How fast is fast enough?

[Coastr]

Mid 90s is the peak of development.  I was reading an article today about the guy who invented ESC at Mercedes, who then gave the patents to bosch, for the purpose of getting per-unit costs lower by letting all manufacturers use it.  This was because of the moose-test-flipped A-Class which needed ESC to keep it upright - all because overexcitable journalists who put a car into a situation that 99.9% of drivers would never see.  So any car developed after the mid 90s had increasing amounts of driver-excluding technology and increasing amounts of heavy stuff (including crash structure, it must be said).

A mid 90s car has all the good bits of fuel injection and abs, but none of the later stuff.  It was also an era when the german horsepower wars were taking off and only a few meant using turbos.  The last ten years is the age of the turbocharger - which I like because turbo - but I don't like because when every car has a turbo, a turbo is no longer exciting.  Because the engineers designed out all the turbo-ness of a turbo so normal people won't notice.

Even then, the complexity of even the mid 90s cars is going to make them harder to keep on the road over time.  I've also written about the EU recycling rules introduced about that time which meant that increasing parts of cars are made from biodegradable plastic.  Anyone comparing an 88 benz to a 98 or 08 will know what I am talking about - interiors and engine bay parts that biodegrade into dust over time.

In Porsche terms I guess this means the 996/997 era ( I said designed mid 90s not produced mid 90s, and the 997 chassis still has it's roots in the 996) as well as the first gen Boxster and Cayman.  The 964 and 993 may well prove to be the pinnacle of 911 for many.

In terms of power I agree with all those who have talked about the need for feel and feedback in road cars above all else.   I do think you need power though - maybe to make up for sloppy driving but a bit of point and squirt is always fun.  I reckon a 275hp high revving NA G-Series 911 would be about right.  Or maybe a 944 turbo, though I've never driven one.

I also read an article today about how an XJS is the next big thing.  That canard has been around forever - but who wants a ponderous heavy massive coupe?  Nobody now and nobody then.  Drivers cars and muscle cars are where it was always at and will always be.

[Cars And Coffee Byron Bay]

I took my vw R36 around Queensland raceway and it was quick, however it pretty much drove itself. With all the aids on, it would shudder and shake it's way around a corner if I came in too fast. So it was boring.

However, I've been peddling the 72 911 hard through some Hills near byron Bay once and was passed by a mini Cooper (a new one) with the driver waving out the window. I was having much more of an engaging drive, albeit slower 

I'm an advocate for enjoying the drive without having to be the quickest. Having to plan ahead to actually get up a hill, rather than just putting my right foot down. Getting out of the car after a 30 minute jaunt through the hills all hot and sweaty while the newer drivers just looking for their next coffee stop.

I'm not the quickest, but my smile is the biggest.

[clutch-monkey]

Did I inspire you today Hugh.....?

For me it's about where the limit of handling occurs.  Give me light weight, narrow wheels and RWD every day of the week. 

agreed. i'm currently working on/finished; SA22 RX7, bmw 2002 (and a second for gravel), mini clubman. will be hilarious on the road.

my 3.6 swapped 911 is about as punchy as 996-997 era GT3's, and thus is a bit much for a lot of the public roads, but the more primitive suspension and smaller tyres do provide more fun at lower speeds than the newer cars.

[OBRUT]

A mate just sold his 996TT and brought a 991S PDK.  And is bored.  It is faster on paper (eg 0-100), just, be we are theorising that is down to the faster PDK gear changes.  I drove it recently and it is very nice but exciting or engaging it is not. 

I have had about 20 air cooled 911's, the most modern being my 964 Speedster. To me the sweet spot for a fun road car is about 1000kg and 200-220hp.  Feels quick but doesn't overwhelm skinnier tyres and stock brakes with good pads and fluid.  Tellingly, this is also where the 2.7RS lightweight sits.

The simple recipe for this is a stock 3.2 in a 64-73 chassis - cracker.  

[James P]

Same as above I've had 15 Porsches from C3, 76 turbo & SC's to 997 Gt3 the sweet spot for me is the C3 but i sold it & for half the price got a very good oz SC its perfect as i also have a 996 Cup. Personally this works well for me & my family life.. a good responsive classic for the road & a track car, i don't believe you can have both in one car.. 

[Stew F]

I drove home from the city on Friday night around 11.30, up into the hills. I was in my 2015 RenaultSport RS. In most places there was little to no traffic. There's a couple of decent roads on the way, so I took them, and really gave it some. At one point I was going 140, and when I realised, had to back off. I still had plenty more to go.  Not the place for that kind of speed. But it still wasn't really an engaging drive either. Unlike doing 100 in the aircooled on the same roads, the RS at that speed is like a leisurely stroll.  I'm sure the megane is great on a track, and I'm yet to find out, but it's a total waste on the road.  So I hate to think how frustrating it is to drive a Lamborghini or McLaren on the road. I consider myself a pretty good driver, but even for the best of us, on the road, that kind of power in a 1400kg package is a disaster waiting to happen. And not good for the driver's license.  

[DJM]

Same as above I've had 15 Porsches from C3, 76 turbo & SC's to 997 Gt3 the sweet spot for me is the C3 but i sold it & for half the price got a very good oz SC its perfect as i also have a 996 Cup. Personally this works well for me & my family life.. a good responsive classic for the road & a track car, i don't believe you can have both in one car.. 

I've come to that conclusion too.  Keep a track car for that track and a road car for the road.  Otherwise you have a compromise car that's not great at either.

[MFX]

 a good responsive classic for the road & a track car, i don't believe you can have both in one car.. 

I think this really sums it up. On the road it is much more fun driving a lighter, modestly powered car fast, where as, at least in my experience the little underpowered car on the track feels really really slow and that is where GT3 or similar really comes into it's own.

I always had much more fun in my earlier days driving the hell out of my little Pulsar SSS where as my much more powerful Skyline was too fast for most of the twisites. On the track, the Skyline sometimes still felt like more power would be good...

When I start looking at track cars, for me at least budget plays a big role too. Just because I can afford to buy a GT3, am I actually going to be able to enjoy it on the track if it is always in the back of my mind that if I crash it or blow it up, I am going to struggle to pay to fix it. In that case I think I have much more fun in a cheaper car, where if something happens, no big deal, it will be fixed by the next track day. I would love to be in that situation with a GT3 cup car or similar, but I need to have a bigger bank balance to be able to relax and enjoy it.

[Pokiou]

Is power enough... well Volkswagen does the power business just right in the Golf R and GTi range. They perfected the balance. You can floor the GTi (mkv+) and you wont torque steer from launch or normal hard acceleration. Same with the Golf R. It just a game of balance, They noticed that with FWD you can go crazy like 250 270 like most of the competetors, but you end up with a pig. Hence why Jeremy Clarkson has said and still says the Golf GTi is the best FWD Hot Hatch. He even owns a new one!
 

Like i said, VW perfected the balance of Power. That being said id love for me 996 C2 to have maybe more torque not power on the low end.

[Dalai]

If I was after 0-100 times I wouldn't have bought a 33 year old Porsche... To be honest I think my 04 Forester XT is quicker off the line, but doesn't put a huge smile on my face like my 84 Carrera does every time I turn the ignition key!The sounds and handling even at slower speeds in my 911 gives me a whole lot of enjoyment on the twisties in the hills. 

In that case I think I have much more fun in a cheaper car, where if something happens, no big deal, it will be fixed by the next track day.

That's why I've been looking at MX5's and GC8 WRX's. Though recently started leaning towards an MR2 turbo. Enough power in the WRX or MR2 turbo to start with for me to get started on the track and with plenty of cheap bolt on bits / mods to improve handling and power which can be added over time. 

[edgy]

It's not really a one answer fits all situation is it. 

And GT3's drive them selves? Mkay.... 

[turboT]

 Don't believe the hype with 912's. 

??? - but our beards and lattes remain intact?

911's and 912's of the same era aren't exactly worlds apart in terms of performance though mate. You are comparing a much younger car...with duck tape go faster stripes!

our recent Tassie trip was the perfect demonstration of what different owners want in terms of speed from their cars. Nick in his 996 GT3 was deffinatelly in need of a race track most days (luckily he found one). There was 4 or 5 others that did their best to keep up with him. Real mix or cars - Cayman, 964, tent, 80's targa and me doing my best in the 76. Recon we all pushed our own limits and had a great time, yet couldn't be much more than 300bph in any car (if that). Throwing a 40 year old turbo up and down a mountain in the rain, with no driver assists is such an involving experience. Personally I wouldn't have wanted to go any faster..

IMO the new GT3's, RS's etc are race cars meant for testing limits way beyond road use and if you aren't using them regularly for that - what's the point? Having spent a bit of time behind, and occasionally throwing rocks at, nicks 996 GT3 I recon this car was the last car  of the 'insane' variety to belong on a road. 

Cant wait to take delivery of my 912's. One will have 200bph ....but the Tangy stock car with 90bhp will be my new company car for sure ?

[LeeM]

 Nuthin wrong with duct tape stripes when you do it yourself over a few drinks and can remove it when i feel like it ?

  I'm comparing a 4 cylinder to a 6 cylinder as a hills blaster. As i mentioned, a 912 or a 356 is perfect for a daily commute, or in your instance, a company car, and if that was the intention with my 912 to not drive it in the hills (if it was RHD), I probably would have kept it. Being as I don't have a job that allows me to indulge in having a Porsche as a daily driver, I get my kicks from driving my 911 that makes me smile every single time I drive it. After driving the 912 for less than 20km's, I was bored, and knew I couldnt live with it due its lack of power

 I think your Polo car will be great fun, as will Tangy as your daily, yet for me 'personally', I need an old car like mine to get me out of corners quickly

[bear924]

On my recent trip to Gosford, via whatever twisty road I could find, what I concluded was the only time I needed more power in the SC was when I wanted to overtake a modern car. In the corners I'd sit behind them, however when we came to a straight they'd take off while I was winding up.  Being in the right gear etc would obviously help, which leads into the other comments about needing to 'drive' the car. 

What does amaze me is how capable the SC is considering its age. I can only imagine how outstanding these cars would have been when new. 

[GC9911]

Fast enough is the point where your ambition is not matched by your ability, regardless of the car.

[hugh]

Ego and vanity drive us all to a greater or lesser degree, combining that with personal circumstances may equal power and speed at the brochure phenomena.     

 

This is definitely a significant part of the equation. 

There no doubt numbers sell - 0-100 bragging rights are important for some.  But numbers dont often directly translate into enjoyment.  

Well said. Buying cars "on paper" seems easy enough to do in terms of comparison. Driving and owning them can be a whole different experience. 

But in pure performance providing enjoyment terms we're 15 years past peak.  It's a case of cars handling too well now in order to contain ridiculous power outputs and luxury feature weight.

You're pitching early 00's as the peak? This is interesting as prior to owning my MK1 I would have said somewhere in the 70-80's but in terms of sports cars I'd tend to agree. Typically I tend to feel things changed quite significantly in the 90's in terms of car design & production. There were a hand full of manufacturers that managed to take new technology with increased regulations, cost etc. and make better cars as a result. Mclaren F1 comes to mind (92-98) - a whole new level. 

I have owned a GT2 and a respectable cross section of other Porsche cars and in my opinion my '67 912 is more enjoyable and involving to drive and own than most of them.

Classic cars are not for everyone....... and that's the way I like it.

^^^ This is great! 

[Philbee]

I often get into an evolutionary discussion of technology when talking about car technology,  losing the feel of the car or driver detachment, eg. when you use paddles instead of a manual box. Eg. why does cranking a handle and stomping a left foot pedal make you more involved? Because it's a physical thing and a paddle is a mouse click? But then that's maybe what we said when they took away the reins steering the horse and gave us a car with a manual gear box. Less driver involvement? So are all the driver aids that allow us to keep a car with 800hp on the road just more driver detachment or  the evolution of life, cars, technology? Is it  just relative?. Are we just being technological scrooges on the modern day cars? The crank of a car back in the 20s...Driver involvement? Or is electronic ignition a driver aid detaching us?

And on a less confusing note, about 20yrs ago now I took my datto hotrod (130hp with dellorto carbies)  to the apostles and back - best fun in a car I've ever had.  20 yrs later I have a Porsche hotrod, took it to the apostles and back late last year - best fun in a car I've ever had. The moral to this story folks is... the GOR is friggen great in whatever car you have!!

 

[hugh]

@Philbee I agree that evolution is generally a good thing and by re-designing over and over you can refine and improve.............but...............I tend to believe in an evolution of design there is a 'peak' and from that point in time things (whilst arguably being improved) can lessen the overall qualities of the design. 

The 911 is a great (if not the best!) example of this. 50+ years of evolution and whilst the latest is undoubtedly the best yet (fastest, safest, fuel efficient etc. etc.) it seems very few of us feel that it is the "best" in terms of our ideal due to the subjectivity of the discussion. 

I have a brand new car for my wife and kids, its exceptional and I'll admit to enjoying driving it with the heated seats and adaptive cruise - makes everything so comfortable and easy. But when it comes to driving as a recreational activity then it seems we all like the satisfaction of having to make a little more effort to reap the reward. 

For me, my 69 is my most enjoyable car - its just got all the right ingredients and goes way faster than I expected. Its a properly quick car, faster than my 3.0 (or at least it feels faster) but is as equally enjoyable at low speeds and that's the key for me. 

[tazzieman]

Classic cars are not for everyone....... and that's the way I like it.

Uh huh uh huh  you'll have this goin' all day now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM7zRfHG0no

[KGB]

 

You'RE pitching early 00's as the peak? This is interesting as prior to owning my MK1 I would have said somewhere in the 70-80's but in terms of sports cars I'd tend to agree. Typically I tend to feel things changed quite significantly in the 90's in terms of car design & production. There were a hand full of manufacturers that managed to take new technology with increased regulations, cost etc. and make better cars as a result. Mclaren F1 comes to mind (92-98) - a whole new level.

It's so mouth wateringly interesting.  Somewhere between a 996 GT3 and a 996 GT3RS to be mm specific. 

What's a "better car"?

[hugh]

@KGB apologies for the grammar, not sure how that slipped through..............

996's are heavily underappreciated, great cars. 996 GT3 RS is definitely a milestone. 

 

[KGB]

What's a "better car"?

 

Your pitching early 00's as the peak? This is interesting as prior to owning my MK1 I would have said somewhere in the 70-80's but in terms of sports cars I'd tend to agree. Typically I tend to feel things changed quite significantly in the 90's in terms of car design & production. There were a hand full of manufacturers that managed to take new technology with increased regulations, cost etc. and make better cars as a result. Mclaren F1 comes to mind (92-98) - a whole new level. 

 

 

[hugh]

My use of the term "better cars" in this instance is referring to cars that wont just a result of profit margin measures. Cars that were more modern than their predecessors (so had additional technology, ABS etc.) but still retained a level of "analogue" or driver input to get the most out of. The 996 GT3 is a great example of this - whilst it is more plastic and has a more mass produced element to it, the drive is a heightened version of the early cars. A definitive point of old vs new where they seemed to get the balance right. 

[StevepGT3]

When you hit 35 Hugh, I will give you a drive of the 7.2. and you will see that nothing has been lost in tactility but a bucket load has been gained in usability and holy shit speed if required.

[hugh]

When you hit 35 Hugh, I will give you a drive of the 7.2. and you will see that nothing has been lost in tactility but a bucket load has been gained in usability and holy shit speed if required.

I can only imagine, my 996 is arguably too much car for me. @James P was only saying the other day that he is only marginally quicker in his 996 cup car to what he used to lap his previous 997 GT3 (road car). I do believe that the 996/997 cars will always be considered the "narrow body" cars of the later water cooled era. 

I'll be sure to be in touch 12th May next year when I'm the big 35.