Depends on what you want.

If you want 'crush all comers with sheer power and strength' (the aforementioned Top Trump mentality) then moderns will always win out. Technology and engineering advances will see to that.

It's not about soul, it's not some misty eyed sentiment for days of yore, it's about feeling connected to the car, being part of the driving experience rather than operating controls. Feeling that your inputs have an immediate effect, they're not run though the system before they reach the wheels or engine, that the chassis is on your side, not the side of the numpties who don't care what the car does as a whole, just whether it can outpace 'lesser' cars (I really despise that term). See modern Audi supersaloons for a perfect example, utterly capable, utterly devoid of anything other than pace, a one-trick pony.

In short, there are many cars from the past, such as E30 M3s and Integrales (I too have driven both) which might not be as fast as their current counterparts, but they knock them into a cocked hat when it comes to giving the driver an appreciation of driving dynamics.

There are of course a hell of a lot of poorly handling sheds from the past, often held up as icons - the Capri springs to mind, it can be sorted and indeed was by those with deep enough pockets, but those cars that most people remember fondly from their youth were far from it.

 

modern cars should be better than older cars but my point was ( which i probably put poorly across ) that before you even drive some of these cars you have it in your mind its going to be wonderfull, or bloody awful.

looking at the performance figures for the S2000 for example, i thought its going to be a quick car, but its not, unless you drive it like a comlpete twat

0 to 60 supposed to be 6 seconds (has anyone actually confirmed this and still got a clutch)

my 13 year old Civic VTI (0 to 60 supposed to be 8 seconds) actually felt quicker in first and second gear than the S does? i had this car for 6 years,brilliant, im even concidering mabey getting another.

 

Yeah, but I can beat any car off the line on my Trek in first gear! It's power to weight & there is no lost motion between leg & back wheel. Equally as irrelevant as 0-60 though.

And 30 feels like 300 and then you die.

The Civic is light & very flimsy & hops over bumps far worse than an S2000.

It's very refined for a hot hatch (rear damping/floor flex issue notwithstanding) and the FN2 CTR would probably make more sense called the VTi. And believe me, Karen is loath to part with hers.

But I wouldn't compare it to the S2000, which is such a different prospect.

 

still missing my point , these were only examples

i expected the S to go well

the civic i was suprised it went as well as it did

. yes the S is a better car ( one track day so far) , the Civic i had didn't hop about as you suggest but was just a bit worn with 150,000 miles on the clock( i did a couple of sprints in the Civic , Lydden and Goodwood, ) the only comparison i'm making is what i was expecting and the result i got from each

do you see what im trying to say?

everybody has different expectations, im just telling mine


there must be something that you thought , that should be nice , or that should be quick , only to be dissapointed?


you say that anything before 1990 is cramped tinny rusting POS so i can only conclude that you were expecting them to be solid spacious everlasting gems!

 

I do see what you're saying and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by how exciting the S2000 was to drive.

I tend to do a fair amount of detailed research into cars and I am therefore rarely surprised. I tend to know what they'll be like before I get in.

I have to say, the Prelude's chassis settings also exceeded my expectations.

The Civic is therefore only comparatively poorly damped because it is cheaper & lighter. Apparently Rover engineers managed better compromises for UK's roads, although they had to 'jack' the rear suspension in order to fix it.

The most disappointing car as you ask would have been the Porsche 986 2.5 - a lovely sound, handles well, but it didn't feel as exciting as the 1.8 MX-5 I had.

It was sort of not disappointing, because it was probably at that point I realised outright performance was not the point & sensation was.

I was sort of 'saving up' for the Porsche at the time & really had to re-think things.

The answer was going to be the SSM (I'd long admired Honda's engineering; they never made a car I badly wanted to own) so I had to hope they'd do a good job. They did.

The 1990 thing is relative & was a pleasant corollary of the greenies' whinings;

Cars used to be about built-in obsolescence. Then the manufacturers were forced to guarantee they would meet emissions regulatiuons for 50,000 miles. Tis meant much tighter engine tolerances, no oil leaks, etc.

This, together with competition from the Japanese, resulted in an emphasis on higher build quality, the introduction of galvanised steel and more rigid bodyshells. Cars were rarely totally knackered at 50,000, like they used to be.

The 'spacious' thing is kind of just the way the market developed out of the above: park a Golf 1 next to a Golf 5 and see what I mean by cramped!

 

PS - the funny thing about the Civic's ride porblem is it only affects the passenger side!

Until you're aware of it (as a passenger) the driver thinks the suspension is superb.

It seems to be the secondary ride is quite poor, due to the short suspension travel & the engine being at the bumpy side of the road. The stiff sidewalls of the factory Dunlops causes the passenger seat to jiggle vertically in a very uncomfortable way.

Switching to Proxes has improved things slightly.

 

I've driven quite a few classic BMWs (sigh) and I agree about the E30 M3 thing. It might not be that quick, or well built, or blah blah blah... but I would give anything to own a Gloss Black Sport Evo. The SENSATION of driving one is something that cannot be replicated by 90 per cent of most moderns.

Similarly, I would give my right arm to drive an E28 M5, the only M5 I've not yet driven. It only has just over half the power of the current M5; but yet it holds a similar sway on my imagination.

The one car I'd always wanted to drive from being a kid which more than met up to my expectations was an M635 CSi. I'd always loved these, and I only got to drive one in 2003. Add on the fact that this was an early chrome bumper example from 1985 and as you can imagine, some things were woeful...

The gearshift had a throw which crossed counties and possessed all the precision of American fighter pilots.

The brakes were clearly made of clay.

It felt like it weighed about three tonnes.

But for all that, I that car. That something almost 20 years old still went like stink, handled well and had stunning steering and feedback was amazing. EVERYONE was looking at it, and a lot of cars got out of its way as I charged along Lincoln ring road.

All in all, it met my expectations, and then exceeded them. So it gets a out of me.

I still want one now.

 

I made similar points when I had the 348

One of the reasons journos raved about the NSX was that it redefined how really fast cars had to feel

Because let's face it, an NSX was not really faster than its contemporaries

Suddenly you didn't have to contend with a dog leg gearbox, meaty clutch and non-assisted steering

But I loved the 'engineered' feel of my 348's gearchange, the smell of it and every idiosyncrasy

Others found it too noisy, twitchy and difficult to drive

All of 'the others' were under 40

 

when i first drove the S i thought.. this is not very quick. then the salesman (after it had warmed up) told me to take it to the red line.. it's now quick i like the S, a very balanced car. if it had more steering feel it would be perfect for me. it's a little harsh for some, has a crashy ride and doesn't like bumpy roads but the payoff is that on smooth roads it's cracking.

all horses for courses i guess. no car can be the car for all men.. or women.

i like something which has the power to let go but doesn't do so on every single corner and has a level of grip which is very high so i can drive it quickly. i enjoy a good engine, a good gearbox and bullet proof reliability. bits not falling off.

i'd like a TVR one day.. but it won't satisfy all my requirements.

in terms of expectations i drove a rally prep'd Escort Cossie and that was like a rocket ship.. but totally undrivable - needed 3500revs to take off. much quicker than i expected.

drove an import subaru.. bored me to tears and didn't feel that quick. lots of daft dump valve noises too. light steering despite feeling very surefooted but nowhere near as quick as i expected in a straight line.

mx5 (for the missus).. cracking balance, great brakes, shyte engine.

 

i think i'm a bit spoilt by the cars i work on now because most of them are modified 50's and 60's Jaguars. the standard versions are ok, not exciting but a few modifications transform the way the go and drive

the maddest was a 650 bhp V12 E Type, i would say this was exciting to drive .

if i had the money i would buy a series 1 3.8 E type FHC. and do all the period FIA mods because they are fabulous even with their little quirks i think about