Average cars of the 80's - performance compared to today
Discussion
I grew up in the 80's and have always been extremely keen on cars. My dad had some fruity numbers over the years and also had some normal everyday stuff (Sierra's, Cavaliers, etc.) It got me thinking the other day, my work car is a VW Passat 2.0TDI with about 140bhp. I would say this is a very typical car on our roads nowadays and does everything reasonably well. Other blokes I work with claim this car is "really quick" and "pulls like a train" etc. This is more than likely down to them not having driven anything quick before.
After talking to a couple of them who ran various cars in the 80's such as RS Turbo's, Nissan 200SX's, Cavalier SRi's etc. it made me think are our modern average cars comparable in terms of performance to the sporty numbers of the 1980's? Would something that performs the same as say a 1.8petrol Sierra nowadays be hard work in amongst all the 2.0TDI brigade?
Bit of a strange post I'm just curious really.
After talking to a couple of them who ran various cars in the 80's such as RS Turbo's, Nissan 200SX's, Cavalier SRi's etc. it made me think are our modern average cars comparable in terms of performance to the sporty numbers of the 1980's? Would something that performs the same as say a 1.8petrol Sierra nowadays be hard work in amongst all the 2.0TDI brigade?
Bit of a strange post I'm just curious really.
If you look back, the average 2.0l car wasnt putting out much more than 100hp. The cars were a lot lighter though so balances out to a point but cars are quicker these days. Everything made today will perfectly happily cruise at 70+ on the motorway all day long. A lot of 70s and early 80s cars will struggle at that.
Even not going back that far, mid 90s for example, cars had a lot less power. We've seen a big jump in power and performance in cars the last few years with manufacturers switching to turbos.
My car for example. Fiat Bravo HGT. 2.0 20v engine with 155hp from the mid to late nineties. At the time, its rivals were the golf GTI 1.8T (around 150hp) and the peugeot 306 GTI-6 2.0 16v (around 170hp). All of them were hot hatches in their day. They're nothing special performance wise these days. All would struggle to see off some sort of modern TDI engined hatch... The equivalent golf is also pushing over 200hp, as are most of its rivals.
Even not going back that far, mid 90s for example, cars had a lot less power. We've seen a big jump in power and performance in cars the last few years with manufacturers switching to turbos.
My car for example. Fiat Bravo HGT. 2.0 20v engine with 155hp from the mid to late nineties. At the time, its rivals were the golf GTI 1.8T (around 150hp) and the peugeot 306 GTI-6 2.0 16v (around 170hp). All of them were hot hatches in their day. They're nothing special performance wise these days. All would struggle to see off some sort of modern TDI engined hatch... The equivalent golf is also pushing over 200hp, as are most of its rivals.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Saturday 26th April 12:12
Edited by MysteryLemon on Saturday 26th April 12:14
It's because they aren't used to the different sensation of speed you get from a diesel, the masses of torque makes them feel like they pull harder than they really are.
An example of this would be my brothers 1.6 diesel Focus, it pushes you into the seat but you look at the speedo and you aren't actually accelerating that quickly compared to my n/a ST which feels less punchy but accelerates much better.
An example of this would be my brothers 1.6 diesel Focus, it pushes you into the seat but you look at the speedo and you aren't actually accelerating that quickly compared to my n/a ST which feels less punchy but accelerates much better.
Edited by ezi on Saturday 26th April 12:16
In its day, back in the '80s, an E30 M3 was considered a fast car. I remember the son of my local BMW indie parts supplier saying he'd taken one to 140 mph on the bottom stretch of the M1. At that time, I think I'd only ever personally met one person that had driven a car faster and that was my mate's Dad who had a Ferrari 308 (basically a Supercar then).
Years later I got rid of my E30 M3 because I felt it was just too flippy against more modern stuff!
Years later I got rid of my E30 M3 because I felt it was just too flippy against more modern stuff!
I'm waiting for some dough to rest so I'll play - info from What Car? December 1984
Audi 80CL 0-60 in 13.1 seconds, max 102 mph; 75 bhp 1.6 litre; £7137
BMW 316 4dr 0-60 in 12.1 seconds, max 109 mph; 90 bhp; 29 mpg; £7765
Ford Sierra 1.6L 0-60 in 12.5 seconds, max 101 mph; 75bhp; 30 mpg; £6457
Nissan Bluebird 1.8DX 0-60 12.7 seconds, max 106 mph; 90 bhp; £6189
Renault 18TS 0-60 in 10.8 seconds, max 107 mph; 32 mpg, 96 bhp; £5750
Vauxhall Cavalier 1.6L 0-60 in 12.0 seconds, max 102 mph; 28 mpg, 90 bhp; £6240
Audi & BMW very expensive and still slow - all on carburettors, all very similar; the statistics in comparison to modern stuff is poor but the 80's cars would have a feeling of low down torque and also had much lower gearing that would mean they would not initially feel that much slower in real life.
Audi 80CL 0-60 in 13.1 seconds, max 102 mph; 75 bhp 1.6 litre; £7137
BMW 316 4dr 0-60 in 12.1 seconds, max 109 mph; 90 bhp; 29 mpg; £7765
Ford Sierra 1.6L 0-60 in 12.5 seconds, max 101 mph; 75bhp; 30 mpg; £6457
Nissan Bluebird 1.8DX 0-60 12.7 seconds, max 106 mph; 90 bhp; £6189
Renault 18TS 0-60 in 10.8 seconds, max 107 mph; 32 mpg, 96 bhp; £5750
Vauxhall Cavalier 1.6L 0-60 in 12.0 seconds, max 102 mph; 28 mpg, 90 bhp; £6240
Audi & BMW very expensive and still slow - all on carburettors, all very similar; the statistics in comparison to modern stuff is poor but the 80's cars would have a feeling of low down torque and also had much lower gearing that would mean they would not initially feel that much slower in real life.
You are listing small engined carb cars though. He was talking 80's hot hatches:
Rs turbo, 132 bhp,
1.6, 0-60 8.2 secs, top speed 122mph.
Sierra xr4i,
2.8, 0-60 7.8 secs, top speed 122mph.
Cavalier Sri 130, 130bhp,
2.0, 0-60 8.1 secs. Top speed 122mph
So not exactly blisteringly fast by today's standards but not as slow as the poverty spec cars listed before..
Rs turbo, 132 bhp,
1.6, 0-60 8.2 secs, top speed 122mph.
Sierra xr4i,
2.8, 0-60 7.8 secs, top speed 122mph.
Cavalier Sri 130, 130bhp,
2.0, 0-60 8.1 secs. Top speed 122mph
So not exactly blisteringly fast by today's standards but not as slow as the poverty spec cars listed before..
Edited by Cerbieherts on Saturday 26th April 12:52
Edited by Cerbieherts on Saturday 26th April 12:53
(very) junior.just look at the weights on new cars easy getting on for 1600 - 2000 kilos
older cars were less refined, less safe, less parts, less power but maybe sometimes less is more, do we need all the gadgets in cars now a days.
Brown with velour seats taken straight off a sofa combined with canal boat handling needs to make a come back.
older cars were less refined, less safe, less parts, less power but maybe sometimes less is more, do we need all the gadgets in cars now a days.
Brown with velour seats taken straight off a sofa combined with canal boat handling needs to make a come back.
80's hot hatches are dead compared to even the worst of anything on offer today.
The power delivery is different though and they're far more enjoyable to drive. About two years ago I drove a standard RS Turbo and was expecting to hate it. I loved it.
Having owned the likes of an AE86 Corolla and Escort Mexico alongside the modern equivalent I always preferred the older stuff. Not fast by modern standards though.
The power delivery is different though and they're far more enjoyable to drive. About two years ago I drove a standard RS Turbo and was expecting to hate it. I loved it.
Having owned the likes of an AE86 Corolla and Escort Mexico alongside the modern equivalent I always preferred the older stuff. Not fast by modern standards though.
I think if you drove both in isolation, you might think a typical 2.0 litre car from the 1980s was similar in speed to a modern TDi. Part of this perception will be true, due to lighter weight, but part of it is because cars from back then had more wind and road noise.
Pert of the appeal to me in some ways - modern TDi = no thanks!
Pert of the appeal to me in some ways - modern TDi = no thanks!
Cerbieherts said:
You are listing small engined carb cars though. He was talking 80's hot hatches:
Rs turbo, 132 bhp,
1.6, 0-60 8.2 secs, top speed 122mph.
Sierra xr4i,
2.8, 0-60 7.8 secs, top speed 122mph.
Cavalier Sri 130, 130bhp,
2.0, 0-60 8.1 secs. Top speed 122mph
So not exactly blisteringly fast by today's standards but not as slow as the poverty spec cars listed before..
The Cavalier is a good example. 130bhp from a 2-litre engine doesn't sound much by todays standards, but the C20SEH was only an injected, single cam 8v engine with none of todays hitech gubbins. I had a 4x4 Cavalier with the same engine and it was quick enough back then! Rs turbo, 132 bhp,
1.6, 0-60 8.2 secs, top speed 122mph.
Sierra xr4i,
2.8, 0-60 7.8 secs, top speed 122mph.
Cavalier Sri 130, 130bhp,
2.0, 0-60 8.1 secs. Top speed 122mph
So not exactly blisteringly fast by today's standards but not as slow as the poverty spec cars listed before..
Edited by Cerbieherts on Saturday 26th April 12:52
Edited by Cerbieherts on Saturday 26th April 12:53
In terms of high speed, say above 70mph, the average modern car would just warp off into the distance, with something like twice as much power and a similar CdA
At low speed, the multi-ratio gearboxes, massively improved tyres and kinematics of the suspension and huge low rpm torque also mean that even approaching twice the mass, modern cars are rapid!
And between those speeds, the modern DSG transmission with practically imperceptible torque interruptions between gears means no contest there either!
3:0 to modern cars!
At low speed, the multi-ratio gearboxes, massively improved tyres and kinematics of the suspension and huge low rpm torque also mean that even approaching twice the mass, modern cars are rapid!
And between those speeds, the modern DSG transmission with practically imperceptible torque interruptions between gears means no contest there either!
3:0 to modern cars!
Max_Torque said:
In terms of high speed, say above 70mph, the average modern car would just warp off into the distance, with something like twice as much power and a similar CdA
At low speed, the multi-ratio gearboxes, massively improved tyres and kinematics of the suspension and huge low rpm torque also mean that even approaching twice the mass, modern cars are rapid!
And between those speeds, the modern DSG transmission with practically imperceptible torque interruptions between gears means no contest there either!
3:0 to modern cars!
Numb electric steering, wooden over servoed brakes, sAt low speed, the multi-ratio gearboxes, massively improved tyres and kinematics of the suspension and huge low rpm torque also mean that even approaching twice the mass, modern cars are rapid!
And between those speeds, the modern DSG transmission with practically imperceptible torque interruptions between gears means no contest there either!
3:0 to modern cars!
te visibility, electronic nannying, modern DSG transmission with practically imperceptible torque transitions sapping driver involvement.5:0 to the old s
t. I thought I'd quite like to get an 80s or 90s car, as I grew up reading road tests of that era, but I've been spoiled by modern diesels and can't help thinking old cars would feel slow and crap to drive. Need to find something that's not too slow, fun to drive and not a total gas guzzler. Any suggestions??
MysteryLemon said:
If you look back, the average 2.0l car wasnt putting out much more than 100hp. The cars were a lot lighter though so balances out to a point but cars are quicker these days. Everything made today will perfectly happily cruise at 70+ on the motorway all day long. A lot of 70s and early 80s cars will struggle at that.
Even not going back that far, mid 90s for example, cars had a lot less power. We've seen a big jump in power and performance in cars the last few years with manufacturers switching to turbos.
My car for example. Fiat Bravo HGT. 2.0 20v engine with 155hp from the mid to late nineties. At the time, its rivals were the golf GTI 1.8T (around 150hp) and the peugeot 306 GTI-6 2.0 16v (around 170hp). All of them were hot hatches in their day. They're nothing special performance wise these days. All would struggle to see off some sort of modern TDI engined hatch... The equivalent golf is also pushing over 200hp, as are most of its rivals.
IIRCEven not going back that far, mid 90s for example, cars had a lot less power. We've seen a big jump in power and performance in cars the last few years with manufacturers switching to turbos.
My car for example. Fiat Bravo HGT. 2.0 20v engine with 155hp from the mid to late nineties. At the time, its rivals were the golf GTI 1.8T (around 150hp) and the peugeot 306 GTI-6 2.0 16v (around 170hp). All of them were hot hatches in their day. They're nothing special performance wise these days. All would struggle to see off some sort of modern TDI engined hatch... The equivalent golf is also pushing over 200hp, as are most of its rivals.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Saturday 26th April 12:12
Edited by MysteryLemon on Saturday 26th April 12:14
Mk5 Golf GTI: 0-60 6.9s
306 GTI-6: 0-60 7.2s
(Rallye 6.9s?)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff