How does 80s/90s supercars' (e.g. Porsche 911, BMWs etc.) performance compare with latest family hatchbacks/saloons (e.g. Ford Focus or similar)?
How do the modern supercars compare with modern family cars? Assuming supercars will be used in public roads only, do the extra "oomph" provided by supercars are actually usable in daily commutes?
I understand some buyers of supercars only buy them because of perceived social status but let's assume here we are comparing the engineering of the cars and not about elevated social status (if any).
|
13 years ago I had a Boxster S. I came to the conclusion that it was wasted on public roads (in the south east at least) and I only really had fun or got anywhere near the limit on a track. All a bit pointless, really, when any number of executive cars could be not that much slower in the real world.
|
Are Porsches 'supercars'?
Real supercars - Lamborghinis, Ferraris and one or two others - are delicate things unsuited to the urban use they so often get. Essentially cosmetic, for rich young idiots.
|
Yes indeed AC, I see a chap at my children's school a couple of times a week in his white Lambo. And there are awful speed humps through the car park. Don't know how he can put up with it. Other days he's in his (matching white, consecutive personal number plate, natch) Range Rover. And another chap cramming three children in his (white, new) 911 turbo fandango the other day. Sat in the car park for a good 15 minutes with the engine running, just so we all think WTF and look of course.
Both middle aged blokes, though. Sigh.
|
>> Real supercars - Lamborghinis, Ferraris and one or two others - are delicate things unsuited to the
>> urban use they so often get. Essentially cosmetic, for rich young idiots.
In my experience, the only people who get close to those cars' performance and handling limits are motoring journalists. Press junkets are a big proportion of our work; AC's rich young idiots make up almost all the rest.
|
Odd to reflect that my wife's current cooking model 1.6 Nissan has much the same 0-60 and top speed performance as the first of my old Golf GTis
Doesn't feel like it but the numbers suggest it's the case.
|
>> Odd to reflect that my wife's current cooking model 1.6 Nissan has much the same
>> 0-60 and top speed performance as the first of my old Golf GTis
>>
>> Doesn't feel like it but the numbers suggest it's the case.
>>
There wasn't a lot to choose between the 1979 Morgan +8 and the 2012 Merc C220CDI either, to be honest.
Both quicker off the mark than the Jeep*, though...
*It's got some kind of torque-limiting thing** from take-off, 500Nm all at once wouldn't do a lot for the longevity of its oily bits apparently.
**Wish the Morgan had had that, I mightn't have lunched the diff.
|
>>>I came to the conclusion that it was wasted on public roads (in the south east at least) and I only really had fun or got anywhere near the limit on a track.
I must admit I came to a similar conclusion when I ran the Alfa 156 for 18mths. With only 150hp if you drove in a way it encouraged then within seconds from any corner, motorway join or overtake you would be way over the limit and in real danger of losing your licence.
Of course many quite ordinary cars have similar and greater power outputs these days but when the raison d'etre of a car is sporting performance it's harder to hold back and 100mph+ on rural B-roads is bound to get you caught out eventually.
So I'd assume the opportunities to use true supercar performance anywhere near the max are very very limited.
|
Not supercars, but a comparison of a proper 80s performance car, and a modern mid-range diesel equivalent.
And there isn't much in it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EUaPlGlSIk
On real roads, I bet the diesel is actually quicker and more useable.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 8 Feb 16 at 15:49
|
Mentioned before that I've at least as much fun getting the best out of a low powered car ( provided it handled well ) as I've had out of a fast one on the public road anyway.
I've had a couple of fairly quick road cars ( by the standards of their day anyway ) in the form of a Volvo 850 T5 and a Sierra Saphire Cosworth. Both huge fun but as you say, potential licence shredders.
I think one of the most fun road cars I've had ( excluding the Westfield which was like being on automotive cocaine ) was a Sierra 2.0iS. Standard 2.0 petrol engine and gearbox but slightly lowered suspension and slightly taller, wider wheels with lower profile tyres, Recaro seats and a little chunky 3 spoke wheel. You could throw that about very near its limits without too much potential hedge action.
|
In local Tesco car park - a huge one - about ten minutes ago saw a spotless white Lamborghini.
Even there, it yowled, crackled and popped through its four exhaust pipes. Herself complained about the noise. Perhaps the geezer wanted to impress people. But perhaps you can't actually drive one without that clamour... I wouldn't know unfortunately.
I agree with Humph though. Indeed I would go further, and say that I am always happy to drive any car, or almost, irrespective of age, class and condition. I usually prefer cars that don't handle well too.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 8 Feb 16 at 16:17
|
>> I think one of the most fun road cars I've had ( excluding the Westfield
>> which was like being on automotive cocaine ) was a Sierra 2.0iS. Standard 2.0 petrol
>> engine and gearbox but slightly lowered suspension and slightly taller, wider wheels with lower profile
>> tyres, Recaro seats and a little chunky 3 spoke wheel. You could throw that about
>> very near its limits without too much potential hedge action.
>>
My uncle had one. It was a peach of a thing. Sweet handling car and went well too.
|
>> I think one of the most fun road cars I've had ( excluding the Westfield
>> which was like being on automotive cocaine ) was a Sierra 2.0iS. Standard 2.0 petrol
>> engine and gearbox but slightly lowered suspension and slightly taller, wider wheels with lower profile
>> tyres, Recaro seats and a little chunky 3 spoke wheel. You could throw that about
>> very near its limits without too much potential hedge action.
>>
I feel the same about my mx-5 (2011 model). It only has 160bhp, but that's about the right amount of power for the car.
I toy with upgrading it to something with a bit more power, but I don't think any replacement would actually be any quicker in real life - especially as my commute is 45 miles cross country.
|
I must admit I came to a similar conclusion when I ran the Alfa 156 for 18mths. With only 150hp if you drove in a way it encouraged then within seconds from any corner, motorway join or overtake you would be way over the limit and in real danger of losing your licence.
Similar when I owned the Morgan 4/4. Apart from the red air dam and racing roundels, looked a pretty standard car. I got sick of people pulling out in front of me, thinking, 'old car - must be moving slowly'. While you can have fun with 140 bhp in less than 3/4 tonne and racing tyres, it's not exactly sensible on the road.
|
Was a Ferrari 308 a supercar? Possibly not - wiki gives it 214hp and 0-60 in 6.5s, which is roughly comparable to what my one-up-from-rep-spec BMW 3 can offer - but there are two important differences:
- there was far less traffic sharing - admittedly - fewer miles of road; fewer 40 and 50 limits on rural roads too, although it would still have been hard to keep and eager, pointy car below 60;
- 214 was probably more than twice the average horsepower of everything else using those roads; a 308 would have left a Sierra for dead on the shortest of straights.
I think the makers of 'fast' cars have a problem: GTIs were appealing when the regular models had wheezy 80hp engines and 12s 0-60 times, but when an ordinary car provides more performance than most owners can use, what's the selling proposition for the GTI version? A regular Golf now has 150hp, the same as the GTI of 15 years ago, so today's GTI needs 210 to distinguish it, and the R gets 300; where can we use all that? Car forum types love to scoff at the likes of the BMW 316, but what, in practice, does a 320 - let alone a 330 or an M3 - offer beyond the impression of trying a bit too hard?
My recent reading on driving matters has introduced me to the idea of 'third party perception', which is how other people interpret your driving. Increasingly, it seems, driving a fast car quickly - even perfectly correctly - is perceived as irresponsible and is likely to weigh against you in the analysis of an accident. And yet to experience anything from a GTI that you couldn't have got from the base model for £10,000 less, you pretty much have to do something that someone might see as reckless, or at best unnecessary. So, beyond bragging rights in the pub, what's a fast car for?
|
I look at modern fast cars and many are very wide and certainly undriveable round here off main roads.. either roads too narrow, too potholed, or too many sharp corners.
What is the point of driving a superfast Ferrari at 25mph on a sunny day into a city - apart from showing off.
|
>> Was a Ferrari 308 a supercar? Possibly not - wiki gives it 214hp and 0-60
>> in 6.5s, which is roughly comparable to what my one-up-from-rep-spec BMW 3 can offer -
Wasn't that the premise of the first paragraph in the thread?
>> Increasingly, it seems, driving a fast
>> car quickly - even perfectly correctly - is perceived as irresponsible.
And because driving a fast car quickly usually involves breaking the law, it tends to irritate others.
>> So, beyond bragging rights in the pub, what's a fast car for?
>>
That's what I've concluded! Hence having had fast cars I now drive a high-riding, spacious, practical, comfortable, economical ... van!
|
>> I think the makers of 'fast' cars have a problem: GTIs were appealing when the
>> regular models had wheezy 80hp engines and 12s 0-60 times, but when an ordinary car
>> provides more performance than most owners can use, what's the selling proposition for the GTI
>> version? A regular Golf now has 150hp, the same as the GTI of 15 years
>> ago, so today's GTI needs 210 to distinguish it, and the R gets 300; where
>> can we use all that? Car forum types love to scoff at the likes of
>> the BMW 316, but what, in practice, does a 320 - let alone a 330
>> or an M3 - offer beyond the impression of trying a bit too hard?
I think the main differentiator now of the "hot" version is increasingly the bespoke chassis settings and components which elevate the handling capability above the standard versions. Renault Sport for example have been doing it for years with their hot hatches, many of them running higher spec and quality dampers and brakes or bespoke tyres developed for that model. Ford too aren't shy of throwing expensive brakes and sticky, exclusive-to-that-model Pirelli rubber at their hot models.
I think the bigger problem manufacturers have is getting something with a suitably "sporting" feel within the constraints of modern car design and marketing. Electric PAS might give freedom to increase steering weight on sporting models, but it's basically fake, and doesn't improve steering feel, which is something that is almost universally woeful on modern cars. Market vanity demands big wheels and painted on tyres making implementation of any kind of spring and damping finesse incredibly difficult to achieve, and safety for the hamfisted will always win over dynamics for the keen driver when setting up a chassis for 2016. Hence the trend for incredibly capable and competent cars with massive amounts of mechanical grip that just can't really be pushed in any sort of safety on the public road.
I have sympathy with the manufacturers. Toyota and Subaru tried to address this very issue with the GT-86 / BRZ which was supposed to be about finesse, modest mechanical grip, and handling balance. Apart from being a flop, the people who did buy them tended to mod them for more power and more grip. Yet here was a car that keen drivers all over the world said they wanted. Yet most customers went "Oh, that's nice. Bit slow though." and went and bought Audis and BMWs.
The lesson for mainstream manufacturers is that you always build cars for mass sales, not for enthusiasts. Big wheels, pub bragging rights and expensive plastics sell cars in 2016. Enthusiasts don't buy enough cars any more.
|
It's not only power but power to weight ratio. Some of these older cars were a lot lighter than today's equivalent because of the safety equipment (including crash structures) built into modern cars.
My take on the GTI batch is more to do with top of the range than performance. That's how it was on the Mark IV I had in 1999. Mine only had 150PS. But it had more standard equipment than say an SE (or whatever the lower models were). Bigger wheels (only 16" mind) too are there for looks really.
|
The mk4 Golf is an interesting one because a lot of critics said the GTI felt a lot more like a trim level than a proper hot version.
Certainly, from behind the wheel it didn't really feel any different to a standard model, apart from the Recaros, and additional go.
|
|
The Mk IV was different because you're right it was basically a trim level. I don't think they even sold it as a GTI anywhere other than the UK.
|
Old/new supercars vs modern budget cars - Boxsterboy
