Slowest "Performance" Brand Car ?
Discussion
chasingracecars said:
DoubleD said:
bluemason said:
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.
Best of a bad bunch thenOr do you mean a Porsche Cayenne?
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people that bought an AMG line had no idea of the lineage. Its just a business model in the same way Audi have SLine. It's an aspirational level they want to sell you as it's profitable.
By the by, the last A class is horribly plasticy on the interior. I'm not sure if the AMG line (we have the level below because the lease was cheap) improved on that but it is a bit Asda Inside
By the by, the last A class is horribly plasticy on the interior. I'm not sure if the AMG line (we have the level below because the lease was cheap) improved on that but it is a bit Asda Inside
MC Bodge said:
GTEYE said:
Not defending the Mk4 GTi (or same engined Mk3), but we should remember this was a different era.
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.
That Golf GTi isnt that slow, but similar to a 1.6/1.8/1.0T Focus.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.
90s cars weren't that slow, although fewer had civilised turbo delivery, many were much lighter. 60s and 70s normal cars were slow compared to modern ones.
The Mk3 16v GTi was a decent car though, I've had a couple of those and they were fun to thrash around the twisty roads.
s m said:
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
Performance figures (0-62)
GTI-6 - 7.4
ST170 - 8.2
As it goes the ST170 can catch the GTI in a drag race at higher speeds but the problem with the ST170 was the unusual gear ratios and the engine that felt gutless unless you were flat out. I had a Civic Type R when I drove the ST and was shocked at how much slower it was everywhere.
The Focus still handled well but was let down in other areas.
Scobblelotcher said:
s m said:
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
Performance figures (0-62)
GTI-6 - 7.4
ST170 - 8.2
As it goes the ST170 can catch the GTI in a drag race at higher speeds but the problem with the ST170 was the unusual gear ratios and the engine that felt gutless unless you were flat out. I had a Civic Type R when I drove the ST and was shocked at how much slower it was everywhere.
The Focus still handled well but was let down in other areas.
Ares said:
captain_cynic said:
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.
AMG = 'M'
AMG line is an option, a trim level that changes body work, trim, suspension, kit, wheels t make it look better/sportier. You get to choose the engine. Exactly the same as M-Sport
AMG models are models in their own right. Like the BMW M.
BMW also have M-Performance models that are M Sport but with slightly warmed up engine tune & kit.
M-sport/AMG line/S line
M performance/AMG 43/S
M/AMG 63/RS (with this variant you have the higher levels of CP/S/Plus laid over the top of the entry level car.)
The AMG 65 stuff stands on its own for people with lots of money, at the moment not all sub brands line up against each other for example there is a C43 and S4 but no M340i (although one is coming with the G20 3 series) but as a general rule it works in terms of the level of engineering and changes put into each "line" regardless of model range.
Edited by Wills2 on Saturday 17th March 13:07
Balmoral said:
willmagrath said:
Efbe said:
willmagrath said:
Efbe said:
fabia vrs from 2003-7
130bhp from a 1.9tdi
I had one of these, and the torque meant it would keep up with a Civic type r of the same age without much trouble. Best car I've ever owned.130bhp from a 1.9tdi
s m said:
Scobblelotcher said:
s m said:
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
Performance figures (0-62)
GTI-6 - 7.4
ST170 - 8.2
As it goes the ST170 can catch the GTI in a drag race at higher speeds but the problem with the ST170 was the unusual gear ratios and the engine that felt gutless unless you were flat out. I had a Civic Type R when I drove the ST and was shocked at how much slower it was everywhere.
The Focus still handled well but was let down in other areas.
Pistonheads article: https://www.pistonheads.com/features/ph-buying-gui...
The Rallye (same car/engine with some weight removed): http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/peugeot/95593/peugeot...
I can post more links if you'd like although I'm not really sure it will help.
nickfrog said:
David87 said:
if you're more into posing / impressing the neighbours than driving
I genuinely don't know anyone who gives a shyte what the neighbours think... It's usually the neighbours who think that they do.Edited by nickfrog on Friday 16th March 18:26
PH bears testament to that....
V10Ace said:
nickfrog said:
David87 said:
if you're more into posing / impressing the neighbours than driving
I genuinely don't know anyone who gives a shyte what the neighbours think... It's usually the neighbours who think that they do.Edited by nickfrog on Friday 16th March 18:26
PH bears testament to that....
(ah s
t I just did) TimmyMallett said:
By the by, the last A class is horribly plasticy on the interior. I'm not sure if the AMG line (we have the level below because the lease was cheap) improved on that but it is a bit Asda Inside
The A Class is a hideous looking car on the outside too.If it was a Kia nobody would want one. Kia cars actually look far better.
MC Bodge said:
The A Class is a hideous looking car on the outside too.
If it was a Kia nobody would want one. Kia cars actually look far better.
I would have thought it's totally subjective although that's always a difficult concept to accept on PH ! I find the A class looks very good.If it was a Kia nobody would want one. Kia cars actually look far better.
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.
I always enjoyed driving Golfs more than the Astras, cocking the inside rear wheel in the air is always amusing
Scobblelotcher said:
s m said:
Scobblelotcher said:
s m said:
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
Performance figures (0-62)
GTI-6 - 7.4
ST170 - 8.2
As it goes the ST170 can catch the GTI in a drag race at higher speeds but the problem with the ST170 was the unusual gear ratios and the engine that felt gutless unless you were flat out. I had a Civic Type R when I drove the ST and was shocked at how much slower it was everywhere.
The Focus still handled well but was let down in other areas.
Pistonheads article: https://www.pistonheads.com/features/ph-buying-gui...
The Rallye (same car/engine with some weight removed): http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/peugeot/95593/peugeot...
I can post more links if you'd like although I'm not really sure it will help.
That was the best any mag got for a GTI-6. Car got theirs to 60 in 7.4 secs...
the 306 Rallye EVO tested managed 6.9 and 19.2...by far the best figures for any 306.
The only figures I saw for an ST 170 were EVO. The 2004 onwards model had revised gearing and did 0-100 in 20.7 or 20.8, so yeah, not a big difference higher up but 306 was quicker low down...
Back on topic, I'd have loved to seen that A Class get beaten. I've got a real downer on Merc at the moment. I'm sure a lot of Audi and BMW drivers have switched to the marque in recent years and I reckon I get cut up by more Merc A and C classes than any other car these days on my commute....seeing a presumptious AMG badged A class driver get put in their place by a van would have made my day!!!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff