Are 1990s "performance" cars still quick?

[AntiLagGC8]

swerni said:

plenty said:

AntiLagGC8 said:

A well piloted classic with some fairly low cost mods is still very fast indeed against modern cars.

Most definitely

Just wanted to make the observation that a Golf R is really a very fast car indeed when at the extreme of the performance envelope.

To add also, ESP on modern cars makes their full performance much easier to access without the need for god-like driving skills.

But why modify it ?
Take a vanilla product for both eras and compare.
Throughout the 90's I owned

205 GTI 1.9
Prodrive Imprezza Turbo
caterham 7
Plus a few other odd cars

Without question, in my experience modern cars are faster.

I think I made the point earlier a standard RA (and it wasn't even the fastest car in the 1990's) is still as fast or faster than a lot of modern performance cars by most measures.

So as the title questions 'are 1990's performance cars still quick?' - Some are yes.

[ikarl]

swerni said:

And your point is?

It's a fking type, get a life

Do you mean typo?

[Hol]

plenty said:

I have driven many thousands of miles in Imprezas, in convoy with Golf Rs piloted by drivers of a comparable level of skill and experience to myself. (How do I know? We've driven together for years, in a variety of cars, and know each others' abilities well.)

As much as I love my v5 Type RA it simply will not keep up with a Golf R at full chat...the brakes are too weak, and the limits too low. Furthermore when really hooning in the right place at the right time it is too easy to run out of gears in an RA - it really needs a sixth (in fact the 1-5 ratios of the Subaru JDM six-speed are almost identical to the RA ratios).

My 2004 JDM on the other hand is a better match for the R, its twin scroll offering far superior power delivery for the road and the stiffer shell offering much higher adhesion limits far outweighing any weight penalty. Even still I have to work extremely hard to stay in touch with an R and I certainly cannot pull a gap on one, especially a DSG-equipped car - do not under-estimate how much of a performance advantage the DSG offers.

Its interesting that you prefer the Twin Scroll.

I had a V5 TypeR with V-limited 5th gear between 2000 and 2004 and a Twin Scroll 2003 between 2005 and 2009.

If I am honest I actually preferred the TypeR - as it felt quicker and more fun to drive, despite the twin scroll having over 400ibs of torque.

Neither was standard though, the TypeR had AP's and Ledas and the Newage the full T25-AST suspension set up. In fact I only bought the newage because it was newer car for the family and the previous owner was well known to me.

I kind-off regretted it straight away, but consoled myself that the newer car looked better when rocking up as a family. (Shallow of me, I know).

Edited by Hol on Tuesday 15th September 08:56

[paulmnz]

plenty said:

Most definitely

Just wanted to make the observation that a Golf R is really a very fast car indeed when at the extreme of the performance envelope.

To add also, ESP on modern cars makes their full performance much easier to access without the need for god-like driving skills.

This. I went to a damp trackday at donnington with a friend of mine who had just got a new Golf GTI. First time on a track, looking to prove something. He is a pretty aggressive driver, not smooth at all. passengering for the first couple of laps I was sure we were going to go off... sawing away at the steering wheel causing massive weight shifts, braking as hard as he could, throttle as an on/off switch. he left the DSG in 'auto' mode so he could just mash the 'go' and 'stop' pedals like a go-kart.

The ESP lights on the dash flickered for most of the lap, but from the outside the car looked very composed and he was lapping faster than caterhams and most older cars without driver aids (E36 track cars etc) despite just lobbing the car into corners.

Brakes faded eventually, but the combination of modern performance tyres and stability systems are impressive. on a 'real world' road, particularly in damp conditions, most modern cars would IMHO be quicker than 90's performance cars or at the least the work rate of the driver would be much much lower.

While I'm a big fan of older cars, the march of progress is unavoidable and a bit sad - I was quite disappointed following an E30 M3 Evo at a trackday - they look amazing, but the performance is getting a bit 'vintage' now. Most 90's and 00's performance cars are heading in the same direction.

[derin100]

mickyveloce said:

All things are, of course, relative.

I have run a 1996 C36 AMG for the past 9 years, and find it offers not only accessible and adequate performance, but more importantly, accessible fun and driver satisfaction.

More (modest) moderns would be quicker in some situations with an average driver, as they are hard-wired to resolve mistakes made by the person behind the wheel, but my car, without traction control etc, rewards skillful driving when making progress.

For me, it's quick, fun and relevant, despite it's 19 years.

I agree. I have a 1995 BMW E34 540i. 0-60 is 6.2 and top speed is limited to 155mph. I think that still rates as a fast car even by today's standards. As said, with an LSD but no traction control it is a more rewarding drive than many modern cars...plus they just look way cooler as well!

Gratuitous photo whoring






http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/gallery/index.php?spg...

[PTF]

I bought a 306 GTI-6, having had quite a few fast-ish cars since the 90s - 172s, elise, caterhams and more recently an M135i.

The GTI-6 does not feel particularly quick, in fact the M135i would destroy it in a straight line, plus it's about 20% worse on fuel.

However, give me an empty B-road and i'd choose the GTI-6 every time.

[chris watton]

I guess part of it depends on what you want/get out of the driving experience.

Some like the car to do all the work and blanket their mistakes, and others like the experience of actually driving the car, knowing that their input makes all the difference and is a large part of the fun and why they chose that particular car.

For me personally, I would hate being on a track and having a car that sorted everything out for me, where's the fun in that, but also, I understand why some would like it - who wouldn't want a car that makes a complete numpty look like a driving God?

But that's not my definition of fun..

[Leins]

derin100 said:

I agree. I have a 1995 BMW E34 540i. 0-60 is 6.2 and top speed is limited to 155mph. I think that still rates as a fast car even by today's standards. As said, with an LSD but no traction control it is a more rewarding drive than many modern cars...plus they just look way cooler as well!

Gratuitous photo whoring




http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/gallery/index.php?spg...

That looks lovely Derin (as usual!)

[e21Mark]

Leins said:

derin100 said:

I agree. I have a 1995 BMW E34 540i. 0-60 is 6.2 and top speed is limited to 155mph. I think that still rates as a fast car even by today's standards. As said, with an LSD but no traction control it is a more rewarding drive than many modern cars...plus they just look way cooler as well!

Gratuitous photo whoring




http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/gallery/index.php?spg...

That looks lovely Derin (as usual!)

Very nice. I don't really like modern stuff but that's very cool.

[derin100]

Leins said:

That looks lovely Derin (as usual!)

Cheers!

[derin100]

e21Mark said:

Very nice. I don't really like modern stuff but that's very cool.

Thanks Mark!

Modern?...LOL! On 27th December it will be 20 years old!

[JockySteer]

Barronmr said:

swerni said:

i know and you said
"Seriously, off a roundabout and full on foot to the floor acceleration very little will outrun it in the legal zones"

I was pointing out that this was wrong, lots will

I disagree. A manual boost controller bypasses the stock mr2's ECU's boost limits, (peak limit and 1st/2nd gear limits). So 0-60 is now 4.5s and 1/4mile is 12.8 .

I don't know how you define lots, sure odd GTR etc... but I wouldn't say lots that can go from 20-70 much quicker unless your counting bikes.

Hmm, I'd fancy my chances

[JockySteer]

interloper said:

aka_kerrly said:

How about this, a Ferrari F40 does 30mph-70mph in 2.8 seconds the BMW M4 3.5 seconds, for perspective a 2001 BMW M5 takes 4.8 seconds, a 2013 BMW 320D takes just under 8 seconds.

Fastlane pegged the F40 AT 2.7secs 30 to 70, that 0.1 makes all the difference! Whilst we are comparing, the F40 hit 150mph in 16.2 seconds from a stand still, does anyone have a figure for the M4?

20.6 for the M4. Quite the difference in car lengths on the runway

[Soov535]

derin100 said:

mickyveloce said:

All things are, of course, relative.

I have run a 1996 C36 AMG for the past 9 years, and find it offers not only accessible and adequate performance, but more importantly, accessible fun and driver satisfaction.

More (modest) moderns would be quicker in some situations with an average driver, as they are hard-wired to resolve mistakes made by the person behind the wheel, but my car, without traction control etc, rewards skillful driving when making progress.

For me, it's quick, fun and relevant, despite it's 19 years.

I agree. I have a 1995 BMW E34 540i. 0-60 is 6.2 and top speed is limited to 155mph. I think that still rates as a fast car even by today's standards. As said, with an LSD but no traction control it is a more rewarding drive than many modern cars...plus they just look way cooler as well!

Gratuitous photo whoring






http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/gallery/index.php?spg...

That's a work of art. Lovely.

My 2014 535d is faster (that's progress folks... 0-60 in 5.3) but I know which I'd rather drive!!

[spats]

lostkiwi said:

Saabs don't get going properly till they are in third gear as they are torque limited by the ECU in 1st and 2nd so as to control wheel spin.

The only 9-3 with the 2.3 engine was AFAIK the Viggen - all the rest had the 2 litre in either B204 or B207 formats (the latter being the Vauxhall engine).
I think the quickest off the shelf Saab may well have been the 2.8 V6 turbo in the last generation 9-3.

The 2.8 was also used in the VXR but it was a Noughties car rather than nineties, same as the b207.

I actually forgot about the torque limiting ecu which is silly of me as I had it mapped out of mine.

[TommoAE86]

AntiLagGC8 said:

I'm not sure where 'vastly quicker' comes from bud? I can point you at several 1990's cars than can outrun the Golf R. As an example the STi Type R did it in 4.6's and the P1 4.7's. They are also far quicker across country thanks to their low body weight. The STi Type RA is simply savage across country thanks to its stripped out configuration and short ratio gear box. I've spent time in both the Golf R and the RA and they are brilliant for different reasons but the Type RA is a brute up to about 120mph and then it reaches it (gearing) limit shortly afterwards.

I actually rate the Golf R because its quick, competent, looks good and well spec'd and to be fair to the Golf, the RA is a hardcore stripped out car and the Golf is a very quick but also comfortable car than can be used for any purpose.

Apologies, maybe the 'vastly' was misplaced But I do still hold that a Golf R would be faster in normal hooning than alot of cars in a similar market position. As you have mentioned a STi Type R is a stripped out car rather than a comfortable family hatchback. I also think that the increase in tyres/braking/electronics/suspension that allow you to take more liberties than you could with older cars.

[SonicShadow]

GC8 said:

'Swerni': you aren't coming across very well.

With regards to manual boost controllers - doesn't £15 just buy you a nasty bleed-off valve?

Seeing a cheap, nasty MBC in an MR2 says a lot about the owner. It's a nice red flag that says 'do not buy' though!

Now, a Blitz Dual SBC, Gizmo IBC, Apexi AVCR or similar

[ORD]

TommoAE86 said:

AntiLagGC8 said:

I'm not sure where 'vastly quicker' comes from bud? I can point you at several 1990's cars than can outrun the Golf R. As an example the STi Type R did it in 4.6's and the P1 4.7's. They are also far quicker across country thanks to their low body weight. The STi Type RA is simply savage across country thanks to its stripped out configuration and short ratio gear box. I've spent time in both the Golf R and the RA and they are brilliant for different reasons but the Type RA is a brute up to about 120mph and then it reaches it (gearing) limit shortly afterwards.

I actually rate the Golf R because its quick, competent, looks good and well spec'd and to be fair to the Golf, the RA is a hardcore stripped out car and the Golf is a very quick but also comfortable car than can be used for any purpose.

Apologies, maybe the 'vastly' was misplaced But I do still hold that a Golf R would be faster in normal hooning than alot of cars in a similar market position. As you have mentioned a STi Type R is a stripped out car rather than a comfortable family hatchback. I also think that the increase in tyres/braking/electronics/suspension that allow you to take more liberties than you could with older cars.

Golf R with an auto box would outpace that Scooby, in my view, especially in the hands of the average driver.

[plenty]

Hol said:

Its interesting that you prefer the Twin Scroll.

I had a V5 TypeR with V-limited 5th gear between 2000 and 2004 and a Twin Scroll 2003 between 2005 and 2009.

If I am honest I actually preferred the TypeR - as it felt quicker and more fun to drive, despite the twin scroll having over 400ibs of torque.

I don't actually say I preferred my twin-scroll - just that it is quicker

Pedanticism aside, I do actually prefer my JDM blob, but I also am still very fond of my classic and can certainly understand why others prefer the GC8. When at the helm of my RA there is no question that it *feels* faster: the manic gearing, light weight, tin-can build and the surge as the single-scroll kicks in all contributing to the sensation of speed.

However the question OP was asking was not about fun or preference but about objective pace, and I have some fairly convincing empirical evidence of the newer car being quicker across the ground and with a significantly larger ultimate envelope having benchmarked both cars extensively against others (add obligatory disclaimer about doing so responsibly in appropriate conditions).

The kick in the back of the single scroll is exhilarating but requires more gear-stirring to keep on the boil (which can be fun of course but saps pace). By contrast the torquey twin-scroll feels like a brawny six and there is less need to change down to keep a brisk pace going - 4th is a devastating all-purpose ratio in a twin-scroll car that is effective for all but the tightest corners.

Ultimately though a classic Impreza is still a fast car by modern standards and anyway 10/10ths pace isn't really that important for most drivers. As often mentioned when it comes to newer versus older cars, you have to drive the newer car quicker to get the same thrills, an important consideration given congested roads and speed limits.

[AntiLagGC8]

plenty said:

Hol said:

Its interesting that you prefer the Twin Scroll.

I had a V5 TypeR with V-limited 5th gear between 2000 and 2004 and a Twin Scroll 2003 between 2005 and 2009.

If I am honest I actually preferred the TypeR - as it felt quicker and more fun to drive, despite the twin scroll having over 400ibs of torque.

I don't actually say I preferred my twin-scroll - just that it is quicker

Pedanticism aside, I do actually prefer my JDM blob, but I also am still very fond of my classic and can certainly understand why others prefer the GC8. When at the helm of my RA there is no question that it *feels* faster: the manic gearing, light weight, tin-can build and the surge as the single-scroll kicks in all contributing to the sensation of speed.

However the question OP was asking was not about fun or preference but about objective pace, and I have some fairly convincing empirical evidence of the newer car being quicker across the ground and with a significantly larger ultimate envelope having benchmarked both cars extensively against others (add obligatory disclaimer about doing so responsibly in appropriate conditions).

The kick in the back of the single scroll is exhilarating but requires more gear-stirring to keep on the boil (which can be fun of course but saps pace). By contrast the torquey twin-scroll feels like a brawny six and there is less need to change down to keep a brisk pace going - 4th is a devastating all-purpose ratio in a twin-scroll car that is effective for all but the tightest corners.

Ultimately though a classic Impreza is still a fast car by modern standards and anyway 10/10ths pace isn't really that important for most drivers. As often mentioned when it comes to newer versus older cars, you have to drive the newer car quicker to get the same thrills, an important consideration given congested roads and speed limits.

I agree.

I converted my classic to a twin scroll (Spec C VF37+OEM headers+Sump etc) and it spools very well, although not as early as the Spec C as the car doesn't have the AVCS heads although I'm considering adding them with some other work. Still it gets going at just over 3k and tails off at 7.4k so the power band is pretty easy to exploit!

It's very lively and was dyno'd at 344bhp last week. Although I'd like a twin scroll SC42.

I actually don't drive it very fast on public roads but I'm readying it for track day fun. I'm getting old I think and its just too fast to make the most of on public roads. Still I love the rawness of it, the way it drives and the sounds when driving it on the road!