Are modern cars really faster than old ones?
Discussion
EDIT: It would seem this question is far too complex for many on here to be able to answer. If you are one of those, please don't bother replying with something that answers a different question. It's not worth it. If however you have an IQ greater than that of a boiled potato (or Baldrick), then you'll be able to grasp the question easily enough.
Lap times seem such an important thing for many a hot modern car. And I know many modern cars are extremely clever with lots of electronic aides, be it FWD or full blown 4wd models with electronic diffs, anti yaw control, electronic brake distribution and so on.
Tyres have also changed, better compounds and tread patterns, although mostly bigger sizes. Similar is true with brakes and braking ability.
But modern cars are often fatter and heavier, despite the power hikes many have. And they still have to adhere to the same laws of physics.
So it got me thinking, are they really faster on a track/road course/tarmac rally hill sprint type of thing than older counter parts? Maybe not the exact same models, just older performance cars vs newer ones.
Marketing departments would certainly have us believe they are. But is it true? Or is it just the modern tyres and increased HP that make it so?
For example.
Ok the older car has a slight power advantage. But would it still win on a hot lap? They have similar power, weight and power to weight. But the BRZ is likely a more focused car. And on a dry track the AWD will give no advantage.
Not direct modern alternatives, but similar cars none the less. And with surprisingly similar power to weight ratios.
To keep it fair, we should allow both cars to run the same tyre, even if the older car didn't come on such tyres. But it's pretty easy to fit new tyres to an older car. Same with a pad/fluid/disc upgrade.
There must be loads of other comparisons, old hot hatches vs newer ones. Sports car, maybe even supercars.
Lap times seem such an important thing for many a hot modern car. And I know many modern cars are extremely clever with lots of electronic aides, be it FWD or full blown 4wd models with electronic diffs, anti yaw control, electronic brake distribution and so on.
Tyres have also changed, better compounds and tread patterns, although mostly bigger sizes. Similar is true with brakes and braking ability.
But modern cars are often fatter and heavier, despite the power hikes many have. And they still have to adhere to the same laws of physics.
So it got me thinking, are they really faster on a track/road course/tarmac rally hill sprint type of thing than older counter parts? Maybe not the exact same models, just older performance cars vs newer ones.
Marketing departments would certainly have us believe they are. But is it true? Or is it just the modern tyres and increased HP that make it so?
For example.
| Subaru Impreza Turbo RB5 | 215bhp | 1235kg | 174bhp/tonne |
| Subaru BRZ | 197bhp | 1253kg | 157bhp/tonne |
Ok the older car has a slight power advantage. But would it still win on a hot lap? They have similar power, weight and power to weight. But the BRZ is likely a more focused car. And on a dry track the AWD will give no advantage.
| 2002 Focus RS MK1 | 212bhp | 1278kg | 166bhp/tonne |
| 2014 Focus ST MK3 | 252bhp | 1462kg | 172bhp/tonne |
Not direct modern alternatives, but similar cars none the less. And with surprisingly similar power to weight ratios.
To keep it fair, we should allow both cars to run the same tyre, even if the older car didn't come on such tyres. But it's pretty easy to fit new tyres to an older car. Same with a pad/fluid/disc upgrade.
There must be loads of other comparisons, old hot hatches vs newer ones. Sports car, maybe even supercars.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 3rd September 14:41
Some Gump said:
How do you decide which cars to put against each other? You've got scooby turbo rally rep thing vs modern coupe thing. Surely the more obvious comparison is old vs new of the same car?
Focus RS v Focus ST? What about the new Focus RS?
And my answer would be yes - 9/10 times the modern car would be faster.
Car names don't always mean much, as the model changes position and market segment.Focus RS v Focus ST? What about the new Focus RS?
And my answer would be yes - 9/10 times the modern car would be faster.
The Focus RS and ST have very similar power to weight, so I thought it was a good mash up. And to be fair, a prospective buyer could probably buy a Mk1 RS outright, or use that at a sensible deposit on a PCP deal on a new ST. So the same person might consider either cars.
As for the Subaru's, well at the time the RB5 was one of the "drivers cars" to have that was affordable. And so is the BRZ, as they both happen to be Subaru's with similar power and weight and I thought again it was an interesting comparison.
But it could be any car from any segment really. Although if you stack the deck heavily in favour of a new car with massive amounts more power and a much higher power to weight ratio, then that's kind of missing the point. As obviously as a rule a more powerful car generally be quicker all things being fairly equal.
To that extent if I was comparing an e36 M3, I suspect something like a 335i or 135i would be a better more interesting comparison than the latest M4.
Max_Torque said:
simple answer: YES.
The OEMs spend millions of ££ and millions of man hrs engineering their new models. Unless market forces result in the particular model being differently placed, then the new car is always faster than the old one!
Plenty of mags have done lap compares on the whole series of Golf Gti's for example, and each new one laps faster than the previous one.
That is my point though. Today's Golf is not the same market segment as the MK1. So comparing a 1.6 litre compact hatch with a sizeable up market modern one sporting a 2.0 litre Turbo isn't really that interesting.The OEMs spend millions of ££ and millions of man hrs engineering their new models. Unless market forces result in the particular model being differently placed, then the new car is always faster than the old one!
Plenty of mags have done lap compares on the whole series of Golf Gti's for example, and each new one laps faster than the previous one.
In terms of market placement the up! or Polo are far closer to the Mk1 Golf.
ORD said:
So the question is "Is the new car faster if it isnt allowed to have more power and better tyres and brakes?". Not much on that (wholly artificial) basis. You're basically asking whether cars have got lighter and/or better in terms of suspension, where the answers are "No" and "A bit".
I really didn't think it was a difficult question... my bad.Given a like for like power/weight or power to weight ratio. Which might be a similar type of car, just not the same name.
Does all the modern electric aided cars, newer design (stiffer chassis, etc) really make them faster?
Of course at the pinnacle it will. That's hardly a question.
I was just thinking more of, if you bought an older car vs buying a newer hot one. Are you really buying a slower car?
Hypothetical example.
Two mates.
One who proclaims to be a car person, but isn't. Buys themself a new Golf GTI/Ford/Vauxhall whatever.
The other who is a more genuine car guy and instead buys something they really want. Maybe a 205 GTI or a 200SX, etc etc type of thing.
They both decide to book a track day and by some fluke they are pretty equal drivers.
Is it a foregone conclusion that the new car will get a spanking?
Now new car buyers are more likely to stick with the supplied package. So it'll probably be showroom standard (to preserve the warranty and such). The older car however might have had a tweak to the engine, some better brakes and some modern performance tyres. Nothing extreme, just the easy bolt on types of things enthusiasts tend to do to older cars.
ManOpener said:
I was about to post exactly the same thing. A new Subaru WRX would make a better point of comparison with the RB5 and even that's not really a fair one given that the RB5 was a limited-run special. A 330S/R205 type special would be "truly" fair.
The RB5 wasn't that special, the only changes they had over the base model were badges, trim options and different alloys. Assume a Turbo 2000 if it makes you feel better.SteveSteveson said:
Thats a completely different question to the one you asked originally.
I think I know what question I was asking. It amazes me that it baffles so many people however. It really isn't rocket science.Hell I even gave two examples in the OP. And thus far nobody has even answered the examples.
So stop trying to change the question to suit your answer. Which is clearly what is happening.
If I wanted to know "Are newer, more powerful, faster cars quicker round a track than older, slower, less powerful ones?"
Then that's what I would have asked. But I didn't did I.
Here's the big print edition for you
If you take two cars. With similar power outputs, similar weight and thusly similar power to weight ratios.
Car 1 is older by say 15-20 years+ over car 2.
Is car 2 always going to be the faster point A to point B machine?
ManOpener said:
Neither of the examples you gave had particularly similar power outputs or similar weights
????For the Subaru's both have about 200hp and both just over 1200kg. In anyones book who isn't being pedantic that is pretty similar.
ManOpener said:
, one had a wildly dissimilar power-to-weight ratio and was also a completely different kind of vehicle. You can't really get upset with people suggesting your question and examples are a bit s
t if you can't even keep to your own arbitrary rules.
The Fords might differ slightly in weight and power. But not massively so. But they both differ in the same direction, so the power to weight is very close. 6bhp to be exact!!!t if you can't even keep to your own arbitrary rules.E65Ross said:
Some Gump said:
Focus RS v Focus ST? What about the new Focus RS?
first thing I thought of.Yes, the new cars are quicker than their older equivalents in almost all cases, if not in all cases.
Here is another example.
A new showroom one of these:
And one of these:
And maybe even one of these:
Three completely different eras. Is the original Elan really the slowest? How about with some modern sticky tyres on it?
SonicShadow said:
Yes, easily. This isn't a tyre test, so lets put track day rubber on all 3. The original Elan will still be the slowest. I wouldn't care though, it would be good fun.
How do you know it'd be the slowest?According to this test the Elan was faster than an MR2 MK3 and a MK2 MK-5 in a straight line and round a race track.
And that's might point. New cars are obviously technically brilliant and at the extreme ends will always be quicker. But the reality is, few people buy the extreme ends of the spectrum. So how would older performance cars stack up against newer ones?
RB Will said:
I think if you are going to do comparisons you have to stick to the same or equivalent model otherwise its a loaded question
But that isn't what I want to know, or what I was asking about. So there would be no point in asking it.Round a race track I would expect (and thought it rather obvious) that e30 M3 is slower than e36 M3 is slower than e46 M3 is slower than e92 M3 and so on.
You don't really need Einstein or Sherlock Holmes to work it out.
I think a far more interesting question would be.
or
Can be had for similar money. So should make it easier for people to comprehend. e46 M3 or e90 335i.
Is the newer car still the quicker? A newer M3 is not part of the question, so don't suggest it.
St John Smythe said:
Sounds like you're changing the original question to suit your argument. Might as well ask if a Mclaren F1 is faster than a Toyota Aygo. Bit pointless tbh.
Care to explain?Last time I looked an e90 is newer than an e46. Which is exactly the question. Albeit just an example.
But I didn't really want price to be the main sticking point. I really do not understand how you and the others don't understand the question? It isn't a difficult question and I was hoping for more of a discussion about current and past cars, not pr*cks picking holes in the question and trying to answer something totally different.
E65Ross said:
300bhp/ton said:
St John Smythe said:
Sounds like you're changing the original question to suit your argument. Might as well ask if a Mclaren F1 is faster than a Toyota Aygo. Bit pointless tbh.
Care to explain?Last time I looked an e90 is newer than an e46. Which is exactly the question. Albeit just an example.
I KNOW an e90 m3 will be quicker than an e46 M3. BMW will have made sure that was the case.
E65Ross said:
So if you think everyone is being stupid then perhaps you need to look at the original question and yourself.
Let me answer that by asking you a question. Did you not read the op and the examples I gave? Did that not maybe give you an obvious clue, like wet fish slapping you in the face, that I wasn't asking is 'x' models direct replacement faster.I do not know how else to ask the question. Maybe you could have a go at rephrasing it now that you understand what I'm asking?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff