What's going on with performance cars nowadays?

Vauxhall is launching an Astra GSI - 0-60 in "under 8 secs" - and it's got 200hp. Doubt the 0-100 will be anything special

Leaon Cupra R - very similar - 210hp, 0-60 in 7ish secs, 0-100 in about 20.

Alfa 147 GTa - 250hp - 0-60 in 6.5s - 0-100 similar to Civic type R - so I guess 17 secs.

Where exactly is all this power going?

For decent performance nowadays you need upwards of 280hp - it's getting bloody ridiculous.

Yes I am bored today

 

Aren't all those cars FWD?

Maybe there's your answer.

I too am bored

 

Yeah but that doesn't really matter in the 60-100 times which are all slow given the power they've got

 

modern cars are really heavy thanks to euro crash test regs, kill power to weight ratio.

Thats why a 12 year old 205 gti 1.9 does 0-60 in 7.2 secs with 130 bhp through front wheels

[Edited by zoog - 10/25/2002 12:16:34 PM]

 

To be honest 0-60 is pub talk.

60-100 has a little more meaning.

 

I miss my Astra Gsi 16v(non ecotec bollox), it was fantastic!!! good on fuel, fast, good looking but didnt handle well!! still i prefer it to my corrado g60!

 

CraigH,

Not sure what you're after m8 !!

The cars you mention all fall into the "affordable performance car" or "sub-£25k" bracket.

The majority of performance vehicles in this price band have 4 cylinder engines and are normally driven by the front wheels, its not very easy to get mega-performance from a car with this kind of set-up.

5-10 years ago, hatchbacks and small cars in this price-bracket that covered the 0-60 in less than 8 seconds were considered hot-hatches... and cheap, faster small cars than this were pretty rare indeed. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd feel very safe in some of the silly turbo'd models from the 80's....

Like the others have said, safety regs have generally made all cars alot heavier and this has obviously dulled performance.

Having said that, we really are spoilt for choice these days... after insurance premiums seemed to kill off the budget performance cars in the early 90's, they really have made a huge comeback, and seem to have pushed the boundaries even further....

Nowadays, people like yourself want sub-7 second 0-60 times and quick 60-100 times out of the box from cars at this price level, and what's more - you can easily get them !! Class !!

Realistically though, if you want 0-60 in under 6.5 secs, you want £20k for a Focus RS, a Scoob, or a little less for a Civic Type-R...

If you want more performance, you'll need to spend more, it all depends on what kind of performance you really need !

 

0-60 is fairly irrelevent I know.

My point is, these cars all have between 200 and 250 turbocharged HP with corresponding good torque and being FWD, have low transmission losses - yet their rolling 60-100times are still pretty poor - when weight is less of an issue than it is from a standing start point of view.

I think what's happening is akin to body building - all the cars are getting bigger and more muscular, but the important bits (ie HP - maybe it's Euro HP they're quoting - 1=.6BHP or summat )are shrinking

It's not a price point I'm making, just that fairly powerful cars are not very quick.

And i do know it's a weight issue - like I said, i was bored

 

Well my heavy old porker (1400kg) is 250bhp and gets to 100 in 13.5 secs, to 60 in 5.9 or something like that, so in gear times are pretty quick.

..I think its more to do with emissions and stuff strangling the engine on more modern cars.

 

I remembered reading an article on Renault rallying, and Jean Ragnotti their top driver was saying that you shut the door on a renault 11 turbo and it would go 'boiyoiyoing!' Shut the door oon a clio and it goes 'blum' 'cos the metal is a lot thicker.
Case in point, my last non subaru was a peugeot 305 estate and had a kerbweight of 965kg. It had a 1.6 95bhp engine and would do 114 flat out. My present forester S-turbo weighs ~1465kg and a 177bhp engine and only does 135. Both cars are of similar size, but the subaru is simply fat and heavy! 7x16 wheels compared to 5x14s on the pug, aircon, airbags, elctric mirrors, huge sunroof, AWD, the list goes on!
Modern cars need to go on a diet, although they might not fold in half like my pug probably would in a bad crash, they are so heavy the accident is more likely to happen in the first place!
Want to know what an excellent car in snow is? Citroen 2cv, light with narrow tyres. I'd rather be in one of those than my scoob on a steep hill, I reckon I'd stop a lot easier!

 

Maybe its to do with where that power is being made and for how long. For example, if a manufacturer proves that its engine hits 250bhp briefly at the top of the rev range it'll advertise the new XYZ engine with 250bhp. What you don't know is that it might have F-all power until it briefly shoots up to 250bhp. Sales are determined these days by clever marketing - if you can say your car has 250bhp but costs the same as the 200bhp cars in its class its likely to sell. Of course if those 200bhp cars make good torque through out the rev range they may well stuff the 250bhp car on the road in most situations. Maybe I'm talking crap here but thats my theory on things for the day

 

Yep BHP sells the car

Torque drives it

 

Thats why my Mk2 Golf GTI 8 valve doesent exactly get murdered by the modern stuff, Alfa 156 V6, TT 180, no quicker thru the gears (to about 80). A Civic Type R looked like a lardy slab of sh1te down some local country roads,but then again I do have coliovers etc took a dual carriageway to pull any distance.

Bit off a bit much with an M5 though, still we both had fun
anyone CMR *** in an M5 from Wilmslow ?

 

Saxoboy,

Yep, fair point. Bet that doesn't apply to VAG products like the Cupra R which seem to have a power and torque curve flatter than Kate Moss after a diet.

All these (smallish) cars coming out with either big power turbo lumps or big fvck off engines and they're still not quick.

I blame the fat Americans