66 replies to this topic

[biercemountain]

I'm curious, how far back do you think you'd have to go before a road car such as a Ferrari 360 or some similar exotic production machine could keep up with an F1 car? Seems like you'd have to go back a mightly long time, perhaps to the 1.5 litre era. Even when F1 cars didn't develop massive horsepower they sure were light and nimble and I'm sure a much more powerful road car would have a hard time competeing with the formula car.

Anyone care to offer an opinion?

[Bernd]

I'm not entirely familiar with the capabilities of the 360 Modena but I have a hard time believing it could keep up with say FJ's 1964 Championship winning Ferrari. It doesn't have double the power but it's more than double the weight so..............

[Ray Bell]

And FJ had some 'high hysterisis' Dunsafes...

I think you'd need to go back to 250F times, really, if not before that... But a lot would depend on the circuit... I mean, what would a Bugatti turbo thingy do at Avus?

[stuartbrs]

Im not 100% sure, but I think its Nick Mason`s book "Into the red" which delves into this, and from memory, ( I cant check,its my mates book! ) the 1.5 litre F1 cars will out accelerate any road car ever built...( Im guessing that excludes things such as Ferraris new supercar but includes vehicles like the Porsche 996 Turbo`s etc..)

[Wolf]

I don't know how modified, but didn't Lotus 7 run in one of South African races in 1.5l era? And that would be, I guess, the last front engined F1 car?

[stuartbrs]

I have a very vague recollection of seeing a pic along those lines wolf, anyone know where to find it??

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Wolf
I don't know how modified, but didn't Lotus 7 run in one of South African races in 1.5l era? And that would be, I guess, the last front engined F1 car?

Depends on the date... the Ferguson ran at Oulton Park late in '61 (August?)...

It was also the last front engined car to run in the Australian GP... 1963, with 2.5 engine... while a Lotus 7 (Jeff Dunkerton, 1962, Caversham) was the last sports car to run in the AGP.

But I don't think the 7 would live with some of these modern fancy cars at all...

[Wolf]

Ray, it ran in '62... BTW, the thread below states it was Rand GP.

Stuart- http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=48724

[Ray Bell]

Before you confirm the claim, check that there were no Lolas or Stanguellinis with Alfa engines in the same or later races...

[Racer.Demon]

I can remember a Top Gear item that ran some years ago, comparing a Ferrari F1 car to a Ferrari F50. There's a video clip of it on Kazaa. I'll download it to see what it was all about.

BTW, as Mike Lawrence summarizes, Brausch Niemann's 7 ran in the Rand and Natal GPs of 1962. It had a 1.5-litre Ford 105E engine and outqualified several Alfa and Maserati-engined Coopers to line up last on the grid in the Rand GP. He finished 11th, 5 laps down on Clark, but the car's top speed was clocked at 142mph. At Westmead he qualified 20th of 32 runners, but retired. Quintin should put Rob Young's picture back online!

[Frank de Jong]

A modern supercar laps the Nürburgring in about 7:30 mins (German Sport-auto does this sort of thing). This is not exactly the 1960's Nürburgring (I'm not sure if it includes or excludes the current GP circuit); if it doesnt include it, it's a bit shorter than the old circuit (it misses the betonschleife then - but you have to count 2 straights only); so it might lap the old Nürburgring in 8:00 - 8:30?

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
I can remember a Top Gear item that ran some years ago, comparing a Ferrari F1 car to a Ferrari F50. There's a video clip of it on Kazaa. I'll download it to see what it was all about.

Right, have watched it just now. At the end of the item, Needell in Prost's 1990 Ferrari and Clarkson in the F50 go head-to-head on some undefined Italian test track to find that there's not much in it from 0-60mph. And the cornering ability of the F50 is rather good too! In fact, the F50 loses out due to the need to comply to emission regulations and the necessity to downtune its engine to have it last longer than a Grand Prix distance.

They finish with some comparison notes:

Engine: 3498cc V12 (F1) vs 4698cc V12 (F50)
BHP: 730 (F1) vs 513 (F50)
Top speed: 206mph (F1) vs 202mph (F50)
0-60mph: 3.0s (F1) vs 3.7s (F50)
0-100mph: 3.4 (F1) vs 4.8s (F50)

[Peter Morley]

They finish with some comparison notes:
Engine: 3498cc V12 (F1) vs 4698cc V12 (F50)
BHP: 730 (F1) vs 513 (F50)
Top speed: 206mph (F1) vs 202mph (F50)
0-60mph: 3.0s (F1) vs 3.7s (F50)
0-100mph: 3.4 (F1) vs 4.8s (F50)

It is very hard to compare since an F1 car's acceleration depends very much on the gearing and downforce, which are designed to be variable. The 206 mph top speed given for the F1 is presumably what it reached on a circuit.

If you took the wings off the F1 car it would reach close to 300 mph (champ cars run well over 250 mph quite frequently) - assuming the gearing was long enough!
If you geared it for acceleration, it could reach 60 or 100mph very quickly but top out at a lower speed.

Motor magazine tested my 1974 March F1 car with a 5th wheel and it had virtually linear acceleration, something like 0-50 in 3 secs, 0-100 in 6 secs & 0-150 in 9 secs.
That was using whatever gearing it had for its last race - it could have been much quicker if it was geared for 150 maximum.

A 1.5 litre 60's F1 car has 210 bhp and weighs 450Kg and is not very big, that gives it great acceleration and a pretty high top speed - they reached speeds of around 170 mph on the high speed tracks they had in those days (Formula Juniors reached 145 mph at Rheims).
But the limited power restricts the top speed, so a modern road car will have a higher top speed but acceleration and cornering will be pathetic in comparison.
So the speed round a track of the F1 car will be much higher due to better acceleration and huge cornering speed, but on a straight, or an oval, the modern supercar will be quicker.

When we were running in our 1927 Bugati type 37A (1.5 litre supercharged 4 cylinder car - which had well under 100 bhp) I used to follow in a Golf GTi (Mark 2, 16 valver - apparently one of the quickest GTis) and the Bugatti was quicker in acceleration (and that was running it in, keeping the revs down) and when you reached a corner the Golf was on its doorhandles (even with a suspension kit) when the Bugatti wasn't even trying.
And a 37A is a lot slower than the full grand prix car (35B or 51).

Look at the old DTM cars that used to get people excited because they were so 'quick', their lap times were slower than an F3 car with a fraction of the power!

[Mark Beckman]

Ray do the current GTP cars lap faster at Bathurst than the late 60's open wheelers (including Caltex Chase) ?

I think they do.

[Ray Bell]

You tell me...

Niel Allen did a leisurely (but probably frightening) 2:09.7 in the F5000 McLaren... but behind him Leo Geoghegan in the 2.5 Lotus did a 2:12.1.

What would you add for the Chase? Five or six seconds? Eight or nine?

But what would you deduct for the surface all the way around, the eased corners etc?

[Gary Davies]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
... Niel Allen did a leisurely (but probably frightening) 2:09.7 in the F5000 McLaren...

Wot! That thing with wings and slicks and all ... all glued down to the road. Ted Gray's 2:43.5 practice lap in 1958 in the Tornado fitted with the 4.6 Corvette engine would have had its own brand of frightening.

[BRG]

Originally posted by Peter Morley
A 1.5 litre 60's F1 car has 210 bhp and weighs 450Kg and is not very big

These are figures that are matched by some of the Lotus 7 clones that are now available - things like the more developed Caterhams, Westfields and Dax models. These are all very light - in the 500kg range - and come with various engines, including V8s, so there are ratings exceeding 210bhp. These road-legal cars would presumably be able to match a 1.5 ltre F1 car.

Similarly, my friend's Darrian rally-car (also road-legal, although perhaps not really a road-car in the accepted sense) weighs in at around 700kg and has a 295bhp Millington Diamond engine. That should give it a similar power to weight ratio. (For those unfamiliar with it, the Darrian is a mid-engined fibreglass-monocoque coupe kit-car, designed especially for tarmac rallying. When used in the British GT championship a few years back, it won the championship outright due to competing in the lightweight GT3 category). I would reckon it would give a 1.5 litre 60s F1 car a run for its money.

Once the 3 litre formula came in, no road-car could compete and I think that still applies to this day.

[GunStar]

Do we get to count the Dauer 962?

I'd give the old F1 cars a good running, but give the modern supercars some benefit against the old 1.5L cars. Tire technology, suspension, and ug, traction control help bring them around in the corners. Sure they'll be out accelerated, but is drag racing everything? Let's also look at who's driving the supercar. Is it Jane Doe, or somebody like Frank Biela?

[Viktor]

All info I can provide here is that modern Ferrari cars (F50, 355, 360) lap Fiorano in 1.3X and modern F1 cars in 0.57.

/Viktor

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by BRG
These are figures that are matched by some of the Lotus 7 clones that are now available - things like the more developed Caterhams, Westfields and Dax models. These are all very light - in the 500kg range - and come with various engines, including V8s, so there are ratings exceeding 210bhp. These road-legal cars would presumably be able to match a 1.5 ltre F1 car.

Presumably the V8 cars are heavier, but some of the smaller engines must have similar power outputs and similar weight.
Where the F1 car wins is frontal area, top speed is much higher (I think Caterhams tend to stop around 120 mph?) and cornering speed.
Traction in the F1 car will be better so acceleration is probably a bit better but I think you are right, overall they will be pretty similar.

Let's also look at who's driving the supercar. Is it Jane Doe, or somebody like Frank Biela?

Same with the F1 car, probably far more so they are much harder to drive.
Modern cars are so easy to drive that it is going to be easier to go quick in one of those.

Of course a lot of these supercars are so wide that on a twisty road you can't go very quick

[skinnylizard]

i really dont have much of an answer to this..coz u guys are way smarter..
though i know whcih one id rather have..
a maserati 250f or a 360 modena...besides..which one do u think required "balls to drive"

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Wolf
I don't know how modified, but didn't Lotus 7 run in one of South African races in 1.5l era? And that would be, I guess, the last front engined F1 car?

There was Lance Reventlow's Scarab F1, which ran in the early 1960's, if I remember correctly?

[Ray Bell]

The Scarab was no longer F1 once 1960 ended, though it ran in Intercontinental races in 1961.

Originally exclaimed by Vanwall
Wot! That thing with wings and slicks and all ... all glued down to the road.....

But what road?

Bathurst in those times was a long way removed from the smooth surfaces of the other circuits around the place. I think at the time we fully expected Niel to get down to 2:05s, but he only did what was necessary.

Leo Geoghegan's time, however, was over a second quicker than that of Jack Brabham the previous year, much more representative of a competitive time for the car.

When one considers how much more torque the Chevy had to get out of Hell Corner and up Mountain Straight, and then to climb to the Cutting and again to claw out of the cutting and to lift the car to Reid Park, you see that the time is not representative at all. Then there was the additional speed it could have had down a straight over a mile long... put such a car on the circuit today and you'd have a very different result.

Niel also would have had in mind the spectre of what had happened to Bevan Gibson the previous year...

On the other hand, Ted Gray, a racer from pre-war times, a first rank speedway competitor, a survivor of a major crash just a few years earlier on Conrod Straight, a man who probably felt it was about time he got his name in the record books, was running on a circuit very much like all the other circuits on which he drove. He'd won at Longford earlier in the year between similar types of barbed wire fences, ran at the truly frightening Gnoo Blas, held the Wangaratta to Melbourne lap record and was responsible for many other unsuccessful attempts on his own life.

And he was out after the sheepstation that the Australian Grand Prix was those days...

[Frank de Jong]

Just for the fun of it.
I've checked sport-auto 12/2002. The lap-racord for streetcars on the 20,6 km circuit is currently 7:32 min, by a Gemballa-tuned Porsche. A Lamborghini Murcielago laps in 7:50, according to the same magazine.
Now the 20,6 km circuit might be comparable to the shortened 20,8 km circuit on which Stefan Bellof set the record of 6:25 during the 1000 km race in 1983. Let's declare the circuits equal (if not, find a faster car than the Lambo...), then a Lambo takes 122% of the Porsche 956s time.
On the full Nürburgring in 1982, unfortunately no Porsche 956 raced. A Ford C100 did, its fastest lap being 7:23. A 1983 Porsche would be a bit faster, perhaps 7:10. The Lambo therefore would take something like 8:45 mins. That's about the fastest lap in 1963 - though the Nürburgring was revised in the early 70's.
I'd say a modern supercar would be comparable to an early 1.5 F1 car.

Shoot!

[jmp85]

mclaren PR stunt... but who cares, it's immensely entertaining

7 megabytes, just make sure you've got the time (or the bandwidth)

http://www.cowlishaw...eo/mclaren.mpeg

the mclaren f1 roadcar, when outfitted for the FIA GT series, lapped silverstone in grossly 1:45. compared to an F1 who does 1:15s, that's a pretty big differential.

jmp85

[stuartbrs]

Nick Mason`s book lists acceleration times..not lap times, and I would hazard a guess , with a lot of confidence, that the main difference in lap times between those road cars and the 1.5 litre F1 cars is at least 90% to do with the VASTLY improved tyre performance.

When grooved tyres were introduced to F1 Max Mosley made a lot of noise about tyre technology. His analogy was simply that a 2litre touring car laped brands in much the same time as 1.5L F1 car ( I havent got time to check those times right now but I will try later , maybe someone here can confirm/debunk this ), and that the reason the 2L Tourer was able to do this was simply through vastly improved tyre technology ( obviously theres more to it than that, with suspension setups etc ), I think there is a lot of truth in this.

I dont think its fair to compare lap times with modern supercars and 1.5L F1 cars, more its the difference in the acceleration times where the 1,5L F1 cars slaughter road cars, even on those old skinny, super hard tyres...not the molten chewing gum glue that supercars use to stay stuck to the road.

[GunStar]

I think we've trying to figure out where they meet. Most seem to agree on the 1.5L era. I'll say this.... my Probe would get slaughtered by almost anything from 1955 on, and I'm proud to say I'm not losing to Pre-War cars.

A 2L touring car is set up with all the new fangled dohickies. It has a vastly improved suspension, tyres, and the fact that they run just a few horses less, if not equal. But Mosley forgot that safety and innovation have come a long way from the beginings of fuel injection, mid engines, and what not. And dammit if his organization hasn't castrated all those tracks, ripping half the good part of the courses off in the name of safety, and chichaning the rest. I'll bet he said that today, you can lap the Nurnburgring in about 4 minutes with todays Opel, while it took about 8 minutes for Jackie Stewart to fly around that place in 68.

I still want to hear about the Dauer 962 vs. That's "technically" a street car. Just talk to the boys at Le Mans

[Wolf]

Gunstar, with 7.3 sec to 200kph and top speed of ~410kph, not much need be said...;)

[stuartbrs]

ok, so when were talking about faster, are we talking lap times or acceleration? I guess seeing how were not talking top-fuelers it must be laptimes then.. in another thread I think it was becoming obvious that for the last 25 years or so the actual acceleration of an F1 car hasnt changed all that much.. take the Turbo`s for instance, with massive amounts of power came massive amounts of downforce and hence drag, but increased grip..straight line acceleration of those turbo`s wasn`t representative of the power the engines put out, and I guess its all academic anyway, as Peter syas, it all depends on the gearing, downforce etc.
obviously an F1 car in Monza spec will be much quicker in a straight line than one in Monaco spec, but the cornering power of the monaco spec downforce would be dramaticly higher ..
But I agree, the tracks that F1 race on now days are awful... truly, truly awful, bar Suzuka, I dont really get excited about any of them anymore..all the best tracks are reserved for touring cars ( Bathurst ) or club racing ( my home track, Baskerville, AJ describes as the best short course in the world )

[AndreasNystrom]

There is a video where Mercedes and McLaren hires Silverstone (might be that 7MB clip he posted)
where David Coulthard lets 2-3 Mercedes drive away long before he even gets into the Mclaren Formula 1 car, and drives away, and beats everyone at the finishline.
Thats how much faster a modern car is

[MichaelJP]

I think road car and F1 car relative performance *really* started to diverge once downforce began to dominate racing car design in the 70's.

Even road cars that maximise downforce like the Ferrari Enzo only corner at just over 1g in ideal conditions. Modern F1 cars can take that to 3-4g at high speed. Over a lap that makes for a *massive* difference even before accounting for braking/acceleration.

- MichaelJP

[2F-001]

FWIW - a quick Caterham 7 in road-legal form (including tyres) can lap Goodwood in about 78 seconds, with a skilled but non-pro driver (not me, I hasten to add... don't think I can get near 90sec...)

[Ray Bell]

Stirling Moss set the outright lap record there in April, 1960 in 1:24.65... 84.65...

What were the later records?

[2F-001]

It was down to 1:20.4 or 5 or so by 1965 (Clark and Stewart, I believe, shared the record).

I think was (just) beaten in one of the recent revival meetings when a race for non-Goodwood-contemporary cars (?) saw Lotus 49s and the like racing.

Testing there saw some really high speeds in later years (with downforce, as someone noted earlier) - the Ralt RH6 formula 2 car reportedly lapped in low 66s and I read somewhere that Hulme went under 62s in an M8F (over 140mph).

The Lotus 7 Club had loads of club track days in the late eighties- to mid nineties... at one such meet a truck arrived out of the blue looking to shake down a race car en route to somewhere or other. In return for a donation to the club's adopted charity, the Onyx squad thus undertook a short, unauthorized test - three laps. I believe they were clocked at something under 63s. I suppose this may be the quickest ever Goodwood lap by an F1 - but pretty quick out of the box, whatever.

Does anyone know the standing start record at Goodwood (for Sprints, that is)?
I seem to remember reading it was about 72sec (for a DFR-engined F3000 car, mid to late 1990s) but I didn't witness this, and can no longer find it anywhere.

[Ray Bell]

So, based on this, the modern 7-style cars eclipsed F1 cars from somewhere after 1965 at Goodwood...

But we can probably assume that 1966 times were well under the 1965 times. So that's the point where the times cross?

[Roger Clark]

Is the chicane in place for these test days? And is the road surface the same?

[Evo One]

I am surprised that the quick 'road legal' Caterhams etc. can get down to 1min 18 secs. at Goodwood. I did see a very well driven (by a competent race driver) F40 do a lap a shade under 1min 27 earlier this year. The same guy in a single cylinder 250cc. Rotax engined cart did a 1 min. 21!

The chicane is still in place for both races and track days at Goodwood and the track is virtually unchanged from how it was in the late 50s.

At this year's revival meeting Bobby Rahal managed a 1:23.221 in a 1.5 litre Cooper T79.

Jimmy Clark managed a 1:35 something in 1966 in a Lotus Cortina (probably c. 140 BHP) on concrete Dunlop CR65 tyres.

[MichaelJP]

Far quicker than even a Caterham are the "road-legal" downforce-producing bike-engined cars like the Radical SR3. I drove one of these at Donington recently and it was running rings round the Caterhams as it could generate 2+g's of cornering force. Admittedly it did have slicks on though.

These things are really stretching the road-legal thing though, they're only about 1.5" off the deck!

- MichaelJP

[Ray Bell]

There's something exciting about a really quick Clubman, isn't there?

For sure, this comparison has to stick to true road legal cars and road tyres... but don't think that CR65s were 'concrete'... that was five years into Dunlop's pursuit of the high-hysterisis theme.

[dmj]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
There's something exciting about a really quick Clubman, isn't there?

Yeah. I heard that Peter Monteverdi used a Mini Clubman as daily driver rather than any of cars he made... You thought about that Clubman, didn't you?

[2F-001]

A REALLY QUICK CLUBMAN:
I thought he meant a Mallock... there was a road-going one of those around the roads of southern England, a while back.

EVO ONE!! - at the risk of lowering the tone... I heard a story last night (ok, I was in the pub - I admit it) about someone calling himself 'evo one' who claimed a record lap for Goodwood whilst being 'serviced' by a female passenger... is this anything to do with you by any chance? !
Now that I do find hard to believe...

The current king of the 'road-legal' track cars does seem to be the Radical SR3, but of sourse, we're all stretching the point a bit! Even the Caterhams I referred to are 'road-legal' rather than 'road-sensible' and generally running on ACB10s - a non-steel Avon crossply which is more-or-less a slick with a vestigal tread slot or two... and, importantly, e-marks so they'll get through an MOT test.
On most 'normal' circuits the Radical is insanely fast, but of course it has notable downforce - whilst this must be really exhilerating to drive, I think wings and downforce and stuff is a strange way to go when driving purely for fun - if you're racing and everyone else does it then that's different - but racing a thing like that against more conventional road-going machinery seem a bit like taking the pi** ... or pot-hunting.

On the Nordschleife - the holy grail of the road-car lap time hunters - things like the Radical (or Sevens) lose out to modified twin-turbo Porsches and the like, because the lap is so dominated by long spells at maximum speed.

In my experience, most Ferraris don't appear to go so amazingly well on circuits - those that do seem to be modified, non-road-going or very well driven. Some of that will be down to the experience, intent or commitment of the drivers (and the size of the investment they have on the line!) but maybe they are not as 'accessible' or track-friendly as some other machinery. (I'm told that the 360 is a major improvement in this regard, though).

I had a ride around the Nordschleife in an F40 - now that's a desirable car - but it didn't seem too involving or forgiving. I would certainly like to own one - but I wouldn't swap my humble old Caterham for it!

[2F-001]

apologies - I double posted that...

[GunStar]

The small windy tracks love the old Lotus and derivatives. The long straights take to anybody with big horsepower. And of course, what little tweaks you may have do to the car.

While Ferrari does make excellent quality supercars, most are filled with many comfort add-ons. This is why the F-40 was built. Ferrari had gotten to far from their origins. So, every now and then (Read Decade), they come out with another limited production F1 bred hot rod that can take most comers. Now, Porsche still remembers and builds its road car based heritage. They have immense practical knowledge on the subject. And can build something to be really modified for fun. Plus, when you plunk down $250,000 for a 400HP V-8, you don't really have that extra $60,000 to slam a bigger turbo in.... and if you wanted to, where would you find it?

Wolf, I just wanted others to remember that special little bugger. So many fond memories of the IMSA 962s. And the "road" version gave a real special X-Mas list one year. That thing was the best I could think of to even stepping close to the early eighties. Otherwise, I was straining hard with the McLaren F1-GTR to come close to the Lotus 49.

P.S. Santa didn't deliver.

[Bernd]

Originally posted by 2F-001
EVO ONE!! - at the risk of lowering the tone... I heard a story last night (ok, I was in the pub - I admit it) about someone calling himself 'evo one' who claimed a record lap for Goodwood whilst being 'serviced' by a female passenger... is this anything to do with you by any chance? !
Now that I do find hard to believe...

To quote Mr Nye

"HOOEY!!"

[wawawa]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
0-60mph: 3.0s (F1) vs 3.7s (F50)
0-100mph: 3.4 (F1) vs 4.8s (F50)

The F1 car goes from 60mph to 100mph in 0.4sec???? Kind of hard to believe.

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by wawawa

The F1 car goes from 60mph to 100mph in 0.4sec???? Kind of hard to believe.

It's what they said - I just typed what I saw on the screen. But now that you mention it...

[Peter Morley]

0-60mph: 3.0s (F1) vs 3.7s (F50)
0-100mph: 3.4 (F1) vs 4.8s (F50)
The F1 car goes from 60mph to 100mph in 0.4sec???? Kind of hard to believe.

F1 cars tend to sit spinning their wheels and then suddenly leap forward when they find enough grip (unless you have traction control of course).

Is it possible the F1 car launches forward at some speed rather than accelerates constantly from zero.

In that case, initial acceleration would be much lower than later - but whether the difference is as huge as the figures show would seem unlikely, 0-100 in 4.3 would seem more likely, perhaps the numbers were switched.

[Wolf]

But, Peter, that (4.3) would make F40 acceleration from 60-100mph shorter (1.1 vs. 1.3 sec) than that of F1 car; even more unlikelier...

[fines]

Originally posted by wawawa

The F1 car goes from 60mph to 100mph in 0.4sec???? Kind of hard to believe.

That would mean an acceleration of approx. 45 m/s²! Impossible, if you ask me...

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

The F1 car (the 1990 Alain Prost one) does 0-62mph in less than 3 seconds, something like 2.7 seconds, and reaches 100MPH in around 3.9 seconds ish.Just watch the video again and the F1 car blitz's the F50 from 0-62mph and has around 100ft advantage over it when they both go flying past.

Ferrari F50 • 0-62mph = 3.7 seconds
• 0-100mph = 6.2 seconds (due to longer gearing)

Ferrari F1 car • 0-62mph = 2.7 seconds (just 0.3 seconds off todays F1 cars)
(1990) • 0-100mph = 3.9 seconds (faster than today's cars, due to lighter weight back then , around 550kg im told?)