@@r390gt1lm well for a start the term ‘coloured’ is considered racist. Not sure why it even needed bringing up, you’ve clearly got an issue with diversity. Have a word with yourself mate.
progress isn't incredible at all. power to weight is still everything when it comes to endurance racing. the original audi quattro still wipes the floor with a new EVO. they didn't use the actual 590hp racecar, didn't even use the normal 400-450hp one. this is a heavily detuned one or a street car if it only has 20hp more than the EVO. even with ancient tires it will gap the evo, and with new tires it will probably gap brand new 100,000$ sportscars because you can't overcome power to weight, even with all the tech you throw at it, for example rearwheel steering does help mask weight but it also causes tire wear and no matter what brakes you throw on the modern landyachts, they won't be enough. so in an actual curcuit race or on an actual rally event. monte carlo for example has ~16 stages and is 257.64 km (160.09 mi) long. put new tires on the quattro and put ANY wannabe-homologation-rally-car from 2020 against it. put new brakes and suspension on the quattro and street cars will no longer be able to compete.
@@user-hr2zy7ct8h I've been a huge Audi fan since I bought my first one over 20 years ago. I would take a URquattro over an EVO hands down. That's based on personal preference. Looks, heritage, driver engagement, and tunability (yes an EVO is easily tuned as well). On the topic of technology, only someone who is willingly turning a blind eye would think automotive progress hasn't made a difference over the decades. Power to weight is definitely a factor in the game but is stifled without excellent traction, proper gearing, etc. Progress in automotive technology has proven to address and better these challenges. As incredibly awesome as the rally cars of old are there is a good reason (beyond safety standards) they aren't used in modern competition. Your comment is self defeating "put NEW brakes and suspension on the quattro..." Regardless, if I had extra heaps of money I would dump it into an old Audi (I have done this mildly in the past) and build a complete monster. Although, if I was simply focused on building the fastest most effective machine in the 1/4, 1/2 mile or around a track I'd be foolish to not add the most modern modifications to achieve it. I've never met an honest person who would tell me that those awesome old school 2.1, 2.2, or the 2.3 inline fives of the past can be as effective as the 2.5 of today. Not one.
I'd say the Evo and the RS focus would keep up pretty well to be honest. They were literally built for that reason.. road going versions of the rally car to meet FIA production car regs for rally
@@mrblackrock555 nah not really thats what the manufacturers claim to create a wow factor. Engineering explained made a video about this very recently. Those road imprezas that larp as rally cars require lots of mods to actually be able to get on the gravel and go fast. That video : ruclips.net/video/aT-o8vuhRok/видео.html
@@SparrowNoblePoland yup, a MK1 - the one that was crap at Le Mans to begin with. If the Noble went against one of the 1966 Le Mans winning Mk2s, the Noble would've lost even more
@@owenlea6505no, i bet the mk1 would have been faster round their circuit than the 7 litre version, given that the 5l was so much lighter with a lower centre of gravity. The top gear track isn't a very fast circuit, the straight isn't very long at all. That extra power wouldn't have been much advantage but the superior handling of the mk1 would have been a big advantage. "Adding power makes you faster on the straights, subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere" Colin Chapman.
@Adrian Vegas Pentium Processors used to be super popular processors for desktop computers. However by the end of their production cycle they were pretty bad compared to their competition in terms of price and performance.
@Adrian Vegas It's not about that... before 2000 "Pentium" brand was reserved for Intel's top CPUs. But they changed naming scheme at least twice and now Pentiums are a budget option.
Does it really though? Apparently the GT was built to excel on a track. So you pitch it against a track car, fair enough. Now something tells me that Escort they picked is in ‘rally clothes’, but it’s been put on tarmac against a car that isn’t. Top Gear is so fake, I can’t understand how all of these people just eat up all the drivel that twat Clarkson feeds them.
@@iSkully99 Funnily enough the first gen RS was a bit of a monster. And i’d assume back then it was the differential doing most of the magic, not any computers, traction control was most likely turned off on that lap.
Well the Evo did came out during the 80s but as a Lancer GSR since the Starion/Conquest GSR is the one racing against other grp B racers which gave name for the Evolution brand
@@hifiteen49 they said the audi has 20hp more than the evo. that's an EVO 9 MR with 295PS if I'm not mistaken. here are the specs for the quattro rally cars: (S1) 400~450 HP @ 7500 rpm (E2) 450~590 HP @ 7500~8000 rpm. the quattro will wipe the floor with the EVO. even without modern tires, suspension and brakes. as far as I'm aware there was no rally version of the quattro with less than 400 hp. so they either used the homologation streetcar, making the comparsion nonesense, or they used a detuned version, again, making the comparsion useless. idk what kind of agenda they were pushing here but there's no debate about group B cars, actual expensive performance cars of today wouldn't be able to keep up as soon as you put new tires on the old cars. power to weight beats power and tech around a track.
@@user-hr2zy7ct8h "The FQ-400, sold through Ralliart UK, produced 411 PS (302 kW; 405 hp) at 6,400 rpm and maximum torque of 481 N⋅m (355 lb⋅ft) at 5,500 rpm,[17] from its 1,997 cc (2.0 L; 121.9 cu in) 4G63 inline-four engine, the result of special modifications by United Kingdom tuning firms Rampage Tuning, Owen Developments, and Flow Race Engines." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Lancer_Evolution (under Evolution VIII section) I believe the Evo in the video is an Evo VIII FQ-400. I do not believe they were trying to push some sort of false agenda. As you say, modern suspension, tyres, and brakes can make a huge difference. Top Gear in this era was always more of an entertainment show than an outright documentary, which may explain why they did not explain details regarding tyre choice, suspension setup, or power outputs of each car.
A different story if the Escort and Quattro were competing on the surfaces they were designed for - loose surfaces such as forest tracks. You are comparing apples with oranges by using a tarmac surface. I was one of the people in the dead of night in Wales watching the RAC RAlly in the 1980s. A 2 mile traffic queue to get into Dolgellau at 2.00am. Magic!
You do know not all stages of Rally are dirt right? There are quite a lot of sections of mixed surface and straight tarmac. That said it very likely would still be the same story as the EVO and Focus are built to be baselines for the WRC entries and such sport a lot of similar equipment as the proper racing version.
@@demomanchaos As I competed on rallies in a Mini Cooper S and was also an accredited photographer for Rally Sport Magazine I am fully aware that ralllies are held on differing surfaces.
eh, that duratec going full song with mc crash wasnt a spectacle, i dont know what is, really. the 1st gen RS is a classic now... and it's not any worse than a clio RS 182 if it's kept proper.
The old race cars might be a bit slower, but it's hard to deny the fun factor that they give with their RAW power delivery. Try racing them again on a rally stage. 😉
When my mate took me out in his 400bhp Evo I got to feel what "properly fast" is like. Made my EP3 Civic Type R feel REALLY slow. Those things are monsters.
@@nyr3n914 That is quite debatable. I have a friend who would win in a 40 years old car adapted to rallying, versus new cars adapted to rallying. He had a much older cars, often prepared worse than new cars (he had differential fixed solid, because he couldn't afford LSD, he had shock absorbers taken from other models, because he couldn't afford dedicated rally shock absorbers), and he could win with rally prepared modern cars, sometimes even much more powerful. Of course, the driver makes a big difference, but I don't see a reason why a modern FWD hatchback with power of 230BHP would win against Fiat 131 Abarth of the same power. The drag factor is virtually insignificant, the 40 yo. Fiat's suspensions should offer the same grip, and rear wheel drive design gives better balance and better ability to use grip of all 4 wheels. I'd say that some late 70ies cars should be faster than modern FWD cars, granted that they would use same generation of shock absorbers and tires, and were set to the surface with similar perfection.
In 1980 I spent 2,500 dollars on stereo equipment 1 receiver 1 cassette deck 1 turntable 2 speakers . The song Pink Floyd with the helicopter at the beginning I made people go out side to look where it was landing , loved that stereo . Went on to sell a year later and bought a 1971 Cuda with a 383 4 barrel carb and a slap - stick trans.
You'll probably find the Evo and Focus RS would do alot better than expected considering they're homologation models of WRC models, especially the Evo with with its intelligent 4wd which makes the Quattro look like it's from the stone age. Group A (which the Focus RS and Evo competed in) was considerably quicker after a couple of years the Group B were at their height and Group A continued to get faster. Considering the Group A Evos ended with e FQ400 a 400hp Evo 9 which came with many components from the WRC car and that's from the factory.
That was fascinating and progress since then has resulted in many family cars having the kind of performance that would have been considered as seriously fast only 20-30 years ago.
Don't forget that the lightweight escort had an indecent amount of power for a 1.6 or 1.8 twin cam from the late 60's. Probably in the realm of 200 plus bhp.
@@no-nonseplayer6612 They planned the RS1700T (based on the MkIII) but decided RWD was already uncompetitive so refocused all their efforts on the RS200 instead to come out a few years later.
Surely GT40 vs. Noble would completely depend on the tyres. 1960 tyres vs. contemporary, the Noble wins. I suspect that’s still true even with the Noble restricted to road-legal tyres, there are some pretty extreme legal semi-slick track day tyres nowadays. But let the GT40 wear some modern racing tyres and it’s gone, though I bet the brakes wouldn’t last many laps.
@@user-ie6jr4bg1w Monte carlo rally total length: 257.64 km (160.09 mi). 16 stages. If you're not comparing a rally car that could actually compete in such a rally then what's the point in the comparsion. All the overweight new cars set decent laps but I've driven several, they all have brakes for a single lap and probably have to cool down after that. Even with 40 year old brakes the Quattro outperforms them. Same thing with the GT40. Put new tires on them and the modern cars can't compete, put new brakes on them and you will see that power to weight is everything in an endurance race. If the cars aren't even able to compete in an endurance race then there's no comparsion to be made anyway.
What this shows is just how much of an advantage a purpose built track racer will have over anything else on a track. If anything, I'm impressed at how well the Audi did against its far more modern competitor... the Escort was simply too ancient a platform to do better, after all it's not a ground-up racing car but an adapted street machine.
The escort won't have been set up for that anyway clearly. Even a tarmac setup for the stages is far from ideal on a smooth circuit. Thats if it even was setup for tarmac and not gravel. Which is more likely.
On a track like this, it would be slower and at-best tied. The 4-speed gearbox (vs. 5 in the MkI) and significant weight increase of the MkII would be too much of a deficit for the power increase to overcome. There's a reason why the MkI in 68 and 69 was already undoing the MkII's lap records from just two years prior (I believe Daytona being the only one that the MkII retained over the MKI thanks to the high-speed nature of the circuit).
@@lonestar4233, the early Colotti T.37 transaxle was a 4-speed, sure, but nobody refers to the early 64-65 Mk1 Prototypes when they say "Mk1." I'm talking about the Gr. 4 1966 Mk1 GT40 which all came (from Ford Advanced Vehicles in Slough) with the ZF 5-speed transaxle--the car which, in the hands of JW Automotive, would go on to win Le Mans in 68 & 69.
Control for tires and the old racers will wipe the floor with the new cars. The biggest improvements in technology related to road-car-relevant performance in the last 40 years are in tires and brakes. Almost all other technology is for emissions and efficiency and does not make cars faster.
This is always a fun exercise, but we need to remember the kind of engineering progress that happens in 30-40 years. Suspension and tires alone go a very long way. Now, if there was a Group C car put against a Mini Cooper S, that would really have my attention. But if a modern ("modern") supercar like the Noble match a forty year old race car, I'm not sure what progress really means.
What would've taken this from mildly interesting to very interesting, would be pitting the two rally cars up against their two modern showroom counterparts on the gravel the rally cars proved themselves on.
Plus Roger Clark's Escort RS looks to be on 'forest' tyres too out on the track - take a look at the tread in the studio shot of the Escort. Those aren't road or track tyres.
I'm lucky and own an old rally car (Mk1 Mexico), and can confirm that my "everyday" car will leave it in the dust, but it's a great fun drive the Escort. Oh, by the way, my everyday car is an E63 AMG Merc
Except that a rally car such as the Escort there is not designed primarily for metalled-road speed, but to excel on dirt and other loose surfaces, where there is little grip for tyres anyway. Similarly four-wheel drive advantage is largely nullified for the Quattro. on smooth, dry metalled roads.
Видеоклипы
![Tee Grizzley - Swear to God (Feat. Future) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jBlC5AOYoBs/mqdefault.jpg)
"The Evo is a pentium processor with wheels"
Nowadays that's just an insult
The Evo is a 5950X with wheels. ;)
What if it's the 8GHz overclocked Pentium 4
@@zachariah74 still an insult bro 🤣
Pentium crashes more and overheats more :-)
@@E30Sawyer it is out of production bro
"1980s isn't that long ago"
I'm feeling old hearing this
To think this aired in around 2004 so that quattro was nearly 20 years old. And this episode is nearly 20 years old.
Well the late 1980s were as far away to them as the late 2000s to us
@@jetwaffle1116 wow now that's fucking weird.
Would be cool to see that evo competes with modern car
They are as close to 1987 as us to them
I love how different the audience was back then. Full of specy car nerds. Love it
@@r390gt1lm riiiiight
@@r390gt1lm ooo, nice racist shoe-horning. well-done.
@@alfamonk I didn't say anything racist, just objective facts
@@r390gt1lm well for a start the term ‘coloured’ is considered racist. Not sure why it even needed bringing up, you’ve clearly got an issue with diversity. Have a word with yourself mate.
@@oscaragliano9797 isn't that what lefties say? I'm pretty sure that's the term
We were expecting the GT-40 to race a new GT but when this came out....it wasn’t out yet
I think the Drive recently did this but with the 06 supercharged GT vs one of Le Mans racers.
Honestly, the 2017 ford gt will win by a long shot but that will be a proud moment
@@sabyasachiroy7482 Sorry but he refer to 2004 car, the older version, not the 2017
@@naufalthirafi3876 i know, but the 2017 ford gt is the real successor ( not hating the 04 gt )
@@sabyasachiroy7482 ow, i see your point
The GT40 is just simply amazing.
this one is just a weak Mk1, not the mighty US-built Mk2
The GT40 ran like a raped ape for 24 hours straight, I'd like to see that noble run even an hour of racing and be within even 10 minutes of the gt40
And to think the gt40 was early 60's technology with just a naturally aspirated v8 and still able to be competitive today.
@@64fairlane305 “mighty US-built” you mean as inefficient litre to horsepower and rolling over?
@@64fairlane305 its also built based on the lola mk6, so just copy the mighty EU and got yourself an efficient track race car!
The takeaway: automotive progress is incredible and.......old school trophy drivers had incredible talent.
This is it!! To drive cars without any assists at 160mph+
progress isn't incredible at all. power to weight is still everything when it comes to endurance racing. the original audi quattro still wipes the floor with a new EVO. they didn't use the actual 590hp racecar, didn't even use the normal 400-450hp one. this is a heavily detuned one or a street car if it only has 20hp more than the EVO. even with ancient tires it will gap the evo, and with new tires it will probably gap brand new 100,000$ sportscars because you can't overcome power to weight, even with all the tech you throw at it, for example rearwheel steering does help mask weight but it also causes tire wear and no matter what brakes you throw on the modern landyachts, they won't be enough. so in an actual curcuit race or on an actual rally event. monte carlo for example has ~16 stages and is 257.64 km (160.09 mi) long. put new tires on the quattro and put ANY wannabe-homologation-rally-car from 2020 against it. put new brakes and suspension on the quattro and street cars will no longer be able to compete.
@@user-hr2zy7ct8h I've been a huge Audi fan since I bought my first one over 20 years ago. I would take a URquattro over an EVO hands down. That's based on personal preference. Looks, heritage, driver engagement, and tunability (yes an EVO is easily tuned as well). On the topic of technology, only someone who is willingly turning a blind eye would think automotive progress hasn't made a difference over the decades. Power to weight is definitely a factor in the game but is stifled without excellent traction, proper gearing, etc. Progress in automotive technology has proven to address and better these challenges. As incredibly awesome as the rally cars of old are there is a good reason (beyond safety standards) they aren't used in modern competition. Your comment is self defeating "put NEW brakes and suspension on the quattro..." Regardless, if I had extra heaps of money I would dump it into an old Audi (I have done this mildly in the past) and build a complete monster. Although, if I was simply focused on building the fastest most effective machine in the 1/4, 1/2 mile or around a track I'd be foolish to not add the most modern modifications to achieve it. I've never met an honest person who would tell me that those awesome old school 2.1, 2.2, or the 2.3 inline fives of the past can be as effective as the 2.5 of today. Not one.
Soooooo, If you want a competitive Audi and you don't have money pouring out of every orifice, blend the best of the old with the best of the new.
Put them on a rally stage and see who would win. Different story there. The Audi and escort are not track cars.
I'd say the Evo and the RS focus would keep up pretty well to be honest. They were literally built for that reason.. road going versions of the rally car to meet FIA production car regs for rally
Also, put modern tyres on them 😅
@@lewiskemp9732 agreed.
@@lewiskemp9732 that would kind of defeat the purpose though
@@mrblackrock555 nah not really thats what the manufacturers claim to create a wow factor. Engineering explained made a video about this very recently. Those road imprezas that larp as rally cars require lots of mods to actually be able to get on the gravel and go fast. That video : ruclips.net/video/aT-o8vuhRok/видео.html
This just shows how damn adaptable the stig is and was to driving nearly every kind of car
Ford GT40: You know what GT stands for.
Noble M400: What?
Ford GT40: Got Torque.
The funny thing they chose one of the weakest variants of GT40, and it still won.
Grand Tourer.
"Grand Tourismo"
A term used from Bentley to the Ford Cortina GT!
@@SparrowNoblePoland yup, a MK1 - the one that was crap at Le Mans to begin with. If the Noble went against one of the 1966 Le Mans winning Mk2s, the Noble would've lost even more
@@owenlea6505no, i bet the mk1 would have been faster round their circuit than the 7 litre version, given that the 5l was so much lighter with a lower centre of gravity.
The top gear track isn't a very fast circuit, the straight isn't very long at all.
That extra power wouldn't have been much advantage but the superior handling of the mk1 would have been a big advantage.
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights, subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere"
Colin Chapman.
"Pentium Processor with wheels"
Compliment during recording, insult today
Darn people are still coming from 2021 to watch this vid
@@klokina8481 it’s only 6 days old
@Adrian Vegas Pentium Processors used to be super popular processors for desktop computers. However by the end of their production cycle they were pretty bad compared to their competition in terms of price and performance.
@Adrian Vegas It's not about that... before 2000 "Pentium" brand was reserved for Intel's top CPUs. But they changed naming scheme at least twice and now Pentiums are a budget option.
Because Pentiums were the top back then.
Modern brand new focus RS, shows old banger focus, damn time flies fast
Does it really though?
Apparently the GT was built to excel on a track. So you pitch it against a track car, fair enough.
Now something tells me that Escort they picked is in ‘rally clothes’, but it’s been put on tarmac against a car that isn’t.
Top Gear is so fake, I can’t understand how all of these people just eat up all the drivel that twat Clarkson feeds them.
@@gottliebdee263 old cars are slow af, dodge charger from the 60s is slower than people carrier minivans today
@@feydespiel. good question, something from 90s/early 2000s, after that cars got more boring, most of them automatics, bigger, heavier...
First time ive heard a Focus RS Mk1 called a banger 😂
@@daig8817 nowadays it is lol o ly 170hp
What I take from this is that the old Escort is a helluva lot more fun to drive in than the modern computerized-stabilized focus.
The first gen focus RS feels like a wild analog car compared to the new one
Yeah if you ever drive the first gen RS you'll know its not an easy driving car. You make a mistake and that horse will kick you off
@@morganwilliams2863 fucking lol, I remember when it was new and I was reading car mags as a kid, God I feel old now.
@@iSkully99 Funnily enough the first gen RS was a bit of a monster. And i’d assume back then it was the differential doing most of the magic, not any computers, traction control was most likely turned off on that lap.
Focus RS has active differential.
I'm thrilled those legendary cars of motorsport were brought out of the museum and driven flat out on the Top Gear track. That GT40 looked sharp!
agreed!
“1983 wasn’t that long ago if you think about it” aah better times
For this old fart, 1983 seems like yesterday. I was 14 that year, and I think part of me is still stuck there.
Well the Evo did came out during the 80s but as a Lancer GSR since the Starion/Conquest GSR is the one racing against other grp B racers which gave name for the Evolution brand
I mean just a quick tune up on the suspension and better tires on the rally car and it would've done great
The Audi Quattro S1 is my dream car and I hate to see it lose
but yes
An Audi Coupe Quattro from the late 90's might indeed have won
@@hifiteen49 they said the audi has 20hp more than the evo. that's an EVO 9 MR with 295PS if I'm not mistaken. here are the specs for the quattro rally cars: (S1) 400~450 HP @ 7500 rpm (E2) 450~590 HP @ 7500~8000 rpm.
the quattro will wipe the floor with the EVO. even without modern tires, suspension and brakes. as far as I'm aware there was no rally version of the quattro with less than 400 hp. so they either used the homologation streetcar, making the comparsion nonesense, or they used a detuned version, again, making the comparsion useless. idk what kind of agenda they were pushing here but there's no debate about group B cars, actual expensive performance cars of today wouldn't be able to keep up as soon as you put new tires on the old cars. power to weight beats power and tech around a track.
@@user-hr2zy7ct8h "The FQ-400, sold through Ralliart UK, produced 411 PS (302 kW; 405 hp) at 6,400 rpm and maximum torque of 481 N⋅m (355 lb⋅ft) at 5,500 rpm,[17] from its 1,997 cc (2.0 L; 121.9 cu in) 4G63 inline-four engine, the result of special modifications by United Kingdom tuning firms Rampage Tuning, Owen Developments, and Flow Race Engines." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Lancer_Evolution (under Evolution VIII section)
I believe the Evo in the video is an Evo VIII FQ-400. I do not believe they were trying to push some sort of false agenda. As you say, modern suspension, tyres, and brakes can make a huge difference. Top Gear in this era was always more of an entertainment show than an outright documentary, which may explain why they did not explain details regarding tyre choice, suspension setup, or power outputs of each car.
@@wowcraftify 3:58 It's a FQ-340
@@user-hr2zy7ct8h The Quattro featured isn't an S1, it's an earlier A2 which was tuneable between 320hp and 360hp.
A different story if the Escort and Quattro were competing on the surfaces they were designed for - loose surfaces such as forest tracks. You are comparing apples with oranges by using a tarmac surface. I was one of the people in the dead of night in Wales watching the RAC RAlly in the 1980s. A 2 mile traffic queue to get into Dolgellau at 2.00am. Magic!
You do know not all stages of Rally are dirt right? There are quite a lot of sections of mixed surface and straight tarmac. That said it very likely would still be the same story as the EVO and Focus are built to be baselines for the WRC entries and such sport a lot of similar equipment as the proper racing version.
@@demomanchaos As I competed on rallies in a Mini Cooper S and was also an accredited photographer for Rally Sport Magazine I am fully aware that ralllies are held on differing surfaces.
I SO envy you for that, sir! Can't even imagine how awesome it must have been
very solid point.
Why whinge ?. Just fucking enjoy the spectacle Jesus Christ. This was over 20 years ago
OK, so the RS is quicker than the old Escort. But how much more of a spectacle was it, to watch the rally car on full chat?
Watch the Focus break and have longer more expensive repairs that say a mk 1 or 2
Not a true definition of stages
eh, that duratec going full song with mc crash wasnt a spectacle, i dont know what is, really. the 1st gen RS is a classic now... and it's not any worse than a clio RS 182 if it's kept proper.
@@chuckydreal9040 that Cosworth BDA will cost an absolute fortune to maintain every few hundred miles.
Love the interaction between host and audience
The old race cars might be a bit slower, but it's hard to deny the fun factor that they give with their RAW power delivery. Try racing them again on a rally stage. 😉
When my mate took me out in his 400bhp Evo I got to feel what "properly fast" is like. Made my EP3 Civic Type R feel REALLY slow. Those things are monsters.
This is one of the best episodes ever I think this had the 612 to verbier race and the Renault r24 lap
I hope someone uploads the 612 race one day. Not even the official Top Geae RUclips channel has done that.....
I've always loved topgear and the grand tour.... but to me as a car fan that was when it was at its absolute best
I’ve been looking for this everywhere
Same here. I had convinced myself I had dreamt this episode. Not been able to find it for years.
Saaaame lol. I remember seeing it ages ago and couldn't find it anywhere on yt
Did you find it ?
@@CFox.7...well we've watched it so yeah.
That GT40 is just staggering
I couldn't care less if it's slower I know which ones I'd want to drive.
The slower ones would have been faster if they were given tarmac tires.
@@SparrowNoblePoland ah yes ,and the new ones wouldve been faster if they were meant for racing ,no ac no elertric windows etc ..
@@nyr3n914 That is quite debatable. I have a friend who would win in a 40 years old car adapted to rallying, versus new cars adapted to rallying. He had a much older cars, often prepared worse than new cars (he had differential fixed solid, because he couldn't afford LSD, he had shock absorbers taken from other models, because he couldn't afford dedicated rally shock absorbers), and he could win with rally prepared modern cars, sometimes even much more powerful. Of course, the driver makes a big difference, but I don't see a reason why a modern FWD hatchback with power of 230BHP would win against Fiat 131 Abarth of the same power. The drag factor is virtually insignificant, the 40 yo. Fiat's suspensions should offer the same grip, and rear wheel drive design gives better balance and better ability to use grip of all 4 wheels. I'd say that some late 70ies cars should be faster than modern FWD cars, granted that they would use same generation of shock absorbers and tires, and were set to the surface with similar perfection.
I would have the old escort in a heart beat
Same.
I've always loved the Evo but that Focus RS is so cool too.
God I wish they did this more. Would be great to see how cars nowadays stack up with cars from 20 years ago.
yeah, this was a very fun bit. so much potential for more.
"Perfect normal Focus RS"
Not so normal today it's a classic car already
That evo is so sick
What was wrong with it?
@@mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm420 sick can also mean cool not literally sick lol
I would rather have the gt40 or the escort any day over that yobo of a car
@@britishbastard6561 ofc they are also sick but evo is my fav
In 1980 I spent 2,500 dollars on stereo equipment 1 receiver 1 cassette deck 1 turntable 2 speakers . The song Pink Floyd with the helicopter at the beginning I made people go out side to look where it was landing , loved that stereo . Went on to sell a year later and bought a 1971 Cuda with a 383 4 barrel carb and a slap - stick trans.
What?
@@AsinineComment I don't understand your question . What what ?
Billy Coleman won the 1974 British Rally Championship in MEV 36J.
Now lets try that again with the same Escort, Focus, Audi and Evo on a rally course and see who wins.....
You'll probably find the Evo and Focus RS would do alot better than expected considering they're homologation models of WRC models, especially the Evo with with its intelligent 4wd which makes the Quattro look like it's from the stone age. Group A (which the Focus RS and Evo competed in) was considerably quicker after a couple of years the Group B were at their height and Group A continued to get faster. Considering the Group A Evos ended with e FQ400 a 400hp Evo 9 which came with many components from the WRC car and that's from the factory.
I was an Engineer on the Focus RS project, Seems like yesterday
Well done, sir!
You should probably get a knighthood for that. (and the rest of the team) . It made me appreciate Fords again.
@@cubworx7397 Not really, I only did the wiring
That was fascinating and progress since then has resulted in many family cars having the kind of performance that would have been considered as seriously fast only 20-30 years ago.
yeah you could beat most of these with an SUV nowadays.
Thanks for this video been years since I've seen this. The GT40 still one of my dream cars to own.
May's laugh at the end is priceless
Such a good section. I'd love to see more modern versions of this.
A bit unfair on the Escort to be honest as it looked like it was running all-terrain (or even off-road) tyres rather than tarmac tyres.
Now that's the proper racing driver excuse I was looking for in these comments
If they didn't put the Escort on track tyres, why bother? If they didn't put the Focus on dirt - same again - why bother?
Would love to see that test again nowadays, especially with hybrids and electrics
Don't forget that the lightweight escort had an indecent amount of power for a 1.6 or 1.8 twin cam from the late 60's. Probably in the realm of 200 plus bhp.
Ide pick that Escort over any of those cars with the Audi close second.
and Werent they making an escort for B Group Rally as well ?
@@no-nonseplayer6612 They planned the RS1700T (based on the MkIII) but decided RWD was already uncompetitive so refocused all their efforts on the RS200 instead to come out a few years later.
@@ancomfin4270 thats cool isnt RS2000 The like were sport Ford Focus come out ??
Shame the Mk1 Escort was in gravel spec. A tarmac spec version may have delivered a different result.
Exactly! same probably applies to the Quattro
The escort just looks so classy
The MK1 completely sideways cocking a wheel through the one but last corner 😂😂 brilliant. That’s why the mk1/mk2 are the best rally cars ever.
That escort looks so cool going around the track. The focus, yeah, it's faster, but it doesn't get the back out.
may not be as fast as a 20 year old hatchback but damn is that escort looking wild
That was some great commentary by Clarkson.
Fantastic episode. My heart belongs to the Quattro
Please upload the Maybach 62 review by Richard Hammond. Please!!!
Surely GT40 vs. Noble would completely depend on the tyres. 1960 tyres vs. contemporary, the Noble wins. I suspect that’s still true even with the Noble restricted to road-legal tyres, there are some pretty extreme legal semi-slick track day tyres nowadays.
But let the GT40 wear some modern racing tyres and it’s gone, though I bet the brakes wouldn’t last many laps.
Yeah, you don't have to brake that often in 24 hours of continuous racing.
Forget new cars, that old Escort looked amazing
That GT40 lap is one of the best ever on the track.
Great episode.
The sad part is both real cars and real Top Gear are in the past.
As an Evo owner I enjoyed this immensely.
3:15 The Stig clearly made a mistake in the Noble that likely cost it the victory.
I wanna see the noble run that for 24 hours straight. That GT40 was a 24h of le mans car, not a lap queen.
I totally agree, also I'd like to see the GT40 on modern tyres not the period rubber used in this contest.
the noble probably caught fire seconds after filming. thats why we love them though...
Yea but a 24 hour race is ridiculous, a lap vs lap is not
Wayne Simpson thats bollocks then it is not the same car
@@user-ie6jr4bg1w Monte carlo rally total length: 257.64 km (160.09 mi). 16 stages. If you're not comparing a rally car that could actually compete in such a rally then what's the point in the comparsion. All the overweight new cars set decent laps but I've driven several, they all have brakes for a single lap and probably have to cool down after that. Even with 40 year old brakes the Quattro outperforms them. Same thing with the GT40. Put new tires on them and the modern cars can't compete, put new brakes on them and you will see that power to weight is everything in an endurance race. If the cars aren't even able to compete in an endurance race then there's no comparsion to be made anyway.
I bet the Stig was having more fun in the Escort than in the Focus
A) Modern tyres being the most important factor and B) The Vacuum Cleaner test. That GT40!
What this shows is just how much of an advantage a purpose built track racer will have over anything else on a track. If anything, I'm impressed at how well the Audi did against its far more modern competitor... the Escort was simply too ancient a platform to do better, after all it's not a ground-up racing car but an adapted street machine.
The escort won't have been set up for that anyway clearly.
Even a tarmac setup for the stages is far from ideal on a smooth circuit.
Thats if it even was setup for tarmac and not gravel. Which is more likely.
Everyone else: "Pentium, once a compliment, now an insult."
Me: "Intel, one a compliment, now an insult."
1:35 mandated to say
*NOICE* 👌🏾
Thing with the Escort vs Focus is, which one would you rather drive? Escort looks like so much more fun
RWD escort is fun going round the twisties with the arse hanging out - so I was told by a friend when i was a young lad , officer
Was that Offroad tires I spied on the mk1? If it was that'd explain the mega sideways action lol
You have to admit, that escort on three wheels was awesome.
My MK1 never failed me, such a fun car to drive, simply amazing
The GT40 completed its lap in 1:25.4, for anyone wondering
Pretty good for a car from the 60's
@@AmanAli-dc1sy Absolutely. One of my all-time favorites
@@joebro391 oh same here defo dream car garage.
"GT40"...
Remember - the GT40 was designed to run for 24 hours straight - Id like to thee the noble beat the gt40 in that lol
Imagine if they used the MKII GT40 with the Ford 427 Side Oiler instead of the MKI GT40 with the Windsor 302.
On a track like this, it would be slower and at-best tied. The 4-speed gearbox (vs. 5 in the MkI) and significant weight increase of the MkII would be too much of a deficit for the power increase to overcome. There's a reason why the MkI in 68 and 69 was already undoing the MkII's lap records from just two years prior (I believe Daytona being the only one that the MkII retained over the MKI thanks to the high-speed nature of the circuit).
@@flyingphoenix113 5 speed in a MKI? Maybe in a replica but the original had a 4 speed.
@@lonestar4233, the early Colotti T.37 transaxle was a 4-speed, sure, but nobody refers to the early 64-65 Mk1 Prototypes when they say "Mk1." I'm talking about the Gr. 4 1966 Mk1 GT40 which all came (from Ford Advanced Vehicles in Slough) with the ZF 5-speed transaxle--the car which, in the hands of JW Automotive, would go on to win Le Mans in 68 & 69.
Remember, too, that the big-blocks were only about 100 pound heavier than the 302s
if they ran the escort on that offroad tires it is no wonder that it did not go well on tarmac ...
should have had Michelle Mouton or Walter Roerl behind the wheel in the Quatro..
Yeah, id like to see the evo handle the same rally course though, dont think it'll be faster then😂
What would happen if modern tyres were fitted and the suspension was set up correctly on the old stuff?. . .
Racing is all about line. Even assuming similar tires, modern steering, suspension and brakes hold a line better.
Control for tires and the old racers will wipe the floor with the new cars. The biggest improvements in technology related to road-car-relevant performance in the last 40 years are in tires and brakes. Almost all other technology is for emissions and efficiency and does not make cars faster.
And about 4-5 year ago several team with Volvo 240 2WD outrun the Audi Quattro 4WD teams on Swedish gravelroads. In the Midnight Sun Rally Historic..
phwoar, listen to that escort. it sounds incredible!
Jezza keeps talking about tyres - if they were running the oldies on period rubber that skews the odds massively in favour of the showroom cars.
This is always a fun exercise, but we need to remember the kind of engineering progress that happens in 30-40 years. Suspension and tires alone go a very long way. Now, if there was a Group C car put against a Mini Cooper S, that would really have my attention. But if a modern ("modern") supercar like the Noble match a forty year old race car, I'm not sure what progress really means.
What would've taken this from mildly interesting to very interesting, would be pitting the two rally cars up against their two modern showroom counterparts on the gravel the rally cars proved themselves on.
the old rallycars are not in tarmac configuration tho
That's amazing. I would have assumed the old sports were much faster. They only sound faster.
Oh that beautiful GT40
The suspension on the Escort Mk1 was setup to gravel - not tarmac. Not a fair race.
They should have tryed against Martin Shanckes rallycross Escort
Plus Roger Clark's Escort RS looks to be on 'forest' tyres too out on the track - take a look at the tread in the studio shot of the Escort. Those aren't road or track tyres.
Loved my mk1 escort
If I may, the three old race cars were good choices but two were made for rally, not tarmac. They also happened to be the two racecars to that lost
When people say modern cars are getting worse, I should just send them this video.
ok zoomer
You also gotta count the age of those cars and the horses lost on the engines
Oh well, bar the Escort all my favourites WON
Would have been more suitable to have had a Ford Escort track car than a rally car.
Or atleast a tarmac setup.
Try driving the Praga R1 vs Ford GT40 on Le Mans '67 in Assetto Corsa!
20k for that Focus? How times have changed, it's almost that much for a base model now!
I'm lucky and own an old rally car (Mk1 Mexico), and can confirm that my "everyday" car will leave it in the dust, but it's a great fun drive the Escort.
Oh, by the way, my everyday car is an E63 AMG Merc
" you might pass me but you wont outlast me "
I would've loved to see a Ford Sierra Cosworth race the Focus.
TBF, those road cars would literally fall apart if you drove them in a real rally.
One right, 50 over crest and a big jump, and the suspension is gone
ofc lol
well, they're called road cars for a reason
The Escort desperately needs better tires to keep up with the Focus... but it’s pretty obvious who had the most fun there.
i was rooting for the old cars but when they pulled out the Evo i switched sides
Nice Segment , Please Upload more 👍 , Thank you.
Lol.. That Pentium processor line. XD
too bad they didn't use the later S1 iteration of the Quattro that would have been an total other race. but mad props to the evo!
Except that a rally car such as the Escort there is not designed primarily for metalled-road speed, but to excel on dirt and other loose surfaces, where there is little grip for tyres anyway. Similarly four-wheel drive advantage is largely nullified for the Quattro. on smooth, dry metalled roads.
Spot on. Try the same test on a forest track in Wales.
90s/early 00s ❤️