Modern performance cars - Just "Why"???
Discussion
I've just been wiling away a few hours of insomnia browsing through stuff on here. As I've got a VW ID.7 GTX on order on our company salary sacrifice scheme, one of the articles I trundled through was this review of the Ioniq 6 vs ID.7. I stopped bothering with the actual article when within a couple of paragraphs it rather bizarrely got to bemoaning the fact that the VW didn't have a plastic cover under the bonnet to hide the wiring, but scrolling down to the comments, this one really caught my eye and got me thinking...
Some of the most fun cars I've ever driven have included a Peugeot 106 Rallye (0-60 in 8.8 secs) and a Hillman Imp (0-60, er, maybe?). They were fun precisely because they weren't able to deliver a 0-60 time of 3.2 seconds, and because they couldn't do that, it meant they didn't come stuffed full of so many electronic driver assistance technology that driving them in anything even vaguely resembling real world road conditions in the UK meant you might as well be driving a Toyota Corolla for all the sense of drama they gave you!
Consider, for example, the Porsche 911 Turbo 50th Anniversary. Okay, so that'll set you back over £200k, not a mere £50k, but just look at that acceleration!!! A mere 2.7 seconds to take you not just to 60mph, but to an eye-watering 62 mph!
But what on earth is the point of that? Sure, if you've got £200k before options to drop on a car you may well be able to afford to replicate the GP circuit of your choice at the bottom of your garden, but driving it on public roads in the UK??? The very engineering that gives it such startling performance is just going to make it dull, because you're only ever going to be able to use such a tiny percentage of its overall capabilities. Even a poverty-spec 911 Carrera these days will get you to 62mph in 4.1 seconds - 1.4 seconds faster than that original 911 Turbo back in 1974, which at the time was the world's fastest production car!
When my ID.7 arrives, it'll have exactly the same 0-62mph time as that original 911 Turbo - the one nicknamed the Widow Maker for its playful habit of putting people through hedges backwards at speed if the turbo kicked in on the apex of a corner - and I'll be able to drive it on twisty B roads with one hand on the wheel, chatting away to my passenger at speeds which would require serious concentration and not inconsiderable courage in the '74 Turbo.
It feels to me as thought the arms race over the past 40 years or so between Audi, BMW and Mercedes to produce ever more staggering performance stats for their RS, M and AMG models has been quite possibly the biggest betrayal of the driving enthusiast imaginable!
Sure, to get back to blue al's original point, 0-62mph in 6.5 seconds might seem like a pretty poor show, especially considering some of the eye-watering sub 5 second acceleration figures available for not a lot more, but I can't help feeling that something like a £16k Fiat 500 taking almost 14 seconds to get to 60 would actually be hugely more fun to drive in almost every conceivable scenario you might find on British roads in 2024?
blue al said:
Vw too slow @6.5 seconds to 60 for a 50k car
Now I can see where that comes from - I've had an XC-60 the size of a small terraced house (with all the dynamic capabilities of one too) that did 0-60mph in about 5.3 secs for that money, but where did I ever actually use that in the real world? Motorway slip roads and, err... that's about it!Some of the most fun cars I've ever driven have included a Peugeot 106 Rallye (0-60 in 8.8 secs) and a Hillman Imp (0-60, er, maybe?). They were fun precisely because they weren't able to deliver a 0-60 time of 3.2 seconds, and because they couldn't do that, it meant they didn't come stuffed full of so many electronic driver assistance technology that driving them in anything even vaguely resembling real world road conditions in the UK meant you might as well be driving a Toyota Corolla for all the sense of drama they gave you!
Consider, for example, the Porsche 911 Turbo 50th Anniversary. Okay, so that'll set you back over £200k, not a mere £50k, but just look at that acceleration!!! A mere 2.7 seconds to take you not just to 60mph, but to an eye-watering 62 mph!
But what on earth is the point of that? Sure, if you've got £200k before options to drop on a car you may well be able to afford to replicate the GP circuit of your choice at the bottom of your garden, but driving it on public roads in the UK??? The very engineering that gives it such startling performance is just going to make it dull, because you're only ever going to be able to use such a tiny percentage of its overall capabilities. Even a poverty-spec 911 Carrera these days will get you to 62mph in 4.1 seconds - 1.4 seconds faster than that original 911 Turbo back in 1974, which at the time was the world's fastest production car!
When my ID.7 arrives, it'll have exactly the same 0-62mph time as that original 911 Turbo - the one nicknamed the Widow Maker for its playful habit of putting people through hedges backwards at speed if the turbo kicked in on the apex of a corner - and I'll be able to drive it on twisty B roads with one hand on the wheel, chatting away to my passenger at speeds which would require serious concentration and not inconsiderable courage in the '74 Turbo.
It feels to me as thought the arms race over the past 40 years or so between Audi, BMW and Mercedes to produce ever more staggering performance stats for their RS, M and AMG models has been quite possibly the biggest betrayal of the driving enthusiast imaginable!
Sure, to get back to blue al's original point, 0-62mph in 6.5 seconds might seem like a pretty poor show, especially considering some of the eye-watering sub 5 second acceleration figures available for not a lot more, but I can't help feeling that something like a £16k Fiat 500 taking almost 14 seconds to get to 60 would actually be hugely more fun to drive in almost every conceivable scenario you might find on British roads in 2024?
Whenever these threads pop along I’m reminded of the Late James Hunt, he enjoyed driving his little Austin A35. Flat out everywhere and blowing much faster cars into the weeds, and yet still not driving at silly speeds on the road.
I guess it’s a case of it’s not what a you have, it’s how you are able to use it.
I guess it’s a case of it’s not what a you have, it’s how you are able to use it.
I wouldn’t overthink or be worried about it whatsoever. The car may suit you and the performance available from it acceptable to you.
I would anticipate any negative comment about the headline acceleration statistics would merely be down to comparisons with other cars available at comparable price
It seems VW state the RRP is from £62,000 and at that price point other cars can claim faster official headline acceleration stats.
I would expect 90% or so of the public out there would think 0-60 in under seven seconds to be somewhere between pretty nippy and are you mental? quick.
Enjoy your car.
I would anticipate any negative comment about the headline acceleration statistics would merely be down to comparisons with other cars available at comparable price
It seems VW state the RRP is from £62,000 and at that price point other cars can claim faster official headline acceleration stats.
I would expect 90% or so of the public out there would think 0-60 in under seven seconds to be somewhere between pretty nippy and are you mental? quick.
Enjoy your car.
Andy665 said:
Maybe because many people that faster = better.
Playing devil's advocate - why have you got a GTX on order when it appears a lower powered version would still suit your needs?
A very fair question! Playing devil's advocate - why have you got a GTX on order when it appears a lower powered version would still suit your needs?
The honest answer is that once I'd specced the non-GTX version up with the same bells and whistles, there was only about a tenner a month between them in the monthly lease cost (which including insurance and all other costs) so it was a purely cosmetic choice. I really liked the King's Red paint with all black roof below, and that's only available on the GTX, with the best of the non-GTX being a dull dark blue with chrome strips below the black roof.
Kermit power said:
Andy665 said:
Maybe because many people that faster = better.
Playing devil's advocate - why have you got a GTX on order when it appears a lower powered version would still suit your needs?
A very fair question! Playing devil's advocate - why have you got a GTX on order when it appears a lower powered version would still suit your needs?
The honest answer is that once I'd specced the non-GTX version up with the same bells and whistles, there was only about a tenner a month between them in the monthly lease cost (which including insurance and all other costs) so it was a purely cosmetic choice. I really liked the King's Red paint with all black roof below, and that's only available on the GTX, with the best of the non-GTX being a dull dark blue with chrome strips below the black roof.
I think excessive performance is what people (think they) want, and as said already it's a statistic that is easy to compare.
I agree that really low 0-60mph times are not really that important, but I think a good 40- 60mph and/or 60-120mph time can indicate a very flexible power band that is useful for overtaking, aforementioned slip roads and generally quick driving. Like a dive watch though, having all the ability doesn't necessarily mean you would use all that performance all the time.
I also fully endorse the driving of slow cars fast (which is probably still quite slowly) as a way to enjoy driving. My MGB feels more exciting at 50mph than a modern car would at 100mph.
I agree that really low 0-60mph times are not really that important, but I think a good 40- 60mph and/or 60-120mph time can indicate a very flexible power band that is useful for overtaking, aforementioned slip roads and generally quick driving. Like a dive watch though, having all the ability doesn't necessarily mean you would use all that performance all the time.
I also fully endorse the driving of slow cars fast (which is probably still quite slowly) as a way to enjoy driving. My MGB feels more exciting at 50mph than a modern car would at 100mph.
Kermit power said:
Andy665 said:
Maybe because many people that faster = better.
Playing devil's advocate - why have you got a GTX on order when it appears a lower powered version would still suit your needs?
A very fair question! Playing devil's advocate - why have you got a GTX on order when it appears a lower powered version would still suit your needs?
The honest answer is that once I'd specced the non-GTX version up with the same bells and whistles, there was only about a tenner a month between them in the monthly lease cost (which including insurance and all other costs) so it was a purely cosmetic choice. I really liked the King's Red paint with all black roof below, and that's only available on the GTX, with the best of the non-GTX being a dull dark blue with chrome strips below the black roof.
Personally, I think the problem with modern cars is that they just have too much grip. Hence people feeling they need loads of power to be able to approach the limits in order to have fun. My old MGB could be drifted around roundabouts at not much over walking pace and rarely troubled the speed limits on country roads however hard you pressed on. In some ways it was more fun to stretch its legs than with my Elise (which itself is neither particularly fast nor particularly grippy) simply because those legs were so much shorter, so to speak.
Add to that the continuing "dumbing down" of the driving experience with ever more powerfully servoed brakes and steering, automatic gearboxes, and ever more electronics aids reining things in, and IMO modern cars just aren't as easy to have fun in as old ones (although they do have the advantage that they work rather more often). I think even sound deadening of modern cars makes them feel slower than they are.
Add to that the continuing "dumbing down" of the driving experience with ever more powerfully servoed brakes and steering, automatic gearboxes, and ever more electronics aids reining things in, and IMO modern cars just aren't as easy to have fun in as old ones (although they do have the advantage that they work rather more often). I think even sound deadening of modern cars makes them feel slower than they are.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 8th September 09:31
scenario8 said:
I wouldn’t overthink or be worried about it whatsoever. The car may suit you and the performance available from it acceptable to you.
I would anticipate any negative comment about the headline acceleration statistics would merely be down to comparisons with other cars available at comparable price
It seems VW state the RRP is from £62,000 and at that price point other cars can claim faster official headline acceleration stats.
I would expect 90% or so of the public out there would think 0-60 in under seven seconds to be somewhere between pretty nippy and are you mental? quick.
Enjoy your car.
On this sort of car I think you are 100% correct, but to be honest I've always thought having an estate with performance figures that put 90s super cars to shame just a bit daft anyway, because nothing you do to them is ever going to stop them from being estates.I would anticipate any negative comment about the headline acceleration statistics would merely be down to comparisons with other cars available at comparable price
It seems VW state the RRP is from £62,000 and at that price point other cars can claim faster official headline acceleration stats.
I would expect 90% or so of the public out there would think 0-60 in under seven seconds to be somewhere between pretty nippy and are you mental? quick.
Enjoy your car.
When I said the likes of the RS4 had done a huge disservice to driving enthusiasts, I was more thinking of the knock on on other types of car.
That 911 anniversary edition is a prime example. The chances are none of us would ever use the full power of it, and very few of us would be able to keep it on the road at speed without all the electronic driver aids. The base Carrera is probably more fun pretty much all the time, but what choice do Porsche have but to make it hit 60 in 2.5 seconds when you can get an estate for half as much that still gets there in under 3.5 secs?
IMI A said:
You’ve answered your own question. Many people buy these more expensive cars because of the way they look. Your car looks nice. Their cars are a reflection of their own taste and personality. You like red with a black roof and perhaps the “GTX” badge for only another tenner sealed the deal for you? Not just for the performance. Having that performance on tap can be very handy on road too if you ever want to accelerate out of a situation or need to emergency brake. Lastly many people take their road cars on track. Or long road trips with a few visits to European tracks like Spa and the Ring. It’s actually the EVs that have moved the and race on where power and stats from leading hyper cars manufacturers like Gordon Murray not even being quoted any more. Also on the electronic aids one flick of a switch and they’re off and it’s just you and the car. I’ve never felt any of my high powered cars are similar to driving a Corolla. Performance and classic cars for many people are a hobby. Tinkering around with them as important as driving them. The fact some of them very fast not all that relevant in the new world of EVs. Try not to electrocute yourself on your ID!
That's true when there is only a small difference, but you could buy two 911 Carreras for the price of a 50th anniversary turbo and still have £20k left to take them on track days, so it's hardly just a little more there!Kermit power said:
...it meant they didn't come stuffed full of so many electronic driver assistance technology that driving them in anything even vaguely resembling real world road conditions in the UK meant you might as well be driving a Toyota Corolla for all the sense of drama they gave you!
Answer = Caterham. (And NW Scottish Highlands).Kermit power said:
scenario8 said:
I wouldn’t overthink or be worried about it whatsoever. The car may suit you and the performance available from it acceptable to you.
I would anticipate any negative comment about the headline acceleration statistics would merely be down to comparisons with other cars available at comparable price
It seems VW state the RRP is from £62,000 and at that price point other cars can claim faster official headline acceleration stats.
I would expect 90% or so of the public out there would think 0-60 in under seven seconds to be somewhere between pretty nippy and are you mental? quick.
Enjoy your car.
On this sort of car I think you are 100% correct, but to be honest I've always thought having an estate with performance figures that put 90s super cars to shame just a bit daft anyway, because nothing you do to them is ever going to stop them from being estates.I would anticipate any negative comment about the headline acceleration statistics would merely be down to comparisons with other cars available at comparable price
It seems VW state the RRP is from £62,000 and at that price point other cars can claim faster official headline acceleration stats.
I would expect 90% or so of the public out there would think 0-60 in under seven seconds to be somewhere between pretty nippy and are you mental? quick.
Enjoy your car.
When I said the likes of the RS4 had done a huge disservice to driving enthusiasts, I was more thinking of the knock on on other types of car.
That 911 anniversary edition is a prime example. The chances are none of us would ever use the full power of it, and very few of us would be able to keep it on the road at speed without all the electronic driver aids. The base Carrera is probably more fun pretty much all the time, but what choice do Porsche have but to make it hit 60 in 2.5 seconds when you can get an estate for half as much that still gets there in under 3.5 secs?
It is ironic that the capability of cars is increasing at about the same rate of the ability to use that capability is decreasing (because of enforcement of speeding, poor roads, congestion and dash cam warriors).
I love my F82 M4 because of its performance, but I also love my Caterham(it isn't a fast one at 5.3 seconds to 60), because that feels fast even when you go slow if you know what I mean.
I enjoyed my F56 Cooper S, but that never felt quick with a 0 to 60 in 6.8 seconds for me though. So as a general rule I do prefer faster cars I think.
I enjoyed my F56 Cooper S, but that never felt quick with a 0 to 60 in 6.8 seconds for me though. So as a general rule I do prefer faster cars I think.
This topic comes up regularly and I broadly share Kermit's sentiments. It does depend a bit on where you live; here in the M27 corridor there's no way you can use the full power of many modern cars and certainly not the likes of a modern 911. Well, not within legal and safety constraints anyway. Get Carter up there in Scotland might face fewer issues of traffic, speed limits and dawdling Dorises than I do.
After having owned a few high powered cars I've downsized to a mk8 Fiesta ST and it's a cracking little car. With around 200 bhp it's got enough power to be fun, its handling is a joy and I think it's more suited to roads around here than, say, a 911. Less is more, I suppose.
After having owned a few high powered cars I've downsized to a mk8 Fiesta ST and it's a cracking little car. With around 200 bhp it's got enough power to be fun, its handling is a joy and I think it's more suited to roads around here than, say, a 911. Less is more, I suppose.
Kermit power said:
IMI A said:
You’ve answered your own question. Many people buy these more expensive cars because of the way they look. Your car looks nice. Their cars are a reflection of their own taste and personality. You like red with a black roof and perhaps the “GTX” badge for only another tenner sealed the deal for you? Not just for the performance. Having that performance on tap can be very handy on road too if you ever want to accelerate out of a situation or need to emergency brake. Lastly many people take their road cars on track. Or long road trips with a few visits to European tracks like Spa and the Ring. It’s actually the EVs that have moved the and race on where power and stats from leading hyper cars manufacturers like Gordon Murray not even being quoted any more. Also on the electronic aids one flick of a switch and they’re off and it’s just you and the car. I’ve never felt any of my high powered cars are similar to driving a Corolla. Performance and classic cars for many people are a hobby. Tinkering around with them as important as driving them. The fact some of them very fast not all that relevant in the new world of EVs. Try not to electrocute yourself on your ID!
That's true when there is only a small difference, but you could buy two 911 Carreras for the price of a 50th anniversary turbo and still have £20k left to take them on track days, so it's hardly just a little more there!I have a very fast estate car (the fastest estate car, in fact) because I do regular drives to Spain and having something that genuinely isn't trying at all at 90mph (2,000 RPM) is far more relaxing than screaming along at 4500RPM for three days. You end up getting better MPG and it's probably better for the car as well.
As an added bonus, it's the only genuinely comfortable performance estate, where BMW, Audi and Mercedes would rather shake your teeth out, causing you to question whether the adaptive suspension is even working properly.
In terms of things like the Lotuses, yes it's fun to drive a slow car fast, but it's definitely more fun to drive a fast car fast!
I have done a similar Alps tour in both a slow car (138bhp Vectra) and performance car (Evora 410GT) and it was sooooo much more enjoyable in the Evora. The performance of the Vectra, particularly uphill, was frustrating. The brake pedal not hitting the bulkhead on the way down an Alpine Pass was a particular highlight of the Evora.
Performance isn't for pub boasting (as most people don't know about my cars IRL), it's for enjoyment and it's enjoyable, certainly to me.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe anybody buys anything to impress someone else. The fact people seem to think they do is an interesting view on the observer's own psyche.
As an added bonus, it's the only genuinely comfortable performance estate, where BMW, Audi and Mercedes would rather shake your teeth out, causing you to question whether the adaptive suspension is even working properly.
In terms of things like the Lotuses, yes it's fun to drive a slow car fast, but it's definitely more fun to drive a fast car fast!
I have done a similar Alps tour in both a slow car (138bhp Vectra) and performance car (Evora 410GT) and it was sooooo much more enjoyable in the Evora. The performance of the Vectra, particularly uphill, was frustrating. The brake pedal not hitting the bulkhead on the way down an Alpine Pass was a particular highlight of the Evora.
Performance isn't for pub boasting (as most people don't know about my cars IRL), it's for enjoyment and it's enjoyable, certainly to me.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe anybody buys anything to impress someone else. The fact people seem to think they do is an interesting view on the observer's own psyche.
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff