Slowest "Performance" Brand Car ?

[ExPat2B]

I witnessed a little traffic light race on my commute this morning. A very red faced gentleman in a Mercedes-benz A180 CDI AMG sport was beaten off the lights to a merge by a Transit Connect quite convincingly, and was quite cross about it and proceeded to weave all over the back of him for the next mile.

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.

[ExPat2B]

culpz said:

Correct. The car in question is not a "performance" brand car.

Better examples would be something like the Fiesta ST150 or the Focus ST170. Not really new examples though, but they still did not live up to their proper ST performance badges today or even at the time of their release.

I agree, its not a proper AMG. I think what is most confusing is that it actually looks "sportier" than the A45 which has about 3 times the power, do you not think trim leveling a car in this will result in major brand dilution ?

[ExPat2B]

HustleRussell said:

Aston Martin

Cygnet

Its slower than the 180 AMG line at 11.5 secs to 60, not sure it was ever branded as having any kind of performance though.......

[ExPat2B]

MC Bodge said:

It might be controversial and heresy, but...

...Most modern cars (and vans) are probably fast enough...

Ok, so 0-60 in 11 seconds is more than double what a fast car can do off the line, but the modern turbo engine provides useful acceleration at dual carriageway speeds without having to drop a few cogs to get the revs up. Traffic light grands prix aren't that common, although I might have witnessed a few in my hot hatch days....

A decent driver can pedal a mid-powered car (with compliant suspension) along A to B on decent roads at a fair lick without anybody (well, anybody concerned about forward visibility) ever trying to overtake them.

It's all about the image for many.

Personally, I'd prefer a reasonably capable car that doesn't draw attention to itself, but a lot of Brits prefer to have the bells and whistles on the outside, rather than inside or under the bonnet, often to the detriment of ride quality and ground clearance for the bumpy roads of Britain.

Ps. I'm sure that everybody on here is a smooth, composed, observant, brisk driver....but think about how many/few of your friends, relatives or colleagues are.

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 16th March 11:48

I agree, but I would put around an 8-9 second 0-60 as the upper bounds of anything that could vaguely be considered sporty. I certainly would not base a car buying decision on a few 10's at around this level but anything slower just seems to lack that fizz. In comparison, I know an 11 second car feels very slow under a lot of conditions. However I do see you point, I once got roped into driving a 1970's horse box that never actually made it to 60 over 150 miles and I didn't die, I did have to reply on the curtesy of other roads users quite a lot.

[ExPat2B]

culpz said:

LuS1fer said:

culpz said:

Better examples would be something like the Fiesta ST150 or the Focus ST170. Not really new examples though, but they still did not live up to their proper ST performance badges today or even at the time of their release.

Hardly. ST was a new concept on the ST170 and the Mk 6 was the first Fiesta to wear the ST badge. They were never really meant to be anything but "warm" and I calculated the bhp per ton on my ST170 was about the same as my old 5 GT Turbo.

The Civic Type R upped the game to 200hp and it all mushroomed from there. Ford's answer was the RS, not the ST. Only with the Mk 7 did Ford decide to match the other manufacturers with an ST instead of an RS while the Focus ST remained in the middle when they launched the RS.

I think you've missed the title and whole point of this thread.

What you're saying does not make a blind bit of difference. Ultimately, the ST170 was Ford's answer to the EP3 Type r, but it did not even get close and was a huge disappointment in comparison.

Same goes with the Fiesta ST150. The Clio 172/182 blew it out of the water.

Ford had two good chances in two segments with each of those cars. It was simply not a good era for them. However, they weren't alone and that was about the time where VW messed up with the Golf GTI.

They both returned to form shortly afterwards though.

Not quite convinced by the argument that the ST170 was an answer to the Type-R, it was always a "warm" hatchback. The Focus RS was the type R rival.

It was more of a response to the Civic Type-S (2.0l 160bhp) , the Corolla T-Sport (1.8l 190bhp) the Astra SRI ( 1.6l turboed 179bhp )

In that company, it is perfectly respectable, although it was still a bit thirsty and down on power.

Honda's genius is that they were able to make the Type-R fast by using low weight, an alloy NA engine, and simple suspension and steering construction, and thus able to offer the Type-R Civics at £17000 new at 18k with a few options. That made it the same price as the Focus ST, and hence they are often compared. However fact is that Honda re-defined the market for everyone, not just Ford with the Type-R, its just that Ford fanboys seems to be very loud on forums. You almost never see a Toyota T-Sport fanboy in the wild, shouting about the greater power output of his similarly priced Corolla to the the Focus ST.

However, virtually all these cars fall into the 8-9 seconds bracket, and therefore don't really belong in this thread, as they all have perfectly adequate power for spirited driving.

[ExPat2B]

Efbe said:

derin100 said:

Haven't read all 8 pages...but had a bit of a skim through.

The OP asked "Brand".....not individual models etc.?


That accolade surely has and always will go to MG ?!

A brand, with sporting pretensions, that has actually never been able to deliver a class-leading performance car in its whole history!

(That ought to get things warmed up nicely )

that was the title, the actual post made it quite clear it was specific models, or at least a range such as "AMG" mercs.

As the OP of the thread, this gives me enormous power and influence(/s*), and I am therefore quite happy to to hand out multiple awards.

The "Branded Turd" award for slowest performance sub brand. I think the VW GTI Mk4 is in the lead as slowest true performance sub brand car.

The "Gilded Turd" award for slowest performance trim pack. I think AMG A180 is still in the lead for slowest performance trim pack car ( although I did find it fascinating to learn in this thread that they are apparently not sold with and AMG badge - I think almost every one I have seen has had an AMG badge fitted.) I also think the Aston Martin Cygnet deserves an honourable mention, although it doesn't appear to have any performance addendumand it looks very restrained.

The "Turd polisher" award for a manufacturer who consistently fails to achieve the visually promised performance of their models. I have no idea on this one.....

• that's a sarcasm tag, in case one is inclined to tropically originating avian related misunderstandings.