What old performance car compares...

[havoc]

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

donkmeister said:

2) Also drag strips exist. As do runways. And traffic lights. You should have a go, it's fun.

I have done. Then I grew up and found B-roads and trackdays.

ReformedPistonhead said:

When I had my RS6 Performance and a 488 GTB at the same time I would answer as follows:

- How often do you use all of the performance of your car for more than 3 or 4 seconds? Often in both, its very addictive and you think normal cars are broken when you pull off. But I am 7 years old.

- Does your car still excite you, after a year or two of ownership? Or does the shove-in-the-back become normal? Owned the RS6 3 years and it was still exciting, although the artificial farts became embarrassing after a while.

- Do you still turn around and look back at your car after parking it up? Yes in both.

- If given the choice between your current 500bhp steed or a classic Ferrari/Lamborghini, which one would you actually choose? I owned both and the answer was for the airport, supermarket, beach it was the RS6, for everything else including a 10 mile drive which ended at home it was the Ferrari. A classic Ferrari or Lambo wouldn't see which way the RS6 went on the twisty bits or otherwise even though the RS6 was a barge but that would not be the point. I treated the RS6 like you treat a Fridge, as a functional machine but I never loved it. A classic car is something else entirely.

Sounds like a good answer to me.

[Riley Blue]

Johnnytheboy said:

PH User said:

LordFlathead said:

threespires said:

I'd love to see a race between 2020 MX-5 and a 1965 E Type.
Which would be quicker round the Top Gear track.

Horses for courses. What would be quicker around Le Mans?

My money would go on the MX5

Every time. Braking performance would clinch it.

An interesting contest. At the Le Mans Classic I took once my 1954 Riley RME, a four-door saloon with a 1.5L engine, round the circuit in company with a couple of open pre-war Bentleys. Along the straights the Bentleys romped away but through the bends, especially the tighter ones, I managed to catch up with them to the extent that they became a bit of a nuisance.

[ThisInJapanese]

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

I think the point of the thread was just about pure stats, not enjoyment etc, just looking at what cars you once thought were fast and are now slower than your typical family car. I don't think there is much more to it, just an interesting look at how statistical performance in cars has moved on over the years.

[TEKNOPUG]

Riley Blue said:

Johnnytheboy said:

PH User said:

LordFlathead said:

threespires said:

I'd love to see a race between 2020 MX-5 and a 1965 E Type.
Which would be quicker round the Top Gear track.

Horses for courses. What would be quicker around Le Mans?

My money would go on the MX5

Every time. Braking performance would clinch it.

An interesting contest. At the Le Mans Classic I took once my 1954 Riley RME, a four-door saloon with a 1.5L engine, round the circuit in company with a couple of open pre-war Bentleys. Along the straights the Bentleys romped away but through the bends, especially the tighter ones, I managed to catch up with them to the extent that they became a bit of a nuisance.

I expect that the pre war racing drivers were pushing them a lot harder through the bends during a race than the current custodians in an exhibition drive.

[SWoll]

ThisInJapanese said:

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

I think the point of the thread was just about pure stats, not enjoyment etc, just looking at what cars you once thought were fast and are now slower than your typical family car. I don't think there is much more to it, just an interesting look at how statistical performance in cars has moved on over the years.

This. It's a subjective measure that can be used to directly compare cars from 2 different eras. Enjoyable is an entirely objective measure and therefore a pointless discussion point in many ways.

havoc said:

donkmeister said:

2) Also drag strips exist. As do runways. And traffic lights. You should have a go, it's fun.

I have done. Then I grew up and found B-roads and trackdays.

A perfect example of what I mean, different people enjoy different things. Some of us appreciate that rather than leaving bhy comments though.

Edited by SWoll on Friday 23 April 12:12

[skeeterm5]

My early 90s 4 door saloon does 0 - 60 in 5s and 0 - 100 in 11s so I think is quick by contemporary standards and has enough room for 5 people and a massive boot for stuff.

However compared to modern stuff I hate to think what the 100 - 0 time is like, and this is where it would really lose out on a track or similar.

[otolith]

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

This looks like quite good fun to me.

https://youtu.be/pOVIgVvjfH0

[s m]

skeeterm5 said:

My early 90s 4 door saloon does 0 - 60 in 5s and 0 - 100 in 11s so I think is quick by contemporary standards and has enough room for 5 people and a massive boot for stuff.

However compared to modern stuff I hate to think what the 100 - 0 time is like, and this is where it would really lose out on a track or similar.

Lotus Carlton?
I think a couple of mags coaxed it into the 4s and 10s


And iirc testers were blown away by the brakes so I still think it would be respectable if they were in good order
Weren’t they AP sourced?

[SWoll]

otolith said:

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

This looks like quite good fun to me.

https://youtu.be/pOVIgVvjfH0

The suspension really didn't sound happy through the compression in the corkscrew did it?

[otolith]

SWoll said:

otolith said:

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

This looks like quite good fun to me.

https://youtu.be/pOVIgVvjfH0

The suspension really didn't sound happy through the compression in the corkscrew did it?

He's fitted fully adjustable coilovers - maybe needs a bit of tweaking...

[SWoll]

otolith said:

SWoll said:

otolith said:

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

This looks like quite good fun to me.

https://youtu.be/pOVIgVvjfH0

The suspension really didn't sound happy through the compression in the corkscrew did it?

He's fitted fully adjustable coilovers - maybe needs a bit of tweaking...

Can probably forgive him.

[MDT]

And then you can take a look at what the majority of the new cars on the road today are.

Audi A4 1.4T - just under 9 seconds
Nissan Qashqai Hatchback 1.2 DiG-T - 10.5 seconds
Citroen C4 Cactus Hatchback 1.2 - 13 seconds

yes these are all very good next to the cars of old when it come to MPG and crashing, they are fantastic when it come to a crash, using a RS6 estate as the base line for modern cars is not the norm.

Also old school NA engine will win hands down on flexibility. E-type v MX5 which would win from 1000rpm in top gear. no not a real world test but nether is a lap time round the ring.

[skeeterm5]

s m said:

Lotus Carlton?
I think a couple of mags coaxed it into the 4s and 10s


And iirc testers were blown away by the brakes so I still think it would be respectable if they were in good order
Weren’t they AP sourced?

Yes it is 😀

And yes the brakes are AP, 4 pot at the front and 2 at the back, and yes respectable, but not as good as modern stuff by quite a way.

[s m]

skeeterm5 said:

s m said:

Lotus Carlton?
I think a couple of mags coaxed it into the 4s and 10s


And iirc testers were blown away by the brakes so I still think it would be respectable if they were in good order
Weren’t they AP sourced?

Yes it is ??

And yes the brakes are AP, 4 pot at the front and 2 at the back, and yes respectable, but not as good as modern stuff by quite a way.

It would be interesting to see one up against a modern M140i

[J4CKO]

s m said:

skeeterm5 said:

s m said:

Lotus Carlton?
I think a couple of mags coaxed it into the 4s and 10s


And iirc testers were blown away by the brakes so I still think it would be respectable if they were in good order
Weren’t they AP sourced?

Yes it is ??

And yes the brakes are AP, 4 pot at the front and 2 at the back, and yes respectable, but not as good as modern stuff by quite a way.

It would be interesting to see one up against a modern M140i

That would be interesting, a standard M140i does 100 in 9.9 seconds, so would be similar, think the BMW is flattered by being a fast shifting auto vs what I would guess is a fairly chunky manual gearchange for that figure,

Carlton has a bit more power on paper, 377 bhp vs 340 for the BMW, but they tend to produce a bit more, weight wise the Carlton is heavier at 1650 ish vs 1500 ish for the BMW. The LC has 50 lb/ft more torque.

I suspect the BMW would outdrag it, but its kind of a hollow victory, its still a Lotus Carlton, but does show how far things have come in terms of power.

So many young folk in stuff like that, so many cheap and effective tuning mods, 500 bhp is a couple of grand away, or not much more. Spend 14 grand on a leggy Cat N M140i and another 2 and a bit, for under 17 grand you have a 500 bhp car which is a bit mind boggling really.

[AC43]

Cold said:

V88Dicky said:

Ferrari Testarossa:

0-60 - 5.2 seconds
0-100 - 12 seconds

/snip/

Give or take whichever magazine you read, these figures are the same for my Range Rover.

I grew up reading Car magazine stories about driving from Italy to the UK in various Ferrari's & Lambos with those sorts of figures.

My E500 would easily keep up.

[E63eeeeee...]

J4CKO said:

s m said:

skeeterm5 said:

s m said:

Lotus Carlton?
I think a couple of mags coaxed it into the 4s and 10s


And iirc testers were blown away by the brakes so I still think it would be respectable if they were in good order
Weren’t they AP sourced?

Yes it is ??

And yes the brakes are AP, 4 pot at the front and 2 at the back, and yes respectable, but not as good as modern stuff by quite a way.

It would be interesting to see one up against a modern M140i

That would be interesting, a standard M140i does 100 in 9.9 seconds, so would be similar, think the BMW is flattered by being a fast shifting auto vs what I would guess is a fairly chunky manual gearchange for that figure,

Carlton has a bit more power on paper, 377 bhp vs 340 for the BMW, but they tend to produce a bit more, weight wise the Carlton is heavier at 1650 ish vs 1500 ish for the BMW. The LC has 50 lb/ft more torque.

I suspect the BMW would outdrag it, but its kind of a hollow victory, its still a Lotus Carlton, but does show how far things have come in terms of power.

So many young folk in stuff like that, so many cheap and effective tuning mods, 500 bhp is a couple of grand away, or not much more. Spend 14 grand on a leggy Cat N M140i and another 2 and a bit, for under 17 grand you have a 500 bhp car which is a bit mind boggling really.

Pretty sure you can get 500bhp for less than that without modding. Last time I looked 6.2 E63s were heading towards 10k, might have started to come back up though. There was actually an autocar article about the other "cheap" 500bhp options.

[E63eeeeee...]

Here's that article, in fact it was from 2014, so presumably if you're not fussy there will be more choices in the low five figures ballpark.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/how-ge...

[havoc]

otolith said:

havoc said:

SWoll said:

You seem determined to make a point, I'm just struggling to understand why?

Because plain statistical performance is only one facet in what makes a car enjoyable. e.g. a Tesla will slay nearly anything in 0-60, probably 0-100, and has a lot of grip. But beyond that, what is there to enjoy?!?

This looks like quite good fun to me.

https://youtu.be/pOVIgVvjfH0

Laguna Seca would be fun in a 2CV, so hardly representative of anything.

[MC Bodge]

I reckon that our 15 year old runabout shed 1.4 Fiesta would have a Bentley Blower licked around a track with corners -and possibly even a standard 1960s Mini Cooper S?