the XJ-S was a much better GT car than the E-Type was.

Lot of rose tinted spectacles thinking a TR6 is better than a TR7 etc.

Only people who've never driven them think the E-Type is a better car than the XJS, you might think the E-Type looks better (although people always compare the early E type not the ruined Series 3 cars) but they're horrible things to drive, like a particularly recalcitrant small lorry. The XJS is truly great to drive even in comparison to modern stuff, and you can do 5 hour runs without fatigue; try that in an E Type.

[Pannywagon]

BMW 5 series.

I owned an E39 and it was great. Replaced it with an E61 and it wasn’t just a step backwards, it was awful: ended up hating that thing so much.

I then bought an F10 and it was everything the replacement for the E39 should have been, like night and day. Showed how good the E39 really was.

[andrebar]

Pannywagon said:

BMW 5 series.

I owned an E39 and it was great. Replaced it with an E61 and it wasn’t just a step backwards, it was awful: ended up hating that thing so much.

I then bought an F10 and it was everything the replacement for the E39 should have been, like night and day. Showed how good the E39 really was.

I always thought E46 to E90 was a hateful step back too

[McGee_22]

Pannywagon said:

BMW 5 series.

I owned an E39 and it was great. Replaced it with an E61 and it wasn’t just a step backwards, it was awful: ended up hating that thing so much.

I then bought an F10 and it was everything the replacement for the E39 should have been, like night and day. Showed how good the E39 really was.

We had an E39 and a company E60 at the same time - I thought the E60 was awful too, especially the HVAC and the gearbox.

[Pannywagon]

McGee_22 said:

Pannywagon said:

BMW 5 series.

I owned an E39 and it was great. Replaced it with an E61 and it wasn’t just a step backwards, it was awful: ended up hating that thing so much.

I then bought an F10 and it was everything the replacement for the E39 should have been, like night and day. Showed how good the E39 really was.

We had an E39 and a company E60 at the same time - I thought the E60 was awful too, especially the HVAC and the gearbox.

Yes, absolutely. But then there was the electrics going through the tailgate hinges: they wiring would break and the window wouldn’t open/lights stop working.

Then there was the fibre optic cabling for the iDrive.