Safe Speed Forums

This is a question that has long puzzled me.

I have held a driving licence for 28 years and have always enjoyed driving. But during that period I have always found "normal" 1.4 or 1.6 litre cars to be sufficient for what I need. I don't have a family and drive one-up about 95% of the time, so don't need a big car. Occasionally, maybe twice a month, I may think "that would have been more satisfying with a more powerful car", but the increased insurance and fuel costs don't justify it when so much of my driving time is spent in traffic jams on the M60.

It is also the case that many drivers don't understand how to use the upper half of the rev range to release the performance of the engines they have, the Rover K-series being a particular case in point.

I live near to the Peak District and at weekends often drive out there on classic driving roads such as the Cat & Fiddle, Long Hill, Holme Moss, Axe Edge etc. I often see motorbikes being ridden enthusiastically on those roads. I very rarely see "performance" cars being wrung out there.

I don't for a second criticise anyone's choice of car or their right to drive it. But I do wonder how many Scoobys, M3s and the like ever get used in a way that would make a meaningful difference from their ordinary cousins - not to mention all the people living in Surrey and Bucks who own Ferraris.

Paul - I know that living where you do your answer would be an emphatic "Yes, I do"

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

My wife has a MG ZR160, I have an MG ZT both K series.

The wife's produces 160 ho at 7000 rpm.....It is sooooo much fun to drive.

As for mine, well it is a humble 120hp and spends 2/3rds of its time in traffic so not much fun there. Very good cruiser and great safety rating.

BTW the little lady does know how to get the performance out of it...

I suppose we have the best of both worlds...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Hey gizmo whys your wife got more performance than you ?

Does it ever make you feel impotent? I mean what if you had a race or something?

I used to have a bit of a thing about muscle women, taking control of me, but it was just a perve, I didnt like their attitude much so couldnt deal with them in real life. I get mine to give me a wipping some times, but its still me who wears the trousers in real life.

Now how this ties in with speed cameras is...........................er.....................................

Seriously, a mate of mine enjoys his misses humilliating him in front of all of us, he tells us how she bosses him about. It makes us cringe because we know he is getting off telling US about it, as much as it happening in the first place.

I think you are going for the maximim number of forum rule violations in one posting..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It depends on the road you're on. If you're on a twisty B road then you want a car which picks up from lower revs easily and keeps on going until you get to higher ones. You also want one which is agile rather than heavy. Most performance cars are nowhere near their limits on UK roads as the speed limits are low enough for it not to be a problem. The limiting factor is forward vision which is much close performance wise than acceleration unless you are lucky enough to have brakes that stop you in a cars length from 70. The braking department is where I would like to see more improvement. Handling also makes a big difference as plenty of cars at 60 won't go around nsl corners even when you have the vision. Performance cars with chunky tyres and better suspension will just waft around happily.

After driving a rover with a 1.4 and wringing its neck it has no performance benefit in the higher rev ranges! Over 4500 it was still dog slow. But I'm used to a 2 litre turbo and 2.6 litre twin turbo. The latter is much poorer at low revs so you have to get it over 4500 in each gear so when you change up you are still in the oomph range. The 2 litre is much better as it picks up from 2000 rpm without bother so you can change up at 3500 and still have plenty of go. You notice the performance particularly when overtaking. Cars which don't pick well below 4000rpm are a nightmare as you have to see an opportunity and drop at least a gear before you can get past. By this time some flat cap in a diesel has already whizzed passed the both of you!

Part of the attraction is the noise (doesn't have to be loud) of a nice engine. I'd like a smaller car with a large engine but no-one seems to make one. Something the size of a punto with a 3 litre v6 in it would be just the ticket Or perhaps a 2 litre with a couple of turbos...

Most people only NEED a relatively low powered car. I would say that average (mean) power has increased somewhat over the past few years. Part of this is due to increased technology and part due to maintaining power-to-weight ratios as (useful) safety features have added weight.
Many cars now consequently have a top speed than older cars but accelerate no better.

Many people, as has been often said on this forum and others, are lazy with regard to their driving, don't concentrate enough, and try to use the minimum mental and physical effort possible. I would guess that they simply can't be bothered to find out what their car is capable of. I would even say that a very small number of accidents would be avoided if people knew what braking/cornering capabilities their car had.

All of which may sound off topic..

I've always tried to buy cars which are fun to drive, even if it's not quick.
A sensation of speed, the feeling of the road beneath, responsiveness of throttle, steering and braking through a series of corners and getting the flow of a road is to me part of the fun of driving.
This does not need a quick car, but so many normal cars are so isolated in the interests of quietness and comfort that the sensations are dulled.
This is partly why people turn to performance cars, because these attributes are highlighted instead of muffled. The emotion of a car is what makes you look back at it when you've locked it up for the night.
There's also the sound (eg a V8) the (usually) better looks of genuine performance cars. I like the sensation of serious acceleration pushing me back in the seat, others prefer massive cornering abilities.

I think for many enthusiast drivers it is a combination of factors. In raw terms of cost/useage a fast car may not be justifiable (mine isn't) but the feel of it on the right road, top down, listening to the v8 as you accelerate, is very hard to beat. You don't have the money for serious speed? buy a classic car that looks good and has a decent chassis.

My own sports car gets used at the week end and has been a ridiculously expensive 'hobby' thus far. I know it's worth it every time I start it up and take it for a drive.

You seem to be going off your own topic, talking about Rover K in performance thread




Cannot take their ordinary cousins for a track day

Just must have at least a V6

It just aint going to give me a thrill otherwise

_________________
Steve

I think you've comprehensively missed the point there.

Many drivers do not appreciate the performance (such as it is) available from their cars because they don't feel comfortable with using the upper half of the rev range.

So someone driving a Honda Civic 1.6 might think it is a sluggish car, not appreciating that it has a V-TEC engine that will deliver strong acceleration (for cars of that class and power) if extended beyond 3500 rpm.

Also, unless you insist on a particularly narrow definition of "performance car", surely several K-series engined cars such as MGF 160 and MG ZT 190 qualify in this category.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Another point that could be made in this thread is that a measure of driving skill is being able to drive slow cars quickly.

It's amazing what performance "rural bloke in overalls" seems to be able to coax out of a diesel Fiesta van - but that's not quite what I mean.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

IMO ANY car that has abilities that the driver cannot fully utilise, or is afraid to utilise, is a performance car. For some drivers this could be a FIAT 500 or a Renault 4 whereas for others nothing less than McLaren F1 would be considered a performance car.

My Subaru STI develops 200kw at the wheels and to this point I am unable to extract the full measure of its performance so, to me, it is a performance car. My BMW M3R develops around 190rwkw and I can extract 95+% of its performance ability (after driving it for 10 years). As I can now extract almost everything it can offer it has fallen from the performance car tag to my everyday car. I would still choose it over the STI on any track anywhere even though the STI would be quicker.

For almost every person I know the BMW is truly a high performance car as they know they are nowhere near good enough drivers to be able to control it for more than 60-70% of its abilities, but I no longer feel that way as I really know it intimately and CAN control it to 95-100% of its abilities.

Although an Aston Martin Vanquish might not be as quick around a race track as my BMW I would consider it to be a high performance car because it would take me months, if not years, before I could master it to the same level as my BMW. The same could also be said of many cars with lower power and performance levels to my BMW because I cannot drive them to their full potential.

I was once talking to Alan Jones about his career in Formula 1 and he was telling me that during the season he was constantly onto his engineers to improve the car because it just wasn't performing. After a two week break he came back to testing and after the first session complimented the engineers on a fabulous job because the car was running so much better. They hadn't touched it; he had simply lost some of his "oneness" with the car after such a long break from it.

During the season he called the car a slug, sadly lacking in performance, but after a break it had brilliant performance.

Please forgive the long post but I wanted to explain why I believe there are very few cars that can be genuinely called high performance by everyone.

So, to sum up, performance is in the eye of the beholder!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

PeterE, it's all to do with how susceptible you are to having your mind manipulated by car manufacturers. For the marketing process to work most effectively, manufacturers establish a product range, and market each level of the range such that a consumer will desperately want to move up the range. This is to ensure a good level of churn. Also, throw in some planned obsolescence and style changes, massive advertising and product placement campaigns and blitz the consumers with Clarksonesque media drivel showing how advanced the new product is, and you can create an infinitely high escalator, with the poor consumer paying out all the time in order to stay at the top. Load the consumer up with anxiety, peer pressure and an inferiority complex, and you can keep him on the trot for years, until he finally matures and realises the scam. Poor bastards! Put the cherry on the cake by advertising the age of your car on the number plate, and you have a perfect formula – cars as jewellery!

In short, it's a basic scam, but perfected by big business to extract the maximum revenue. Unfortunately, I think the image setting part of this (speed, power, impunity) serves road safety very poorly, but many law cases have already established manufactures put sales ahead of safety, so this is no surprise.

_________________
I stole this .sig

So why should car manufacturers be any different to anyone else.

It just so happens that they are also one of the most regulated industries in the world when it comes to type approval. Currently keeping pace with changing safety legislation is the single biggest burden on the car manufacturers.

Also the industry most victim to "politics" Look at how many different versions of a car have to be made to suit the laws of the country they are sold in. In Japan they have to have a flare gun fitted as well as an overspead warning. In the USA they have to have a fully sealed fuel system and the tightest emissions legislation in the world.

If you want to see where economics overrides safety just look at MRSI in hospitals. It kills more than the roads do and is 100% preventable

And then there is the rail industry.....


I prefer to think of it as freedom of choice..

My car buying priorities:-
Style
Performance
economy
safety
In that order. But then thats my choice. That's why I don't (and never will) drive a diesel people carrier..

I ride a motorcycle as well which is 30 times more dangerous to me than a car so I realy don't worry about how safe my car is!

I would NEVER consider pedestrian safety when buying a car. Not my problem,sorry..
I may be more public spirited if I didn't think I was being screwed by the state every time I use my car.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

They are not inherently different, but car makers are most proficient because they are the biggest commercial organisations in the world. Type "GM Anderson case" to see an example.



Cars as jewellery. They have us well hooked. It has the beneficial effect for some economy conscious motorists of driving down the cost of older models.



And I don't care how safe your car is for you! On second thoughts, I actually do care a little about you, but I would especially like it be safe for ME or my kids walking to school when you are about! I’m selfish that way.



Disregard shown to pedestrians and other road users leads to calls for enforced regulation, and that's why you have cameras, humps and so on. We bring it on ourselves. If we screw with them, we expect to get screwed, and don’t complain – you know that is how it goes, from primary school on!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Like I said..not my problem.

Like you said you don't give a toss about me and I don't give a toss about you, or your family. So we agree about something.

As far as choice is concerned...you do come accross as a bit of a control freak. You don't alow others to hold opposing views to your own. You want to control the actions of others in line with your own (distorted) thinking, to make you feel safer.

As for me I do what I want when I want to. And I expect others to do the same. Its called freedom. Life can never be "safe"

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I think there's a big difference between not being concerned about how safe a pedestrian would be if they came into contact with your vehicle, and not being concerned about driving in a manner which avoided coming into contact with pedestrians in the first place. Driving a vehicle which fares badly in crash tests does not imply that the driver has no regard for the safety of others. How many NCAP stars did your latest banger earn

30% of all cars on the road are more than 10 years old.

How would they perform.

What percentage of people actualy look at the pedestrian safety when buying a car....not many I bet.

It's PC gone mad.

Make someone feel "guilty" and you gave won control of them.

I feel guilty about nothing I do anymore. Thats what 45 years of life has done to me. And I feel realy good about it..


Yep...spot on, now it's my turn

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Every action has an equal reaction. Disregard drivers show to others gets used against them later. Hence all of these controls and all this grumbling. It is a trend, Gizmo.

But I bear you, nor your family nor any of the posters I have tussled with here (even millsee!) any ill-will at all – I hope the lot of you have long and happy lives. I am more concerned about the safety of me and my family, though.



PeterE is asking about why people are motivated to buy expensive things they don't need. That's called “good” marketing, and it is the manufacturers who are trying to control us, not me!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Control is where someone applies there will on others. That is what laws do. The EU is full of such people. Making laws for the sake of it. Law making is big business. If you want abuse of marketing just look at the scamera squads. What ever happened to the 1/3rd lie anyway..

This whole camera rubbish is down to "good" marketing. Making people feel safer when actualy they are not. Is that not an abuse of marketing.

I would put much more trust in what a car salesman was saying to me than a speed camera partnership..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

You're just having a bad day, Gzimo. Before you run amok, think back to this guy:

_________________
I stole this .sig

I don't think they had that system when my current classic model of the 80's came out!

_________________
I stole this .sig