Are there any Fast yet economical cars out there?

tomstickland

1.8 16v, weighs 850KG, very low. Should be good on mpg.

Road_Hog

thescouselander wrote: »

Lots of talk about diesels being fast on here but to be honest I haven't driven many fast diesels (and I've driven very few). I certainly wouldn't know about fast diesels or any of the other diesels mentioned and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.

Typo corrected.

tomstickland

He was making a good point. Diesel owns go on about their amazing torque figures, but power to weight ratio is best indicator of ultimate performance.

Road_Hog

tomstickland wrote: »

He was making a good point. Diesel owns go on about their amazing torque figures, but power to weight ratio is best indicator of ultimate performance.

No he was talking out of his bottom. One of the cars the OP mentioned and I commented on was the Civic 2.2 diesel, it has an acceleration figure of
0-60mph in 8.6 seconds. That isn't slow and that isn't an expensive car. I doubt that the other cars were slow either but I'm not as familiar with them.

So he doesn't know what he is on about.

tomstickland

He said:

Lots of talk about diesels being fast on here but to be honest I haven't driven many fast diesels (and I've driven quite a few). I certainly wouldn't call a Fabia VRS or any of the other diesels mentioned fast.

That's a pretty specific set of claims:
-he hasn't driven many that he considers fast
-wouldn't call a Fabia VRS fast

Now, it depends on what he means, but I assume accleration performance.

Something that takes 8s or 9s to reach 60mph is considered warm rather than fast. Under 7s and you could describe something as fast.

Not withstanding that 0-60 is a very specific measure of not a lot. For example, change the gearing so that 60 can be reached in 2nd gear and you can knock 0.4s off the time. 1/4 mile times can be more useful.

Now, this is interesting:
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=1269
Fabia vRS
1.9 TDi
Power: 130BHP
Weight: 1315KG
Torque: 229 lb-ft
0-60:9.2s
The weight takes the promising 130BHP down to a rather lame 99BHP/tonne.

Compare with a 1991 Astra GTE 8v. 130BHP and 1000Kg, giving 130BHP/Tonne. ie: a car that could be bought for £1000 a few years ago offered 30% more "performance" than a Fabia VRs. (Not that they are viable any more).

Compare with my 1991 BMW 318iS
130BHP
1050Kg
123BHP/tonne

Now you can see why it was slightly quicker down a sliproad; I've got a 20% advantage. The book figures for the 318iS indicate that it's not really fast, somewhere in the high 9s I think. On a par with a Golf MK2 GTi I've discovered.

If you were to consider torque, the vRS has 229lb-ft, I've got 130lb-ft.
The 80% increase in peak torque doesn't make it any quicker to accelerate. That's why peak power is the useful figure to look at.

A point being that even small cars today are a lot heavier than those from 20 years ago, so need a lot more power to as fast. Hence why the old skool hot hatches were a lot more fun.

ACID

balsingh wrote: »

Have you looked at the CLio 1.5 Dci 100. The 100bhp version is very nippy and you will easily get a decent lowish mileage example for £5k.

lol thansk, but the clio is on car i defo struggle with


thansk for the other responses,, who woudl have thought a smart roadster would be a car id be tempted with lol

hmm thanks alot

the honda disel is tempting but the price at the moment isnt

why are green cars so expensive !

Road_Hog

tomstickland wrote: »

He said:

That's a pretty specific set of claims:
-he hasn't driven many that he considers fast
-wouldn't call a Fabia VRS fast

Now, it depends on what he means, but I assume accleration performance.

Something that takes 8s or 9s to reach 60mph is considered warm rather than fast. Under 7s and you could describe something as fast.

Not withstanding that 0-60 is a very specific measure of not a lot. For example, change the gearing so that 60 can be reached in 2nd gear and you can knock 0.4s off the time. 1/4 mile times can be more useful.

Now, this is interesting:
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=1269
Fabia vRS
1.9 TDi
Power: 130BHP
Weight: 1315KG
Torque: 229 lb-ft
0-60:9.2s
The weight takes the promising 130BHP down to a rather lame 99BHP/tonne..

And the figures on the Civic are?

Or did you deliberately miss them off?

Edit: BTW Parkers says 8.3 secs, you may call that warm, but I say it's rapid for a new hot hatch diesel that costs £16,480 retail new.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Road_Hog wrote: »

No he was talking out of his bottom. One of the cars the OP mentioned and I commented on was the Civic 2.2 diesel, it has an acceleration figure of
0-60mph in 8.6 seconds. That isn't slow and that isn't an expensive car. I doubt that the other cars were slow either but I'm not as familiar with them.

So he doesn't know what he is on about.

Sorry but 0-60mph in 8.6 seconds is not fast, ok? My 1.7 tonne Mercedes can do 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. It isn't fast.

A 4.0 TVR Griffith doing 0-60 in 4.7 seconds is fast. 8.6 seconds is not fast.

big_gay_kirk

and my 1.5 ton cortina mk5 crusader estate will do 0-60 in about eight and a half..... but i admit the 2.0 pinto has been tweaked slightly....

Road_Hog

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Sorry but 0-60mph in 8.6 seconds is not fast, ok? My 1.7 tonne Mercedes can do 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. It isn't fast.

Is it a diesel? what Mercedes model is it so that I can check the spec and does it cost £16.5K new?

Pew_Pew wrote:

A 4.0 TVR Griffith doing 0-60 in 4.7 seconds is fast. 8.6 seconds is not fast.

Is the TVR diesel? Is it £16.5K new?

No thought not, stop picking cars that are not a fair comparison.