Slowest "Performance" Brand Car ?

[Muddle238]

ExPat2B said:

The AMG certainly looked very sporting, but I was surprised when I looked it up to discover it did 0-62mph in 11.3sec.

Is this the slowest "proper" performance branded car made by a manufacturer ? BMW seem just as determined to prostitute the M badge.

There is some variant of A180, available in AMG trim which would be beaten to 60 in a drag race by a Citroen C1. I can't remember the exact engine/model etc but basically the lowest tramp-spec A Class, pretty pathetic really considering they badge it as a model with performance connotations.

[The Dangerous Elk]

RobM77 said:

I drove a 116d M Sport a few years ago and I was really impressed. Yes, it was properly slow, but the agility from the light weight was great and the handling was really nice. Think 4 seater MX5 and you wouldn’t be far off.

One of the daftest things I have seen on PH, and that included the Trump and Brexit threads

light weight ? it is 1500kg ffs

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Tuesday 20th March 06:58

[Fun Bus]

Muddle238 said:

There is some variant of A180, available in AMG trim which would be beaten to 60 in a drag race by a Citroen C1. I can't remember the exact engine/model etc but basically the lowest tramp-spec A Class, pretty pathetic really considering they badge it as a model with performance connotations.

But there isn’t, is there?

[Jimmy Recard]

Muddle238 said:

There is some variant of A180, available in AMG trim which would be beaten to 60 in a drag race by a Citroen C1. I can't remember the exact engine/model etc but basically the lowest tramp-spec A Class, pretty pathetic really considering they badge it as a model with performance connotations.

Isn't that the car the thread was started to honour?

[MC Bodge]

Fun Bus said:

Muddle238 said:

There is some variant of A180, available in AMG trim which would be beaten to 60 in a drag race by a Citroen C1. I can't remember the exact engine/model etc but basically the lowest tramp-spec A Class, pretty pathetic really considering they badge it as a model with performance connotations.

But there isn’t, is there?

There is. The AMG tag implies an association with tarmac-ripping, monstrously fast Mercedes cars.

They could have called the trim "NOB", but they had a handy marketing name that already meant something.

[DoubleD]

MC Bodge said:

There is. The AMG tag implies an association with tarmac-ripping, monstrously fast Mercedes cars.

They could have called the trim "NOB", but they had a handy marketing name that already meant something.

AMG Line is just a sporty look and nothing more. Bit like Msport

[MC Bodge]

DoubleD said:

MC Bodge said:

There is. The AMG tag implies an association with tarmac-ripping, monstrously fast Mercedes cars.

They could have called the trim "NOB", but they had a handy marketing name that already meant something.

AMG Line is just a sporty look and nothing more. Bit like Msport

Both of which rely on association with existing performance image.

[cerb4.5lee]

RobM77 said:

I drove a 116d M Sport a few years ago and I was really impressed. Yes, it was properly slow, but the agility from the light weight was great and the handling was really nice. Think 4 seater MX5 and you wouldn’t be far off.

The 1 series gets hammered in motoring mags for how unresolved its handling/chassis is. The MX5 is lauded as the holy grail on here...If it handles like a 1 series god help it! Surely all 1 series weigh over 1400kg so not in anyway light either.

I know you adore Bmw's for their front engine and RWD set up...but this is a bridge too far.

[DoubleD]

Yes they look sportier than the standard cars. Where is the problem with that?

[MC Bodge]

DoubleD said:

Yes they look sportier than the standard cars. Where is the problem with that?

Nothing really, but to imply that they are anything other than a sheep in a wolf's (high performance) clothing is incorrect.

[DoubleD]

MC Bodge said:

DoubleD said:

Yes they look sportier than the standard cars. Where is the problem with that?

Nothing really, but to imply that they are anything other than a sheep in a wolf's (high performance) clothing is incorrect.

Does it really matter?

[MC Bodge]

DoubleD said:

Does it really matter?

Not really, but as I said earlier, it's like having steroid pumped biceps and spindly legs compared with being an accomplished Boxer or gymnast.

[culpz]

RobM77 said:

I drove a 116d M Sport a few years ago and I was really impressed. Yes, it was properly slow, but the agility from the light weight was great and the handling was really nice. Think 4 seater MX5 and you wouldn’t be far off.

I'm really hoping that this comment was the result of excess alcohol taking over your senses. Come on Rob, seriously?

[RobM77]

cerb4.5lee said:

RobM77 said:

I drove a 116d M Sport a few years ago and I was really impressed. Yes, it was properly slow, but the agility from the light weight was great and the handling was really nice. Think 4 seater MX5 and you wouldn’t be far off.

The 1 series gets hammered in motoring mags for how unresolved its handling/chassis is. The MX5 is lauded as the holy grail on here...If it handles like a 1 series god help it! Surely all 1 series weigh over 1400kg so not in anyway light either.

I know you adore Bmw's for their front engine and RWD set up...but this is a bridge too far.

I don't really adore BMWs - they just offer everything I want for a daily and handle better than any other four seater that's affordable and usable on a daily basis. I don't adore MX5s either. I respect both for what they do though and they're both very good cars.

I stand by what I said 100%, although I should add that the comparison was with a four door version, not a direct comparison (the extra 250kg sees to that). The idea that one FE/RWD car is "not far off" another FE/RWD car of very similar wheelbase, CofG and all up weight, isn't that far fetched surely? The tendency on Pistonheads is to look only at a car's intended use, who buys it, what image it has and how fast it goes in a straight line. The result of that is that VAG and BMW get lambasted purely because they attract superficial middle management types, MX5s get hailed as untouchable deities because they're a simple open top sports car, and M cars and AMGs get worshipped because they have big horsepower and nice sounding engines. Alfas get lauded because they got back decades and sound nice. Furthermore, a 116 is laughed at and a 135i hailed as the best thing ever, even though it's the same chassis and actually the 116i weighs an awful lot less. Behind that rather laughable and superficial understanding of cars there's some fairly dry and predictable physics and engineering, most of which is routinely ignored on these pages.

cerb4.5lee said:

over 1400kg

The Dangerous Elk said:

light weight ? it is 1500kg ffs

They're 1320kg.

https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/1-series/hatchback-2...

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 20th March 10:48

[kambites]

RobM77 said:

They're 1320kg.

That's still 10% heavier than a comparable Golf, for example, which is a far more practical car. I've nothing against the 1-series, but it's far from light for its sector. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's the heaviest C-segment hatchback?

[Fun Bus]

MC Bodge said:

Fun Bus said:

Muddle238 said:

There is some variant of A180, available in AMG trim which would be beaten to 60 in a drag race by a Citroen C1. I can't remember the exact engine/model etc but basically the lowest tramp-spec A Class, pretty pathetic really considering they badge it as a model with performance connotations.

But there isn’t, is there?

There is. The AMG tag implies an association with tarmac-ripping, monstrously fast Mercedes cars.

They could have called the trim "NOB", but they had a handy marketing name that already meant something.

Mercedes A180d Sport - 11.2 seconds (AMG Line 10.9)
Mercedes A180 - 8.9 seconds (AMG Line 8.6)

Citroen C1 1.0 - 13.3 seconds (VTR+ 11.9)
Citroen C1 1.4HDi - 15.1 seconds

[chris4652009]

Porsche 924 with the 2litre 124bhp engine

[RobM77]

kambites said:

RobM77 said:

They're 1320kg.

That's still 10% heavier than a comparable Golf, for example, which is a far more practical car. I've nothing against the 1-series, but it's far from light for its sector. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's the heaviest C-segment hatchback?

I agree entirely. I was just refuting what the people above were claiming.

[neil1jnr]

Easy

A180 'AMG'

Not even a slight change in name like 'M-Sport' or 'S-Line' to differentiate from the full fat version.

"I drive an A-class AMG"...yet it has a 1.5 diesel engine from Renault.

[anonymous-user]

ExPat2B said:

I
The AMG certainly looked very sporting, but I was surprised when I looked it up to discover it did 0-62mph in 11.3sec.

That Merc is quicker than an Aston Martin (Cygnet 11.8 )