Sluggish seeming petrol cars

no_debts_no_more

It's been a while since I bought a car, but I am really going to have to bite the bullet and replace the 14yo Rover 200 I'm using as a runabout soon.

I don't do the miles to justify a diesel, but looking at things on paper, I can't bring myself to pay money for anything with a petrol engine either - is it just me, or on paper, do the entry to mid-level petrol-engined cars now look glacially slow? I'm not after a rocketship, but my humdrum old Rover looks like one on paper compared to, say a 1.6 petrol Focus which does 0-60 in about the same time as a 1990 1.3 Escort. Anything sub 10 seconds nowadays seems to be regarded as a hot hatch, when it would have been rather less when I was young enough to want one.

Obviously a Focus is a bigger car inside than my Rover, and 0-60 time may not be the best measure of performance, but it's the only one all manufacturers publish.

Bigger petrol engines incur higher tax costs and noticeably worse fuel consumption, and then often only seem to give marginally better performance. The new small turbocharged petrols are close to the cost of a turbodiesel.

So what gives? I've slowed down a bit over the years, and have an eye on the fuel gauge, but I don't want to be stuck at 40mph on a clear A-road behind a dawdler with all the time in the world. Is there a decent compromise?

Lum

Modern cars are an awful lot heavier than your old Rover, thus harder to accelerate. This is largely due to improved safety measures.

Gloomendoom

Lum wrote: »

Modern cars are an awful lot heavier than your old Rover, thus harder to accelerate. This is largely due to improved safety measures.

And all the toys we take for granted today.

We went car shopping a few weeks ago. I test drove a Seat Leon with 170hp. It felt slower than my old Rover with similar power. When I looked at the figures the Leon was 300kg heavier than a Rover 800!

Stigy

no_debts_no_more wrote: »

but my humdrum old Rover looks like one on paper compared to, say a 1.6 petrol Focus which does 0-60 in about the same time as a 1990 1.3 Escort.

I know you're only using this as an example, but even without looking at exact figures I know a 1990 1.3 Escort will take about 18-seconds to get to 60mph, mainly due to what is fundamentally an archaic 50-year old OHV engine!

Depending on what you're after, the average 0-62 time of a 1.6-litre 16-valve modern car I'd say is around 10-seconds. Diesel cars alot of the time only feel quicker because of their turbo, where in fact, they're not all that great and run out of gut higher up the rev range (due to low down torque), which I guess is what they're intended for afterall!

Hammyman

Lum wrote: »

Modern cars are an awful lot heavier than your old Rover, thus harder to accelerate. This is largely due to improved safety measures.

Indeed. My 2L Capri was around 900kg. My 2L Mondeo is over 1.5 tonnes.

no_debts_no_more

If Parkers facts&figures are accurate:

1996 1.6 Mondeo 1229Kg
2008 1.6 Focus 1249Kg

which is a pretty surprising degree of bulking up for the time period. Looks like it'll need something a bit above entry level and swallowing the extra costs.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

i'm 26 years old, ive driven old and new from skoda to ferrari, i'll get the crunch saying this but if you want performance but low mid entry level engine then look around fiats bravo and punto 1.4 turbo t-jet, alfa's 1.4 tb mito suzuki ignis 1.5 sport. honda civic typeS not R octavia/fabia vrs, golf mk4/5 1.8 gti turbo wasnt impressed with 2.0 gti non turbo seemes sluggish, pug 207 gti thp 175 engine (turbocharged).

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Stigy wrote: »

I know you're only using this as an example, but even without looking at exact figures I know a 1990 1.3 Escort will take about 18-seconds to get to 60mph, mainly due to what is fundamentally an archaic 50-year old OHV engine!

Depending on what you're after, the average 0-62 time of a 1.6-litre 16-valve modern car I'd say is around 10-seconds. Diesel cars alot of the time only feel quicker because of their turbo, where in fact, they're not all that great and run out of gut higher up the rev range (due to low down torque), which I guess is what they're intended for afterall!

but oh the days when the escort 1.6 series 2 turbo came out what a beut of a car that is and the things you can do to get serious BHP out of those will make you wet yourself if you ever drove one!
had the pleasure of having a go of a 300bhp+ zetec conversion (1.8 bottom end zetec engine bolted to a 1.6 cvh head made the engine lighter and more powerfull) stage 3 turbo was running 26psi, on 30psi chip,engineered by turbosystems. ooh wow beats the crummy scooby's hands down bmw's dont get a look in. i so so so want a escort series 2.

cyclonebri1

Stigy wrote: »

I know you're only using this as an example, but even without looking at exact figures I know a 1990 1.3 Escort will take about 18-seconds to get to 60mph, mainly due to what is fundamentally an archaic 50-year old OHV engine!

Depending on what you're after, the average 0-62 time of a 1.6-litre 16-valve modern car I'd say is around 10-seconds. Diesel cars alot of the time only feel quicker because of their turbo, where in fact, they're not all that great and run out of gut higher up the rev range (due to low down torque), which I guess is what they're intended for afterall!

I think, (as you refer to later), that it is the torque which comes in so low down the rev range that gives the initial impression of speed in a turbo diesel, not the turbo itself. Driving up to 2.5k revs and changing early up the 6 speed box most small modern diesels are suitably equiped with gives more than adequate performance unless you ar4e a real diehard petrol head, certainly enough to satisfy an old (car) Rover owner.

And I do agree, all the crap we insist on buying as standard kit adds 100's of kilos to the average car, like carrying 2 or 3 extra passengers around all the time :(

skiddlydiddly

I have a runabout Laguna dci with supposedly 120bhp and something like 240lbft.When I first drove it it fel like half of those horse had escaped but its down to the weight.Its got a very good ncap rating and more airbags than Baywatch and it totally destroys any "performance".
Saying that though, I have recently put a car I've had stored in the garage for 5 years back on the road which has a far more powerful petrol engine and is much lighter.I feel much more vulnerable in it as it doesn't even have a drivers airbag let alone ones lumbar, side and one for the dog.

Gloomendoom

skiddlydiddly wrote: »

Saying that though, I have recently put a car I've had stored in the garage for 5 years back on the road which has a far more powerful petrol engine and is much lighter.I feel much more vulnerable in it as it doesn't even have a drivers airbag let alone ones lumbar, side and one for the dog.

You get used to it. I regularly drive a car with no seat belts and only one windscreen wiper. It felt odd when I first got it but now I don't give it another thought.