I am definitely getting old but (extreme) fast cars don't interest me. I get my enjoyment from going along motorways in rush hours beside these fast cars and they don't get to the destination any quicker! However, they have paid big bucks for their car so they will test the acceleration wherever they can, and then their brakes straight after!
I followed a Civic Type R the other day and it was bobbing about constantly with its rock solid suspension, the car seemed to be jarring at every imperfection in the road. Yes it must be fun to drive, but you must get to the end of your journey with every bone aching!
|
I'm getting old too but I still enjoy the V6. I don't bother testing the acceleration, even though the company pay for the fuel, but when you get the opportunity to sit at 100+ (abroad, of course) - well OK, 120+ (well ok, 140+...) - driving becomes enjoyable again...
Most of the time I am not abroad and I enjoy the mental challenge described by Bobby above - outsmarting other people. I could do that in daughter's 1.0 Fiesta but it's more comfortable in the V6.
|
Because you don't have to rev the nuts off them or keep changing gear every few seconds to make good progress. Much less frustrating to drive. On single carriageway roads you can safely overtake vehicles that you would otherwise have to stick behind for miles on end. Basically, you can get from A to B quicker and feel less tired at the end of the journey. As they say in America, there's no substitute for cubic inches.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
But the yanks mean it for long distance cruising not speed
|
But the yanks mean it for long distance cruising not speed
Oops!
--
L\'escargot.
|
Last week I drove my father's Fiesta 1.4 TDCi - it's a car which does a good job of getting you from A to B, but on an uphill dual carriageway it barely had enough grunt to complete an overtake. It's when I got back in to the Audi which has 140PS and loads of torque that I realised what a difference having power under your foot actually makes.
I've also driven a Jag XKR and this made my Audi feel like the Fiesta!
|
This really only becomes a problem when going from more powerful engines, to smaller ones. For people like me, its the other way around. I've only ever driven small engine cars, so that?s what I?m used to driving.
I have no interest in fast cars either, which is strange for someone as young as me, who should be wanting a sports car, whilst sticking 'Max Power' stickers and other 'go faster' junk all over my Polo. 'My cars got 245 BHP', 'oh yeah, well mines got 275' - whatever!
For those who say its gets you from A to B quicker, I find that?s rarely the case, especially on ling journeys. We have relatives in Fife. My dad and uncles have admitted to driving it as fast as they can, one in an Audi V6d, and my dad in a 1.9 Laguna Diesel. I've done it in my 1.0 Polo (see profile) and the times were pretty close and not worth the extra stress and expense of driving at break neck speeds. Similarly, went from Northumberland to Nottingham (310 miles round trip) in the Polo (and this with two small brakes in it) in about 5 hours. Someone who?s used to twice the power of my Polo might think it a chore, but I didn't mind, still got 47MPG.
And as for the 'makes overtaking possible, where other less powerful cars couldn't manage' - is it really worth that few minutes that you've gained?
In this country, unless you have somewhere you can take your sports car, its pretty much a waste of money.
As always, its different strokes for different folks. I'm not saying I?m right, that?s just what I think. The world would be a boring place if we all drove Mondeo TDCis.....hang on a minute...
|
50 years ago you could have a lot of fun in a sports car. My Dad had an XK120 and some of the stories he has to tell are hair-raising. No doubt there was a large element of status involved when he bought his car, but I am sure that it is also true that he had much more freedom to use it than he would have now.
These days I think you do not get anywhere near as much "bang for your buck" by buying a fast car. If I had 50 grand burning a hole in my pocket I certainly wouldn't spend it on a sports car.
|
|
|
The average 1.6/2.0 litre family car now has 110 to 130PS and a 10 secondish 0-60 time, as well a a fair bit of mid range poke for overtaking. And that's fast enough for me. Even the 1.9 Berlingo can do Northampton to Dover in three hours, might be 2:50 in the Xantia. Any faster and I'd be chancing my licence. Even cross country on French N and D roads I don't think the time saved in pushing it is worthwhile, the higher concentration required means you loose the time on longer breaks.
As Roberson puts it, strokes for folks, but I'd rather spend my money on holidays than horsepower.
|
This seems to be missing the point somewhat about the joys of driving.
Firstly a 'Fast Car' that is developed as such will generally be a lot nicer to drive than the standard 'slower' models. Not so much about speed but handling, grip, and steering feel. the faster cars tend to be more relaxed at the same speeds as lesser models due to increased torque and ability to reach same speeds with less effort.
Also the tend to look better, have more equipment and certainly comfier - go and try a nice recaro you'll know what i mean!
In addition they hold value better than lesser models(generally, not always) and carry an image some people positively enjoy.
Its not about speed, its about how it goes about doing it.
With regards to congested roads and speed camera's i disagree. there are still lots of places to enjoy quick driving but not breaking the speed limit or encounter a speed camera.
Imagine how boring the place would be if we all drove round in standard 1.6 or 2.0 Mondeo, Focus, Laguna, Octavia, Leon and 3 Series.
|
Firstly a 'Fast Car' that is developed as such will generally be a lot nicer to drive than the standard 'slower' models.
Depends what sort of driving you want to. A high-revving engine with a close ratio gearbox may require a much more involved driving style than a lower-powered engine optimised for flexibility rtaher than peak power. In that situaton, the 'fast car' will be nicer to drive only if you like a very involved driving style with lots of gear chnages and an engine revving its guts out.
And "nicer to drive" does not necessarily means "nicer for pasengers"
Not so much about speed but handling, grip, and steering feel. the faster cars tend to be more relaxed at the same speeds as lesser models due to increased torque and ability to reach same speeds with less effort.
For the passenger, those things can be bad news -- it can just lead to them being thrown around more inside the car as the driver corners at higher speeds and accelerates and brakes faster.
Also the tend to look better, have more equipment and certainly comfier - go and try a nice recaro you'll know what i mean!
Comfier? On most cars, the "sporty" variants have a harsher ride, due to some combination of stiffer suspension and/or low-profile tyres. I have been in some "sporty" variants of family cars which end up nearly intolerable for the passengers -- one particular horror was a Primera GT which a friend had for a while. Its ride was so harsh that I wished I'd worn a jogging bra.
Bucket seats may be nice for the driver, but for anyone in the rear all they do is to enourage the driver to submit them to higher g-forces when cornering. If I'm a rear passenger, I'd much prefer to be in a car where the diver's seats have very little lateral support.
Its not about speed, its about how it goes about doing it.
Sometimes a more powerful engine can allow more effortless overtaking, without lots of revving and gear-changing. But it can also encourage a very stop-start driving style, which is uncomfortable for the passenger.
Try driving the way a chauffeur is trained to so, as if you had a glass of water perched on the dashboard. The "sporty" version of the car will do the job less effectively.
|
If you have to do a lot of overtaking on roads, then a powerful car is actually safer since you want to spend the least amount of time on the opposite side of the road.
Like many have said, it's a lot to do with ego. Just as the same way, people have a large house when they could make do with a small house. Some folks buy a 42 inch TV when they could watch the same program on a 26 inch TV. It's also a question of priorities. Each to their own, I say.
Personally, I find larger petrol engined cars with lots of low down torque and an autobox as well as good soundproofing, the most relaxed way to travel on our congested roads.
|
Some people see cars purely as a means of transport, while some people are interested in and get enthusiastic about cars. Some people get excited by complicated precision engineering and a meaty exhaust note, and some dont. As you say, its each to their own.
My current circumstances (annual mileage tripled) have caused me to buy a turbodiesel Saab hatchback. But it doesnt stop me wanting a higher performance car when my circumstances change.
I do agree though greater volumes of traffic can make driving a chore nowadays (not so much speed cameras where I usually drive).
I agree with NN, modern 16v petrol engines with peak power right up at the top of the rev range are not so good IMO. A bigger engine with low down power and torque can be as quick but is much more relaxing to drive.
On Sunday I had to drive to Castleton in the Peak District and did about 50 miles on sweeping country roads with not too much traffic, no speed cameras; which was very enjoyable without having to drive way above the 60mph speed limit, and was much more interesting than my usual commute up and down the M1.
|
If you have to do a lot of overtaking on roads, then a powerful car is actually safer since you want to spend the least amount of time on the opposite side of the road.
Or it may tempt drivers to overtake where it just is not safe - and their anti lock brakes will keep them out of trouble anyway.
|
Soon you won't be able to overtake.Have you noticed how more and more rural roads are now 40 or 50 mph limit.
As for fast cars,due to numerous speeding tickets(not all acheived in "fast " cars) over the years,i now drive like a vicar,not because i want too,but i cant work without my licence.I have driven dozens of cars from 50 to 500 hp,performance cars maybe impractical,but i still love em.
|
Approx 20 years ago there was an article published that demonstrated how much safer an Escort RS Turbo was than an Escort 1.1, the basis of this was given equal reaction times and speeds the RS would stop quicker, wet or dry, as well as hold the road better.
However this is much less of a factor today where even average family cars have ventilated discs, ABS and tyres that would have been radical 10 years ago.
|
Approx 20 years ago there was an article published that demonstrated how much safer an Escort RS Turbo was than an Escort 1.1, the basis of this was given equal reaction times and speeds the RS would stop quicker, wet or dry, as well as hold the road better.
That safety improvement may only be theoretical.
The faster model might hold the road better and stop more quickly than a basic model being driven in the same way. But for real world safety, surely what matters is how close to the limits a car is being driven ... and that's where the driver comes in. The driver of the faster model may well use up a lot of the theoretical safety margin by driving faster and more aggresively.
However this is much less of a factor today where even average family cars have ventilated discs, ABS and tyres that would have been radical 10 years ago.
True. Some of my old cars had abysmal stopping power, but most newer cars seem to do much better.
|
I believe there is two sides to the story. One is to get to your destination as quickly as possible and the other is to get as much enjoyment out of a journey as much as possible.
Most times my Nissan QX 3.0 will get me to the destination quicker over long distance than any of my previous cars. However, the process is tiring as the QX has LSD which makes it torque-steer badly over the tyres' limits and also the QX leans more. It feels like you are fighting the car.
There was a "better feeling" from pushing my Sierra 2.0 Pinto and my Mondeo 1.8 Zetec.
A friend of mine once said to me it was more "fun" in "pushing" a Honda Civic 1.5 LSi than his current Civic Type-R.
|
>>A friend of mine once said to me it was more "fun" in "pushing" a Honda Civic 1.5 LSi than his current Civic Type-R.<<
I'll go along with this. It's much easier to find the type of road (and space) to enjoy driving a small family hatch, than a 'fast' car. Good observation is needed to drive fast - and this can be a limiting factor in some fast cars well before it's so in family cars.
That said, I wouldn't refuse a drive in a Type-R ( a very capable car for British roads), It's just that I'd want to drive the Type-R fast on every drive - because it does it so well.
For fast stuff, I'd prefer a bike though (and not necessarily a sports bike).
Each to their own, I guess.
|
|
|
|
