Do newer cars really handle much better than older ones?

pablo128

I've often pondered this. My 05 Avensis has the bigger 17 inch wheels, and for what it is, it handles very well. However the original Avensis from 1997 came with 14 inch wheels. So would my Avensis handle better than the 97 version if mine had 14s fitted? And vice versa?

Now before you say that older car were much lighter, that's true to an extent. I have a 1979 Fiat 128 that weighs 850 kg whereas the Avensis is almost twice that. But the weight differential between cars in the same class in the last 20 years isn't quite as big.

Your thoughts or experiences welcome.

9935452

the 14s probably wouldnt fit on the newer car, the brake discs have gotten bigger over time too

Wibbs

*complete fcuking amateur who runs out of talent in a peddle car at 5 MPH opinion, masquerading as... well opinion, to follow*

It depends what one means by "handling" I reckon P. For me I'd break it very basically down to chassis grip, inc electronic assistance, or chassis "driveability" on the limit, where you as the driver are aware where those limits are. I've driven a few cars where grip was incredible. Right up to the moment it wasn't, where it went pear shaped and my meagre skill was left wanting and my eyes went big and round and tarmac was replaced by the greenery of roadside bushes... Backwards. And add in driver ability to that equation.

I remember reading of the experiences of a suspension expert guy regarding "road" or "race" setups. HIs take was that "race" setups could be fantastic if the driver had the talent and skill, but the road setups were better for the majority of the non racing driver types. And lap times backed this up. IE everyday drivers(most of us) did better lap times with road setups than race.

Wheel size is a complex thing I'd say. In some ways it's a design and fashion thing(because to modern eyes more wheel, less tyre looks "better") and in others a practical thing. IE allowance for larger brakes and less involvement of the tyre sidewall. Though again I would say on the latter point, less of a sidewall can give less warning of a car breaking away and that being missed by the driver. Never mind the lack of give over rough road surfaces. Me, I'd prefer a higher profile tyre rather than the wheel alloy taking up the strain.

It also depends on the "newer" car involved and the "older car involved. A 1960's Lotus Elan handles like the best handling thing ever, but compared to 99% of 60's cars who didn't... Average cars these days handle far better on average than older average cars. Handling is another thing.

gmacww

5th gear actually did a very good piece on this a while ago which I'm sure you could find on youtube. They had a mid 90's Mondeo against a 2015 one. I think they said the '15 model was something in the region of 200kg heavier due to all the new safety equipment however they'd also offset a lot of that weight by using titanium in places over other metals and stuff like that.

They reasoned that the larger wheels offered better stability and grip but required more power to turn them. Something which is easy now with modern day engines. When they hit the skid planes the mid 90's one spun viciously out of control. The '15 still spun but stopped a lot quicker and was a lot more controlled and predictable. Soon as it lost traction the electronics kicked in, braking, stability control etc... I'd also like to think that Ford (and everyone) has also learned some extra knowledge around handling and suspension setup.

In short modern day cars likely do handle quite a bit better than their older equivalents but as wibbs also said. I guess that depends on what you define as handling.

Henry Ford III

Not sure an Avensis ever handled well. Wouldn't have been it's strong suit.

Isambard

I had one new in 06 it was horrible and was chopped in in under a year
Not sure if a comparison between 97 and 05 will reveal much. I'm sure there's a huge difference between 97 and 17 though

josip

Newer handle better I guess.
When was the last time Porsche made a widowmaker?

fancy pigeon

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Not sure an Avensis ever handled well. Wouldn't have been it's strong suit.

My one surprised me how well it responds to driver input and holds the road. Doesn't feel sloppy or unnerving, tracks well and feels solid throughout. As a standard car, even when it had steel wheels and questionable tyres, it holds the road well, which kind of makes up for it's natural plodding nature...

The blue petrol one I had was totally different, no confidence in the corners, felt vague. Upgrading the tyres to Pirelli helped marginally

I guess it depends for each engine and car

Henry Ford III

Handling isn't just a matter of grip though. It's to do with confidence, tenacity, and most importantly feedback. The driver should feel and understand what's going on at the wheels.

Just my view.

Wibbs

josip wrote: »

Newer handle better I guess.
When was the last time Porsche made a widowmaker?

True, but again it depends on our definitions. Take for example the 1970's Lancia Stratos. Designed from the ground up to be a rally car(a couple of hundred homologated for the road). Rear engined, extremely short wheelbase. Fantastic handling car that because of the shortchanged wheelbase was very manoeuvrable and won a shed load of races. If your name was Sandro Munari. In normal drivers hands it made early 911's look stable. Ditto for another rally monster the rear engined Renault 5 turbo. The vast majority of non racing drivers will spin off into the wild blue yonder if they push it. The widow maker 911's could be stuck in this group too. Those kind of cars have incredible "handling" but are not forgiving and not exploitable for the average driver, which 90% of us are, no matter how we may think we're Fangio in our heads. Take two later road/rally cars from the same stable. The rear engined group B Ford RS200 or the Ford Sierra Cosworth. The latter will be far more forgiving to the average driver at near the limit.

Comparing newer with older cars is difficult enough. Weights and overall size have gone right up and so have electronic aids. If we were to look at the basic chassis minus the traction control etc we might well find many older cars have better out of the box grip and handling. Less weight makes a big difference, difference the electronics have to compensate for. As Colin Chapman said; add power go fast in a straight line, subtract weight go faster everywhere(especially unsprung weight). I've noticed it myself after trying out a couple of late noughties Golf GTi's. Very stable car, but my god you can feel the weight in corners.

Other changes might be things like much more power on average these days. I remember a time when 150 bhp was whoah there tiger!! More power can pull you out of sticky situations, but it can put you into them a lot more quickly too. Depends on how the chassis handles it too. Some can take much more power(the old NSX for example), while others the power can overwhelm the chassis(American muscle cars for the most part). Suspension plays a huge part. These days the McPherson strut is the go to setup and it has many advantages, like less unsprung weight, generally more compliant ride, simplicity and cost, but double wishbone suspension which few "average" cars have nowadays, is more rigid under load, allows for more adjustability and keeps more tyre in contact with the road under cornering, so a properly designed and adjusted setup is superior when it comes to grip and handling, but it's more expensive and has more moving parts that can go wrong.

Steering "feel" another one. Maybe it's just me, but I find many if not most modern cars to have less than older cars, some much less. IMHO electric power steering is the work of the devil. Feels too linear, too remote, too dead. It's harder to feel and judge the car "by the seat of the pants" as it were.

One area that has definitely improved is in braking in average cars and in a big way. Try driving pre 90's cars, or worse pre 80's cars and the brakes, or lack of them will give you instant grey hairs.

Wibbs

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I have driven stock family cars around race tracks for hours on end and they had no isssues (no brake fade, cooling or other issues). Try that with a family saloon from the 70's/80's and watch as the brake pedal goes soft after a few laps.

+1000. Now you could make a 70's/80's family saloon do that, but it would cost a fortune and would leave it nigh on undriveable outside of a track(and not much fun on it).

Then you have to take in advances in suspension setup (going beyond just making cars as stiff as skateboards)!

Yeah. There used to be the trade off of stiff as bishop in a whorehouse or comfortable, now you can kinda have both.

Modern cars are so user friendly but yet are so much more capable in all areas than older cars (coming from somebody who has a 70's sports coupe and a 90's coupe).

The average family car has come on so much further. There are pretty much no truly "bad" cars anymore for a start, even among the most basic of models. Not the case in the past. I've been driving since the early 80's and have driven a few from that era and before and after and stepping into the vast majority of them from a modern car comes as a shock to the system. Sure there were a few truly great drivers cars of the past, but they didn't come without compromises and they were rare enough.

I would say though that "feel" has dropped off somewhat, with the increased level of electronics between the driver and the road. Don't get me wrong I'm not the flat cap wearing greasing trunnions in the rain type, but that's what I notice the most stepping into new compared to old. Depends on the new and the old of course.

rabbitinlights

Think we need to define "Handle" - Are we talking about ride quality? On the limit control/fun/slip/grip or when you come into a corner a little too quick and need to correct to get yourself out of trouble.

New versions of the same car handle better for the most part but my take is that they "ride" worse - I love a nice 15" wheel with massive side walls. So plush.

beauf

Most modern cars are in a different league when it comes to grip, cornering and braking and suspension.

But a lot of them have almost no feel. You are completely detached from what the car, or the road is doing. They are not drivers cars.

JohnBoy26

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Not sure an Avensis ever handled well. Wouldn't have been it's strong suit.

They are perfectly competent in the handling department. Now they are no mazda 6 in terms of sharpness but they do everything well enough.

JohnBoy26

beauf wrote: »

Most modern cars are in a different league when it comes to grip, cornering and braking and suspension.

But a lot of them have almost no feel. You are completely detached from what the car, or the road is doing. They are not drivers cars.

It depends really. Some older cars particularly japanese cars in the c segment came with fully independent rear suspension while newer car models came with an inferior torsion beam. The honda civic and corolla are an example of this. The irs is starting to make a comeback though in cars like the latest civic and auris.

beauf

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

They are perfectly competent in the handling department. Now they are no mazda 6 in terms of sharpness but they do everything well enough.

This is perfect example where competent handling means its does everything adequately. But if you mean handling in terms of being a drivers car, then no it isn't.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/toyota/avensis

beauf

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

It depends really. Some older cars particularly japanese cars in the c segment came with fully independent rear suspension while newer car models came with an inferior torsion beam. The honda civic and corolla are an example of this. The irs is starting to make a comeback though in cars like the latest civic and auris.

Then you have the Mrk 3 or 4 Golf vs the Mrk5.

Some great drivers cars have a inferior torsion beam. Its more about the overall than specific things.

JohnBoy26

beauf wrote: »

Then you have the Mrk 3 or 4 Golf vs the Mrk5.

Some great drivers cars have a inferior torsion beam. Its more about the overall than specific things.

A torsion bar will always be inferior no matter how good the car handles. The civic type r is an example of this

JohnBoy26

beauf wrote: »

This is perfect example where competent handling means its does everything adequately. But if you mean handling in terms of being a drivers car, then no it isn't.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/toyota/avensis

Most cars in that class aren't really a drivers car though with maybe the exception of the mazda 6. I take those reviews with a pinch of salt tbh.

beauf

We are talking about an Avensis. You bring a Type R into it. A Focus or a Mondeo were decent driving normal cars compared to a Avensis. The point about the Golf is they they transformed the handling of that car. So its not about the class. Its about the ethos of the design.

JohnBoy26

beauf wrote: »

We are talking about an Avensis. You bring a Type R into it. A Focus or a Mondeo were decent driving normal cars compared to a Avensis. The point about the Golf is they they transformed the handling of that car. So its not about the class. Its about the ethos of the design.

Focus and modeo's handling is vastly overrated, there is absolutely nothing special about them. And as far as I am aware this thread isn't specifically about an avensis? So bringing a type r into it is perfectly valid.

beauf

I suppose for many people a car is for being from A to B and the difference between a good handling car (in dynamic terms not simply grip) and a mediocre one isn't noticeable to them. For me it's chalk and cheese. Driving a car with numb steering is like finger nails down a blackboard for me.

I've seen other people notice it in that they prefer driving one car over another but can't explain why. It's just nicer to drive they will say. Obviously some manufacturers realise this and go to great lengths to make a better drivers car.

Popoutman

Most drivers think "handling" is what is actually the driving feel. Handling is what happens when you run out of mechanical grip.

Certainly modern cars (in general) feel much lighter to control with overassisted steering and brakes, but with much better controlled suspension movements and stiffer chassis allowing the suspension to actually work properly. Tyre technology has come far as well. On the downsides, the extra physical mass associated with the safety features such as the chassis stiffening, door impact beams, ABS mechanicals etc etc means it's much harder for a manufacturer to make a light and inexpensive car these days.

With all of the associated advances in tech and design, it's a lot easier to predict how a car will behave when in the metal, and it's a lot easier to tailor that behaviour for the intended market. After all, Mrs. Average with 2.2 kids cares little for on the limit driving feel, and she's likely not got the ability to use a car's possible good handling if she loses grip. So cars are engineered to be understeery, over assisted, full of computer-led intervention to minimise control loss, any feedback dampened, and well insulated from the road noise and feel.

I suppose the answer to the original question is "It depends". The best of the old sports cars for handling and feel, got it as right as they could with what was available. New sports cars have much higher levels of mechanical grip and a higher and faster transition to sliding. Newer sports cars *can* be better for off-grip handling unless the electronics get in the way if designed well.
Older average cars had lower mechanical grip, much more feedback through the control, less well controlled suspensions, and worse handling once mechanical grip was lost. All of these have been improved in the newer models of average cars. But, the increases in mechanical grip mean people are much less likely to get to the stage of finding out how their car actually handles past the grip limits.

I like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPh90yNX-mY - Chris Harris in a C63 on 125-section spacesavers, so the mechanical grip is reduced, and a much lower transition to sliding, but it's predictable and fun.

Personally, I can't wait until there is a frozen day where I can get my car to a deserted icy off-road carpark and practice the handling when sliding, as I don't usually get to try that with 275-section road tyres on my current car.

Henry Ford III

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Focus and modeo's handling is vastly overrated, there is absolutely nothing special about them. And as far as I am aware this thread isn't specifically about an avensis? So bringing a type r into it is perfectly valid.

Arguing that an Avensis handles well is destined to fail. They are adequate and no more than that. They are designed and built primarily for comfort and reliability and not handling. There is a consensus on this in all the important reviews so it's safe to discard a single dissenting voice.

Focus and Mondeo have always handled well. Again a single voice suggesting otherwise isn't difficult to dismiss.

p.s. Posche 911 and Peugeot 205 GTI both had torsion bar suspension. They handled pretty well for their time.

Dravokivich

beauf wrote: »

Most modern cars are in a different league when it comes to grip, cornering and braking and suspension.

But a lot of them have almost no feel. You are completely detached from what the car, or the road is doing. They are not drivers cars.

I was recently driving a 2016 polo for a few days. Couldn't get over how light the steering was. I haven't driven a car without power steering, but the sheer amount of assistance was noticeable, to such a degree, I didn't feel like I was turning the wheel.

Wibbs

Henry Ford III wrote: »

p.s. Posche 911 and Peugeot 205 GTI both had torsion bar suspension. They handled pretty well for their time.

They did and they didn't. Both were fantastic up to the limit, but by god once you went over said limit... Hello hedge. Backwards.

Now a torsion bar setup can be made pretty good, but independent rear is better.

Henry Ford III

Wibbs wrote:

They did and they didn't. Both were fantastic up to the limit, but by god once you went over said limit... Hello hedge. Backwards.

Agreed. Without wanting to overly technical what about a twist beam rear suspension?

dr.fuzzenstein

Wibbs wrote: »

.

One area that has definitely improved is in braking in average cars and in a big way. Try driving pre 90's cars, or worse pre 80's cars and the brakes, or lack of them will give you instant grey hairs.

More like brown trousers...

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Completely unrelated to the op but I remember my first car not having power steering. It was like driving a tank. I fecking loved that car though.

dr.fuzzenstein

I would just go ahead and say yes on that.
My comparisons are just based on average cars.
Older cars:
A 1986 Ford Escort breadvan, a 1983 Opel Kadett, VW T3, a 1986 BMW 318i and a 1983 Mercedes W123.

The newer stuff is mostly Ford Focuses, recently a lot of Seats, VW Passat, Scodas, my 2 Cmaxeseses and so on.
I find the power, handling and braking vastly superior, so the average tin can has improved greatly.
No surprise that the old Beemer and Merc aren't bad in comparison, but the old sh*teheaps are terrible.
I also had a 1973 MKIII Cortina and it's braking and handling were just terrifying.

ambro25

rabbitinlights wrote: »

Think we need to define "Handle" - Are we talking about ride quality?

To my mind, that expression opens a whole sub-debate, a multidimensional one as well, best represented by a Venn diagram with both a 'comfortable-harsh' axis and 'sharp-marshmallowy' axis

rabbitinlights wrote: »

On the limit control/fun/slip/grip or when you come into a corner a little too quick and need to correct to get yourself out of trouble.<...>

To my mind still, that's more like it, and rejoins Popoutman's earlier post about the 'off-grip' definition somewhat.

Personally, I would define 'handling'
(i) definitely not as a car's behaviour during ordinary driving (as in: plodding/cautious), and
(ii) more as the car's behaviour under spirited driving, yet
(iii) still short of grip loss (which situation/behaviour is the exception, rather than the norm).

For background, I regularly 'swap' between a Mk1 MX-5 (98, fully stock), a Mini Cooper S convertible (2008) and a W203 C220 CDI (2007). and past ownership is 'epicurean' (:D), from Citroën AX (1.4 3-door, GT in disguise) to Scooby Impreza turbos and non-turbos, including Volvo estates (V50) and whatnot.

Handling is wholly different across all 3, unsurprisingly, but it's telling that I have found my 'default' driving style to be 'adapting' to the handling of each over the years of ownership: fast and smooth with the MX, faster and aggressive with the Mini, plodding and smooth with the Merc

The Merc is a ploady-mac-plodface beast. No problem driving it fast-ish and smoothly, but it positively hates shorter corners at high speed, and short/sharp steerage. Switch off the TC to get a bit of sideways action (on the very wet, I'm not a monster ) and it just fells unnatural, like the car was screaming 'rape, rape!' all along.

The Mini is just a license-losing monster, the popularly-described 'kart on open roads' on the dry, and borderline undriveable on the wet. It's also the most uncomfortable of the 3 cars, the heaviest-steer by some distance, the most tiring to drive, and that with the shortest limit between controlled/lost it and the least control over things after grip is lost (including with electronics disabled). And that's shoed with P-Zeros on all corners. Usefully, it reminds me nearly every time I drive it, why long ago I swore never to buy another FWDer (...but then forgot about it when the deal on the Mini happened along :rolleyes::o)

The MX is the best of the 3 for 'handling', by a light year. Because it talks to you at all times, like the other two simply don't. It's easy to drive fast, it's predictable in behaviour at all times, it's poised and firm without being crashy, it's happy in any stance whether you're at 1500 rpm or into the red <...> Basically, it feels to drive, slowly or fast, smoothly or aggressively, below-on the limit-or even (slightly) past it, like a loved glove that fits: point and it just goes, never with any quirk or behavioural trait that would undermine the driver's confidence.

Of the 3, it's also that which has the least intrusive/most natural-feeling power steering (to the extent wherein I often wonder if it actually has any: it's lighter than the Mini, firmer than the Merc, without being "wooly-light" at all, and I put the Mini's heavier steer down to its oversize alloys, relative to the MX5 15"ers). There's definitely an element of the driving position that feeds into it as well, since it is much lower and more 'loungy' to sit in than the Merc and the Mini, which both feel like being sat -respectively- in a comfy chair and at a kitchen stool by comparison (the issue which I probably dislike the most about the Mini).

/musings on the topic

Wibbs

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Agreed. Without wanting to overly technical what about a twist beam rear suspension?

That's torsion beam I think? Is cheaper and takes up less room, but independent is still better for chassis dynamics. It gives engineers more to work with. Just my humble but I'd rate in order of meh to the best; live axles, beam axles, McPherson struts, multilink/double wishbones.

LIGHTNING wrote:

You only really need power steering for parking thats it. I have two classics that dont have it and they are fine once you go above walking speed.

+1, though older cars were generally a fair bit lighter which helped. It just needs a tiny adjustment in technique. I only noticed this a few years back when a lad I was giving a lift to said he reckoned I learned to drive without power steering, because even now I tend to only start moving the wheel when the car starts moving.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

No surprise that the old Beemer and Merc aren't bad in comparison, but the old sh*teheaps are terrible.

Aye. There are few true sh1teheaps any more, whereas back in the past there were quite the number and the average family car was an exercise in compromise and entropy and more upmarket cars often weren't much better. Now you can get a pretty basic car that is leagues ahead of similar of the past. Brakes these days are so so much better. And when older cars were/are dynamically fantastic it almost certainly comes with compromises, usually in comfort. Cars today are much more jacks of all trades.

I would say an older car like the Lancia Delta Integrale wasn't too bad on that score. Stupid seating position and about as reliable as a baby's arse - a case of when not if it's gonna blow - but was fantastic to drive, gripped and handles, plenty of go and stop and could seat four adults in relative comfort. There'd be a few 90's cars in this bracket, but pre 90's not so much. Pre 80's I can't think of one(though a few were incredible driving machines).

Wibbs

ambro25 wrote: »

The MX is the best of the 3 for 'handling', by a light year.

Bloody brilliant little cars the MX 5's. Like you say they're always talking to you. Some cars you drive, some cars drive you, with cars like the MX 5 it feels more like a partnership going on. This latter aspect I find less and less with modern cars I've driven. They feel more remote, even some of the more lauded "sporty" ones.

road_high

pablo128 wrote: »

I've often pondered this. My 05 Avensis has the bigger 17 inch wheels, and for what it is, it handles very well. However the original Avensis from 1997 came with 14 inch wheels. So would my Avensis handle better than the 97 version if mine had 14s fitted? And vice versa?

Now before you say that older car were much lighter, that's true to an extent. I have a 1979 Fiat 128 that weighs 850 kg whereas the Avensis is almost twice that. But the weight differential between cars in the same class in the last 20 years isn't quite as big.

Your thoughts or experiences welcome.

Whatever about the 05 model, the 97-02 model was a terrible handler. Skinny tyres, didn't grip well on wet corners. In fact my brother wrote one off as a result...!

Harry Palmr

I could get a Pug 305 estate to dance on ice back in the day. Fantastic feedback and balance from when that marque was synonymous with handling.

beauf

Dravokivich wrote: »

I was recently driving a 2016 polo for a few days. Couldn't get over how light the steering was. I haven't driven a car without power steering, but the sheer amount of assistance was noticeable, to such a degree, I didn't feel like I was turning the wheel.

That's it entirely. Same experience in a current model Astra. This I assume is these electric powered racks that are over assisted.
That said it maybe the car itself handles well, but it just has poor feedback. You might as well be driving a keyboard.
I'd like to try the astra with a different rack. I say there is a decent car underneath with a difference steering set up. As it seems to have decent body control.

beauf

Popoutman wrote: »

Most drivers think "handling" is what is actually the driving feel. Handling is what happens when you run out of mechanical grip......

I don't agree. Handling is ALSO how a car drives while it has mechanical grip

I don't have to have run out of mechanical grip to experience good handling vs bad handling.

Henry Ford III

My MkII RS2000 has a live rear axle but still handles well. Sure it's tail happy particularly when it's wet but you can feel what's going on and you can genuinely steer from the rear with the throttle if you choose to.

The current (and indeed the next) Fiesta ST have a twist beam rear setup and have wonderful handling.

Wibbs

Henry Ford III wrote: »

My MkII RS2000

Respect! *bows*.

has a live rear axle but still handles well. Sure it's tail happy particularly when it's wet but you can feel what's going on and you can genuinely steer from the rear with the throttle if you choose to.

True and its many many motorsport wins down the years confirms its status. Appalling brakes as standard mind you.

Wibbs

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I could get a Pug 305 estate to dance on ice back in the day. Fantastic feedback and balance from when that marque was synonymous with handling.

+1000 IMHO the Peugeot 106 Rallye all 100 horsepower(though weighing 800 kilos) of it, was one of the finest handling and best craic of any front wheel drive car I've ever driven. Up to and beyond the limit, a limit it warned you well in advance of. And even then could be caught, unless you were acting the real muppet(unlike the 205, which could really bite). The French Lion really knew how to make and set up suspension back then. IMHO the Lotus of FWD for a long while(Honda took over that crown for a time). And yes it was a beam axle and McPherson struts, pretty basic and "low end", but being built like a stripped down racing snake, on a diet, makes a big difference.

conor2469

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000 IMHO the Peugeot 106 Rallye all 100 horsepower(though weighing 800 kilos) of it, was one of the finest handling and best craic of any front wheel drive car I've ever driven.

Agreed.
Light cars with lower power really do reignite the joy of driving. I have a Peugeot 205 XS (1.4 85bhp, 850 KG, Close ratio box) and it is the most enjoyable car I have driven in a long time