What's Faster in the Real World? A Thought Experiment.

I read the idea that a hot hatch or similar is faster in the real world as compared to a legit sports car. This idea came from Jalopnik so I should have discredited it already but I can't shake it. I think a lot of this has to do with the terrible state of the roads here in Portland as compared to the places I've lived in California. Also, I recently rode in my buddy's lowered (on stock bolts) C5 that is sitting on C6 Z06 shocks and swaybars, and the ride was surprisingly bad on the freeway in Oakland. I can't see it doing well on the rutted, potholed freeways here.

The basis of this theory is that the hatch has more suspension travel and ground clearance so it would be able to carry speed more easily than a low-slung sports car over the not-so-smooth roads we drive one every day. What do y'all think about that? Would something like a Focus ST or WRX be quicker than something like a Corvette or Cayman S on real roads? Obviously the Corvette or the Cayman would wipe the floor with the hatches on a race track, but race tracks don't typically have potholes and\or broken, dirty pavement.

I think it might depend on how brave the drivers are.

I can tell you that across town my Miata is much faster then my ACR.

depends when and where. January in Chicago - everything is faster than a sports car. Summer at the tail of the dragon - an RV might have the edge .

As a former corvette owner and current wrx owner, the corvette is faster in everything as long as the road is dry pavement.

Usually those arguments are about what you can legally do. And how much fun it is to drive a slow car fast and still be close to legal than a fast car slow

I have a Miata on 700lb springs with lots of low speed compression, and I have another one on stock suspension. Absolutely the stock one gets driven faster on the back roads around here. It just absorbs all the crappy broken pavement impacts that make me feel like i am abusing the 'nice' car.

You should at least consider FWD, with LSD and sufficient torque. Fast and safe.

thatsnowinnebago wrote: ...I think a lot of this has to do with the terrible state of the roads here in Portland as compared to the places I've lived in California...

Totally unrelated to your question, but just so you aren't too depressed, I have it in my head that you moved here pretty recently; I've never seen anything like the state of the roads after our extended multiple-freeze winter. It's not normally anything like this bad. It's been jaw-dropping compared to normal.

Ransom wrote:

thatsnowinnebago wrote: ...I think a lot of this has to do with the terrible state of the roads here in Portland as compared to the places I've lived in California...

Totally unrelated to your question, but just so you aren't too depressed, I have it in my head that you moved here pretty recently; I've never seen anything like the state of the roads after our extended multiple-freeze winter. It's not normally anything like this bad. It's been jaw-dropping compared to normal.

You'd be spot on. I moved here at the beginning of August. That's really good to know though. I've been assuming that this was normal.

Hmmm. The skinny tires and worn suspension on my 1.6 or the normal wear of the suspension and fatter tires on my two liter? Been driving the latter the most recently and on E36 M3ty city roads it will track with the furrows more noticeably so you have to pay greater attention. The smaller livelier engined version does seem quicker sometimes being the stick shift one even if it is less confidence inspiring in corners. Plus in a small 90s coupe people might not cut you off as much and let you in so there is that if we're to believe that urban myth or is that just Britain?

Fast on rough terrain? Trophy truck is the answer!

You know there was a time when performance cars weren't all so low and stiff. They were just plain fun to hustle around on real world roads and the ride would still put any modern hot hatch to shame. They were more compliant and still exhilarating to drive. As a matter of opinion I would say it was a better time and they were better cars.

So here is soemthing along those lines; my old Volvo 144 rally car had no sway bars on it. On washboard roads it would glide over pavement, what you lost in cornering force you gained in ability to put the power down.

This like motorcycles where people mistakingly believe they'll be faster, monster brakes and fantastic acceleration. In traffic a car can't compete but on a clear section of road (be it canyon or track) the lower corner speed coupled with the lower corner exit speed leaves them lacking.

Any car with better suspension compliance taller vantage point and smaller overall size is an advantage in traffic on less than stellar roads.........it's just not very large.

Tom

Chadeux wrote: I think it might depend on how brave the drivers are.

Agree, it's relative to cup size. A cup vs DDD...or larger.

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: You know there was a time when performance cars weren't all so low and stiff. They were just plain fun to hustle around on real world roads and the ride would still put any modern hot hatch to shame. They were more compliant and still exhilarating to drive. As a matter of opinion I would say it was a better time and they were better cars.

Amen.

That's what surprises journalists the most when they drive our V8 ND. It's set up to flow over the road, not batter it into submission. It's all about travel and body control while keeping the wheels on the ground. The acceleration they expect, the fluidity and composure they do not. It's because I learned how important this was while setting up for the Targa Newfoundland. Tires don't do you any good when they're not on the ground, and in order to do this you have to let the suspension move.

The last journalist to drive the car said that the only other car he'd driven with the same feel was a Singer. And my counterpart at Singer is a rally driver. It's maybe no coincidence.

Mazda's setting up the current Miatas this way as well. People complain about the soft suspension and the body roll, but they just work. They suck up the road and stick. And Dave Coleman at Mazda is a rally driver.

I didn't understand the 1997 Legacy GT my parents owned until I took it on a long road trip on two-lane roads. That suspension that seemed so soft in the city was just bottomless and allowed the car to do what it needed to do without getting all upset about the surface. Guess who won the WRC championship in 1995, 1996 and 1997?

I'm starting to see something here.

I discovered this when i moved to the Texas hill country and traveled those roads in my stock (at the time) Caravan and my slammed Dynasty. Also had a stockish mazda3 with some tire rub when i put 245s on it. The caravan would absolutely get from point a to point b fastest due to the suspension travel. Stuff that i thought would break the other cars just made me giggle when i'd bound through it in the caravan and feel the zero-g moment when i bounced up out the other side.

I dont think that really applies to hot hatches because they don't necessarily have decent clearance or travel. I think what's more significant in the case of hot hatches vs sports cars on E36 M3ty roads is FWD vs RWD. Everyone wants to rag on FWD but my feeling is that in the real world most people are likely to drive FWD cars harder on the same road because understeer is simply safer and easier to plan for.

In reply to a few of you: That's why I couldn't drop this idea. I was thinking that rally cars are crazy fast on normal roads because they can put power down in all kinds of situations partly because of their suspension. I remember my miata was pretty solid on rougher roads even though it lowered because I had ISC Racing top mounts in the rear so I didn't lose significant suspension travel.

The sports car is fast on real roads IF you don't lower it.

The two fastest real world cars I've driven were both big spring, small (or no) swaybar tuned cars at stock ride height.

Seriously, triple the spring rate on a normal car, keep it stock height and watch while it laughs at your pot holes and air time.

The actual speed being carried doesn't matter in the real world...The sensation of speed being carried does. A more compliant (yet controlled) suspension generally provides more sensation of speed, as well as giving the driver the confidence to carry more of that perceived speed on rough surfaces. And in many cases, that can translate to greater actual speed as well.

Vigo wrote: I dont think that really applies to hot hatches because they don't necessarily have decent clearance or travel. I think what's more significant in the case of hot hatches vs sports cars on E36 M3ty roads is FWD vs RWD. Everyone wants to rag on FWD but my feeling is that in the real world most people are likely to drive FWD cars harder on the same road because understeer is simply safer and easier to plan for.

This! The reason that all those auto journalists say the Fiesta ST is so fast "in the real world" boils down to the fact that it is a well-set-up FWD chassis. Understeer is easier to deal with; safer to fix mid-corner. Therefore FWD cars are easier to push hard when there are no runoff areas and the apex of the next corner is occupied by a texting trophy wife in Porsche's latest cute-ute.

I don't know what most of the rest of you are talking about. I'd wager that the average tarted-up hot hatch or sport sedan has stiffer suspension than the last few stock Corvettes, Porsche sports cars, and Miatas I've driven.

I got a wake up call when I realized that a 2.2 Cavalier was faster in every way than my bridge ported 13B engined RX-7 with all of the suspension tricks you could fabricate at it.

This is most of why I wanted to get another RX-7 and leave it mostly stock.

I mostly drive my Volvo now. I couldn't leave well enough alone, since the stock Volvo front spring rates were absurdly light so I had to fix that, it's on the barely-pleasant edge of being too stiff but it doesn't crash bumpstops anymore. But it's quiet and pleasant to live with and is ruthlessly point-and-squirt in traffic. No need to play cockroach stomping games while wiggling a hipster lever, I puts my foot down and the turbo spools up and the torque converter converts RPM into even more torque and I just go.

Also the Comp2s are godlike in the rain. I have to try extremely hard to make the ABS activate, and I've only ever done it while braking in a corner, which STILL sets off my "wrong, wrong, wrong!!!" mental alarms.

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: You know there was a time when performance cars weren't all so low and stiff. They were just plain fun to hustle around on real world roads and the ride would still put any modern hot hatch to shame. They were more compliant and still exhilarating to drive. As a matter of opinion I would say it was a better time and they were better cars.

THIS

Speaking of hot hatches, my all time favorite odometer-racking car has been my Golf. Technically not a GTI, but you could get an 8V GTI and it had the GTI suspension under it, so the only things missing were the badge and the tartan interior.

Not necessarily "fast" in a clinical, objective measurements in perfect conditions sense, but DANG was that car unflappable under any conditions, and willing and able to allow me to exploit traffic situations as they developed.

Knurled wrote: Also the Comp2s are godlike in the rain. I have to try extremely hard to make the ABS activate, and I've only ever done it while braking in a corner, which STILL sets off my "wrong, wrong, wrong!!!" mental alarms.

My friend drove my BMW mutt in the rain on them one day. He came back complaining that they were not fun because he couldn't get them to brake free. Too bad they lasted ~20k

Keith Tanner wrote: I'm starting to see something here.

Is the the part where I point out that modern rally cars use sway bars to control roll, anti's built into the suspension geometry to control pitch, and REMARKABLY soft springs to allow the tires to stay glued to the ground?