Slowest "Performance" Brand Car ?
Discussion
MC Bodge said:
If somebody gets on the gas and accelerating first, then it's hard to catch them if you don't have hugely more acceleration.
This.Had a Mazda 6 beat me off the line earlier this week. At the next set of lights I set him straight. I probably shouldn't do the traffic light GP after training (adrenaline, not thinking properly, occasionally received a knock to the head) but it's a quiet 9PM on decent back roads in Berkshire. There's a few nice stretches of dual carriageway and I rarely get the roads to myself.
Also remember figures like 4.5s 0-60 are achieved with clutch-lunching launches. Setting off normally is considerably slower.
Edited by captain_cynic on Friday 16th March 16:25
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.
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.
I don't have an issue with these M Sport or S Line cars; I can see the appeal of wanting to look 'cool', but not forking out for performance you won't use if you're more into posing / impressing the neighbours than driving. It's not for me, but I can at least understand the rationale of those who spend their money on such things.
The problem for me, however, is this actual, real-life event that happened not too long ago with a young member of my staff:
Them: My dad's just got the new Mercedes A-Class AMG. He's picking me up later.
Me: Cool, I'd love to have a look at that. They're awesome cars.
Them: Yeah, it's really fast.
Me: Looking forward to it!
Collection time arrives and... it's some miserable 4-pot diesel 'AMG Line' thing. Disappointing for an enthusiast like me, but I was still very polite.
It's a nice car, just not a fast one! 
The problem for me, however, is this actual, real-life event that happened not too long ago with a young member of my staff:
Them: My dad's just got the new Mercedes A-Class AMG. He's picking me up later.
Me: Cool, I'd love to have a look at that. They're awesome cars.
Them: Yeah, it's really fast.
Me: Looking forward to it!
Collection time arrives and... it's some miserable 4-pot diesel 'AMG Line' thing. Disappointing for an enthusiast like me, but I was still very polite.
It's a nice car, just not a fast one! 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.
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.
Coolbanana said:
Why is it that certain folks who have a more intense interest in something feel the need to assume everyone else is thick? 
I very much doubt the owner of said AMG-Line 180 would have not known he had purchased one of the cheaper models in the range and the reason why that was. He may have been guilty of assuming a van was always slower than any car, but that's all. He would've have imagined he was driving a particularly fast car.
Many people put aesthetics before speed and handling. That's why these cars sell. They look better than the bog-standard model to many eyes. That's it. No daftness on the part of the Buyer. No, 'it looks sporty so it must be rapid' notions. After that, they are asking for whatever fits their budget, fuel economy goals etc. Speed is rarely a consideration for most.
Just because we can tell the difference between every different iteration of Mercedes and BMW et al, doesn't make those who have no interest in knowing such trivia stupid. They still know what they want from their car and buy accordingly.
Do you really believe this Gentleman went into a Dealership and when offered the AMG-Line trim, didn't know what that included? Most of my Family and friends have zero interest in car trivia but do know where their car sits in its model range and approximate ability in relation to other cars they considered.
For most people, they do not need to know much about all the specifics, so long as it looks good to them and feels good. If buying an AMG-Line Merc makes the Buyer feel good then surely that is fine?
This I very much doubt the owner of said AMG-Line 180 would have not known he had purchased one of the cheaper models in the range and the reason why that was. He may have been guilty of assuming a van was always slower than any car, but that's all. He would've have imagined he was driving a particularly fast car.
Many people put aesthetics before speed and handling. That's why these cars sell. They look better than the bog-standard model to many eyes. That's it. No daftness on the part of the Buyer. No, 'it looks sporty so it must be rapid' notions. After that, they are asking for whatever fits their budget, fuel economy goals etc. Speed is rarely a consideration for most.
Just because we can tell the difference between every different iteration of Mercedes and BMW et al, doesn't make those who have no interest in knowing such trivia stupid. They still know what they want from their car and buy accordingly.
Do you really believe this Gentleman went into a Dealership and when offered the AMG-Line trim, didn't know what that included? Most of my Family and friends have zero interest in car trivia but do know where their car sits in its model range and approximate ability in relation to other cars they considered.
For most people, they do not need to know much about all the specifics, so long as it looks good to them and feels good. If buying an AMG-Line Merc makes the Buyer feel good then surely that is fine?
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
culpz said:
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.
Hardly. ST was a new concept on the ST170 and the Mk 6 was the first Fiesta to wear the ST badge. They were never really meant to be anything but "warm" and I calculated the bhp per ton on my ST170 was about the same as my old 5 GT Turbo.The Civic Type R upped the game to 200hp and it all mushroomed from there. Ford's answer was the RS, not the ST. Only with the Mk 7 did Ford decide to match the other manufacturers with an ST instead of an RS while the Focus ST remained in the middle when they launched the RS.
But I digress...
Historically, Chevrolet made a pretty slow Z28, in the 80s that was a pale shadow of the original.
Nowadays, if you consider "GTI" a brand, the Up might qualify or the Twingo "RS".
cerb4.5lee said:
If I had a car that did 0 to 60 in 11.3 secs I would expect to get hammered by pretty much everything off the lights. So I'd just sit back relax and appreciate the high mpg.
We own a Mk6 Fiesta 1.4 that is probably slower. It's quite responsive and encourages one to drive it hard and the chassis to get on the gas early. ..MPG isn't particularly high, though, no matter how one drives it..
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 16th March 19:24
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 16th March 19:35
MC Bodge said:
cerb4.5lee said:
If I had a car that did 0 to 60 in 11.3 secs I would expect to get hammered by pretty much everything off the lights. So I'd just sit back relax and appreciate the high mpg.
We own a Mk6 Fiesta 1.2 that is probably slower. It's quite responsive and encourages one to drive it hard and to get on the gas early. ..MPG isn't particularly high, though, no matter how one drives it..
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff