90's sports and "sporty" cars vs today's cars...

[djdrock]

I was just wondering, does anyone else think that the days of great/fun/beautiful cars are gone, or, not as good? Toyota had the Supra, and the MR2. Hell, even some of the Celica's were fun to drive, and looked great. Honda had the Prelude. Some were better than others, but a great car none-the-less. Even the Del Sol (Si), was a fairly mean 4 cylinder back in the day. Nissan had the 300Z. Even the 240SX was good. Mazda had the RX7. Some years, better than others, but still, a great car. And of course, the NSX. :biggrin:

Honda currently has nothing really, except the Civic. Toyota, nothing to speak of. Acura...pending. Nissan...the 350Z. Mazda has the RX8. None of which will age as well as the 90's versions/cars IMO.

Thoughts?

 

[The Kid]

Ive had this discussion with my buddies on countless occasions. Unfortunatly, todays demographics care more about gas mileage and safety than performance. There are some great cars out there but overall, I agree.

Great thread start, looking forward to see everyone else's thoughts.

 

[ETLMD]

I was just wondering, does anyone else think that the days of great/fun/beautiful cars are gone, or, not as good? Toyota had the Supra, and the MR2. Hell, even some of the Celica's were fun to drive, and looked great. Honda had the Prelude. Some were better than others, but a great car none-the-less. Even the Del Sol (Si), was a fairly mean 4 cylinder back in the day. Nissan had the 300Z. Even the 240SX was good. Mazda had the RX7. Some years, better than others, but still, a great car. And of course, the NSX. :biggrin:

Honda currently has nothing really, except the Civic. Toyota, nothing to speak of. Acura...pending. Nissan...the 350Z. Mazda has the RX8. None of which will age as well as the 90's versions/cars IMO.

Thoughts?

I really like the Japanese sports cars of the '90s.

Honda currently has nothing except the Civic? What about the S2000?

 

[docjohn]

As far as mid price point "fun" cars goes the performance of many sport sedans has surpassed the overall performance of those 80-90's cars you mention.The answer seems to be increasing HP to compensate for increasing weight across the board.look at how much HP the simple camry has now.The industry as a whole seems to be shying away from 2 door purposeful sportscars,instead catering to the needs of most families.The miata and corvette are iconic models which maintain market share.

 

[Ben]

The market shifted heavily towards SUVs in the late '90s, and the manufacturers followed suit.

In early '90s:

Toyota/Lexus had 4 sports/GT cars and 2 SUVs.
Honda/Acura had 5 sports/GT cars and 0 SUVs.

Today:

Toyota/Lexus has 1 sports/GT car and 8 SUVs.
Honda/Acura has 1 sports/GT car and 4 SUVs.

I think you'll see similar trends at the other manufacturers also.

 

[SilverStone05]

Yea, the 90's were definitely the glory days.

Acura NSX
Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4
Nissan 300ZX TT
Toyota Supra TT
Mazda Rx-7 TT

I have to agree, the successors for the Nissan and Mazda are just not the same. When the 350 and RX-8 came out, I always wondered how they got away with marketing cars that were slower than their predecessors.

 

[sahtt]

It was a very unique time and it shows. All the Japanese car companies poured their heart and soul in to building their first real sportscars for the world market. Sure there was the 240z, rx-7, supra, etc. already on the table, but within the first few years of the 90's they ALL came out swinging. First the Nissan, then FD and NSX, VR4 and MK4 right after that. No generic styling, no typical chassis layout, just the best each company could mold.

I personally think these cars have much more heart and character than cars today, even if they are inferior in most catagories.

 

[pegi]

Have to say, you are right!
Maybe something is coming out from Toyota, Nissan & Honda.

Time will tell :smile:

 

[blodi]

I agree. The 90's delivered a lot of my favorite sports cars. But I think good stuff is on the way. The NSX replacement is coming (love it or hate it, I am sure it will be an impressive car).
Toyota has the LF-A and the Supra replacement coming.
Mazda is working on the next RX-7 right now.
So maybe the '10's will be the resurgence of the 90's. :smile:
I do agree that the ones that did survive (350Z and RX-8) just weren't as special as the cars they replaced.
I do also miss the Celicas, Integras, and Preludes (especially the Preludes:biggrin: ) as well.

 

[nsxtasy]

I was just wondering, does anyone else think that the days of great/fun/beautiful cars are gone, or, not as good?

I sure don't.

There are cars you can get at a reasonable price today that are FAR more capable than any reasonably-priced cars back then - cars like the WRXSTiABCDEFG and the Evo 8/9/10/MR/4Q. Sure, they have stupid names and look like riced out kids' cars, but their performance could trounce any moderately-priced car from back then. Same thing with the S2000 and the 350Z, to name a couple more, and they're far better than anything comparable back then. Even the domestics have 300+ hp Mustangs and such.

When I traded my '84 CRX for a new GS-R in '94, I missed the smaller size and nimbleness of the CRX, but I knew that the GS-R was a far more capable car in performance terms. I'm sure the same would be true today if I traded that '94 GS-R for an '07 Civic Si.

At the more expensive end of the market, all you have to do is compare a plain jain C6 Corvette (400 hp) with its early 90s counterpart (230 hp, I think), or a C6 Z06 (500+ hp) with a ZR-1 (380 hp) and you'll see the same thing. Same thing is true with a 911 or 911 Turbo, a Viper, etc.

At the very high end, you've got over a dozen cars now getting 600 hp, including high-end sports cars as well as luxury sedans. In the early 90s, 400 was about the most you could shoot for, and I'm not sure you could even get that.

The del sol was NEVER all that great, except maybe the rare 160 hp VTEC version they introduced right before they killed it. The Prelude? Not sporty, easily bested by today's cars. The 240SX? Please, get serious. Some of the cars back then were not sports cars and not at all sporty.

The simple fact is, in virtually any price range, today's performance-oriented cars are far, far more capable than the cars back then.

 

[SilverStone05]

I sure don't.

The simple fact is, in virtually any price range, today's performance-oriented cars are far, far more capable than the cars back then.

The 350Z is slower than its predecessor the 300ZXTT. Handles and brakes better, but not as fast or modifiable. And its not as good looking. The RX-7 was faster and handles just as well as the RX-8 and looks a million times better.
There is no successor for the 3000GT in the Mitsu line nor in the Toyota Supra line. The WRX and EVO perform spectacularly well but they are ugly as sin.

The new cars may be as capable. However, are they as eye catching and moving? I think not.

 

[nsxtasy]

The 350Z is slower than its predecessor the 300ZXTT.

Absolutely NOT true. In fact, it's faster (because the older car was heavier). For example, 0-60 times were in the low to mid sixes for the older car, mid to high fives for the newer one.

And its not as good looking.

That's a matter of opinion. Now the 300ZX looks quite dated, IMHO. So do most of the other older cars you mention.

The RX-7 was faster and handles just as well as the RX-8 and looks a million times better.

You can find examples of one or two brands (like Mazda) where they had an older car that was more capable, but those are simply the exceptions to the rule. (Very few people think of the RX-8 as a replacement for the RX-7.)

There is no successor for the 3000GT in the Mitsu line

At 3800 pounds curb weight, we can all be thankful for that. From a performance standpoint, Mitsubishi's own Evo can do everything better than that piece of crap. And arguing whether one ugly car is better looking than another ugly car is rather silly.

The WRX and EVO perform spectacularly well but they are ugly as sin.

The new cars may be as capable. However, are they as eye catching and moving? I think not.

Looks, again, are a matter of personal opinion. Obviously, you like the looks of cheap cars from the 1990s, and you are welcome to your opinion. Heck, some people think cars from the 1950s are more beautiful than anything built since. De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[NSX7]

don't forget that the 350Z is more reliable than the 300ZX TT - same story for sure for the RX8 vs the RX7 - so these cars are better if you factor reliability into the equation

3000GT is definitely a piece of crap (my opinion) - I owned it for 6 months and I consider it a mistake.

Supra - can't comment on it because I never drove it and I do not like turbo cars at all

preludes, integras, etc.. were all nice cars back then - and I had quite a few of them but they are very slow by today's standards

The only car from the 90s that I still can't find a replacement for is the NSX - maybe I am biased in that comment but no car today (within the $30K range) gives me the same satisfaction I get from driving the NSX - simply none

 

[SilverStone05]

Absolutely NOT true. In fact, it's faster (because the older car was heavier). For example, 0-60 times were in the low to mid sixes for the older car, mid to high fives for the newer one.

LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNta7RQVFyY
Keep in mind, this is a 2+2 turbo, the HEAVIEST of the bunch (and not even available in the states) against a 350.

Here's another one you'll like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q7OFf5216s&NR=1

This video was using a 90TT which wasn't even the quickest. (95's were)

Looks, again, are a matter of personal opinion. Obviously, you like the looks of cheap cars from the 1990s, and you are welcome to your opinion. Heck, some people think cars from the 1950s are more beautiful than anything built since. De gustibus non est disputandum.

So a 40K car was "cheap" in the early nineties? What, then, do you call a CRX or an Integra?

 

[rickysals]

The 1996 300ZX TT MSRP was $43,XXX+ (not adjusted for inflation)

The 2007 350Z MSRP starts at $27,XXX.

They occupy different pricing areas... and the newer car is still as competitive as the old one.

 

[nsxtasy]

LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNta7RQVFyY
Keep in mind, this is a 2+2 turbo, the HEAVIEST of the bunch (and not even available in the states) against a 350.

Here's another one you'll like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q7OFf5216s&NR=1

Sure, you can find faster numbers at a dragstrip for ANY car. But I'm talking about BONE STOCK cars, using the STANDARD PROCEDURES that magazine testers use that make car-to-car comparisons legitimate. For example, magazines include all stock equipment in the car (go to the dragstrip, and everyone removes the spare tire, jack, floor mats, etc), they use the stock tires (drag racers don't), with recommended tire pressures (not the lower pressures used at the dragstrip), there are no mods on the car (unlike many cars), etc. It's the only way for a fair comparison, since any car can be modded to go as fast as your budget allows. And the numbers I mentioned are ones that the old, and new, cars consistently got in many, many such tests.

A bone stock 350Z is faster than a bone stock 300ZXTT.

 

[djdrock]

I sure don't.

There are cars you can get at a reasonable price today that are FAR more capable than any reasonably-priced cars back then - cars like the WRXSTiABCDEFG and the Evo 8/9/10/MR/4Q. Sure, they have stupid names and look like riced out kids' cars, but their performance could trounce any moderately-priced car from back then. Same thing with the S2000 and the 350Z, to name a couple more, and they're far better than anything comparable back then. Even the domestics have 300+ hp Mustangs and such.

Speed is only one aspect of a car. As an NSX owner, certainly, you would agree. Sure, we could get into much faster cars for what many of us pay for our NSX's, but why don't we? I don't have to answer that I am sure.

I would rather drive my 93 MR2 with 135hp anyday over the Evo. Again, this is only my opinion. And the 350Z...better than anything comparable back then? Are you kidding me? Some of them had 300hp plus off the factory line. Styling still looks clean and fresh IMO.

 

[nsxtasy]

Speed is only one aspect of a car.

True, but at least acceleration and top speed are objective aspects that can easily be compared. Looks are subjective and some people like the looks of old cars. Some people even like the looks of French cars. Go figure.

And the 350Z...better than anything comparable back then? Are you kidding me? Some of them had 300hp plus off the factory line. Styling still looks clean and fresh IMO.

IMO, the 350Z is a far better car than the 300ZX it replaced. The 300ZX looks like a 1980s car - very dated and stale IMO. And, as noted above, the performance of the 350Z exceeds that of the 300ZX, despite the horsepower disadvantage.

 

[sahtt]

There is no proof a 350z is faster either in acceleration, top speed, or around any given track then a stock 300zx twin turbo. Acceleration times are finicky, but a 5.0 0-60 has been achieved in the 300zx as well as a 13.5 1/4 mile consistently [stock]. They actually weigh almost exactly the same though people tend to look at the lightest 03 version of the 350z as a baseline. The lightest 300zx weighs less than the lightest 350z. Each year the car has added at least 50lbs though power has slowly been added as well.

However, none of that matters nor is it the point.

The 350z and RX-8 are built with a common theme. Similar performance, lower price, higher sales figures, and simpler power plants then their manufacturer's previous sports car. The 300zx turbo and FD were more or less elitist cars. Sales figures for both combined for all years are around 10k units [note turbo* 300zx]. Check out what the 350z did in just it's first year.

At the same time, that's also why people may never like them as much as their predecessors, where has the magic gone? The originality isn't quite there, the unique and individual power plants used only in those cars, etc.

I think another actually noteworthy point is that the older cars had much, much, MUCH more potential with relatively little funds power wise. Everyone knows the 300zx and supra are 400-500hp machines detuned by the factory to produce 300hp. Can you say the same for the 350z? I think not. Once again, arguably the mitsu's and sube's cover that market anyways, besides the fact they are sedans with commonly accepted "less refined" looks with 4wd.

The sube's and mitsu's just didn't come over here until relatively recently. They've also been big hits overseas.

 

[SilverStone05]

IMO, the 350Z is a far better car than the 300ZX it replaced. The 300ZX looks like a 1980s car - very dated and stale IMO. And, as noted above, the performance of the 350Z exceeds that of the 300ZX, despite the horsepower disadvantage.

In your opinion?...Have you had either or driven them on an extended basis?
I've had the VG30 and the VQ.

The 350Z:

13 years later, less horsepower, cheaper interior, INFERIOR straight line performance, less upgradability, did I mention ugly?

I will concede...better brakes, better handling....track races are no competition.

But not everything can compete with those expensive CRX's and Integras.

 

[davidf]

I had 3 MR2's {2 turbo}, and can honestly say probably the best cars I ever owned. Zero failure. They were very rare were I lived and like the NSX people really did'nt know what they were. 2nd fav. was my 87' Grand National.