Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





0-60 is so yesterday!

123457

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    In addition to your earlier argument about torque being the thing, you're throwing in a comparison of perhaps a normally aspirated 2 liter motor from Honda to a six cylinder engine from a German automaker. If it were just Honda versus German car, explain this (from a C&D comparison):
    2002 CL-S 6MT / 2002 330i 6MT
    0-60: 5.9s / 5.8s
    5-60: 6.2s / 6.5s

    So, the Acura didn't do as well as the BMW in 0-60 but it did better in rolling start. Hmmmm...

    As for the original point, I will repeat, torque is only as good as the HP it translates to. If you can prove it otherwise, I will look forward to learning something new.
  • Zero to Sixty to me is a representation of the entire package of a vehicle. The most representative 0-60 would of course be from idle, with no clutch drop or any other fancy tricks. Otherwise, this just puts car magazines in the same category of misrepresentation that they have accused the EPA of being in.

    Realisitically, the dyno curves of a vehicle, showing torque and rpm (hp comes right out of these), acts only as an evaluation of the engine. The gearing differences between vehicles such as transmission and rear axle gearing are not included in such an evaluation. Neither are factors such as a suspension and tire's ability to put the power to the pavement.

    A 0-60 run (or 0-100 or whatever) do give an idea of such information. My personal preference is for 0-60 due to the fact that typically I don't drive much over 70 anyway (legal limits and all). Also, some cars will not go above or at least very far above 100 mph, and will suffer accordingly at the high end. Think especially of some of the subcompacts coming out of europe and asia.

    It is very possible to gear a vehicle such that it will have an extremely fast acceleration at low and mid speeds (under 80mph), but will bog down at higher speed. Because of this, I feel it is best to look at a range of 0-x times, similar to what was posted previously, where you have

    0-30
    0-40
    0-50
    0-60
    etc

    This will give a much better view of the overall acceleration performance of a vehicle.

    However, that being said, I feel that most consumers prefer to look at simple statistics without having a deeper understanding of the meaning behind them. For your average consumer, I feel that a 0-60 time (again, with no clutch dump) is a very good evaluation tool. Your average driver, after all, spends 90% or more of their acceleration time at speeds less than 60 mph. And even more of their "hard" acceleration at lower speeds.

    So, just because 0-60 isn't the best way to evaluate the performance of a vehicle, that doesn't make it an invalid way of making a comparrison.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I don’t think the primary point is about usefulness (or lack of) 0-60 test. It is over-emphasis on that metric when it comes to publications, and the way it is determined.

    Automotive reviewers need to consider more realistic situations, including 0-60, by throwing in test scenarios involving rolling acceleration. Sometimes I just find it funny to see 0-20 or 0-30 acceleration time. And then, there are some reviewers that go beyond 0-60 and do include something more meaningful (5-60) and mess up elsewhere (30-50 and 50-70 in top gear only if manual transmission). Be it Edmunds, R&T, C&D… they are all guilty. CR does one of the few things well, and it happens to be this.

    And I liked what I saw in an Autoweek review. They published, not only 0-60 times, but also 20-40, 40-60 and 60-80 mph acceleration runs. However, even after all that, the only one of these that gets mentioned is 0-60. Oh well…
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    Well the one catch to not trying to avoid high RPM clutch drops with manually transmissions to help with the 0-60 times is that, you have to rev it a little to keep it from stalling. So you can't entirely avoid some reving before the clutch pedal is let out. Although I do agree that it should be something more reasonable to the average driver rather than some of the clutch smoking runs that the magazines do.
  • redmaxxredmaxx Posts: 627
    I would say that the following would be the most useful:

    0-80
    0-100
    15-50 (for those times you're in a slow moving lane and need to get up to speed in another lane)
    50-80

    In all cases the car should be warmed up and on level ground. For the 0 MPH starts, the driver should release the brake pedal and floor the accelerator (for an auto). Also would like to see how smoothly the car does it. For the tests that are not at 0, the car should be cruising at that speed for at least long enough for the car to settle into the highest gear the car will allow.

    Most often I find that I need to go 0-80, 15-50 or 50-80. If the car is quick and smooth, that would be nice to know. My Vibe for example, at 15 MPH, if you floor it it takes some time for it to downshift, so those would be nice things to know.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    Actually I'm comparing the 03 Accord 240 HP V6 to the 2.0L Turbo 4 from Audi/VW.

    The Honda should win from 5 to 60 assuming the transmission isn't already in 2nd. The Audi should win from 0-60. I think we agree. Honda's are slow from 0 to 10, but once that VTEC kicks in and you get to that 240 HP curve, you're flying. But the 2.0L Turbo is an amazing engine too.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    "But the 2.0L Turbo is an amazing engine too."

    Yes it is.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    0-10? I bet even Viper doesn't have any advantage over most family sedans over that range of speeds. Remember, most cars are geared to hit redline between 35-45 mph in first gear, so at 10 mph, the cars are barely lugging at 1500 rpm. I don't see any point in 0-30 mph acceleration either (most cars do it in less than 2.5s).

    As far as your Honda/Audi comparison goes, here are numbers from C&D for 2004 Honda Accord Coupe V6 and 2006 Audi A3 2.0T. The curb weight is almost identical (3299 lb and 3246 lb respectively), and both cars were equipped with 6MT:

    0-60: 5.9s (Accord V6), 6.5s (A3 2.0 Turbo)
    5-60: 6.3s (Accord V6), 7.1s (A3 2.0 Turbo)

    Remember, at identical speeds, the car with better power/weight ratio wins. Torque is rendered useless (only as good as the HP it translates to), a reason you don't even see it mentioned in racing cars.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,810
    Please update the e-mail address in your profile to one that works. Tried to contact you, got a bounce-back (not a nastygram :)).

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,846
    0-10? I bet even Viper doesn't have any advantage over most family sedans over that range of speeds. Remember, most cars are geared to hit redline between 35-45 mph in first gear, so at 10 mph, the cars are barely lugging at 1500 rpm.

    I've heard that back in the old days, like in the 50's and 60's, one of the quickest cars around from 0-10 was the VW Bug! Ironically, it was also one of the slowest when it came to 0-60, so yeah, 0-10 isn't necessarily the best indication of a car's overall performance.

    I do remember VW proclaiming in their ads that the Bug could reach its top speed considerably quicker than most other manufacturers' cars could reach theirs! :P
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Yeah, I only use that one at home (which is near never) so it goes dormant from time to time.

    I'll replug it tonight.

    BTW, I thought my spelling lesson in EVO was extremely beneficial...
    :blush:
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    As far as your Honda/Audi comparison goes, here are numbers from C&D for 2004 Honda Accord Coupe V6 and 2006 Audi A3 2.0T. The curb weight is almost identical (3299 lb and 3246 lb respectively), and both cars were equipped with 6MT:

    An unfair comparison between the Honda V6 and Audi 2.0T in 0-60 and 5-60 is what you provided. How about you provide the automatic Accord's numbers vs. the Automatic DSG Audi?

    That's a better comparison, because the Honda will be slower, and the Audi will be quicker than their respective 6M times. No one in the world own's a 2003-2006 6MT Accord anyway, how many did they really sell, most Accord V6's are equipped with the slow to downshift (but still awesomely smooth) 5 speed auto.
  • Hey, I sell mazdas. Zoom Zoom.

    I believe that 0-60mph is definetly important but I believe that things like passing power are just as important. Like 50-80mph, 60-90mph and such, but I think that caranddriver should include the times when they floor it (automatic), or when they downshift it to the optimal gear (stick).

    That is where Mazda is a great vehicle because they think of the total package, rather than just 0-60. Like for example in the twisties the Mazda 3 s will out handle the Corvette!!! It won't out accelerate it, but mph for mph it stick better to the road and is more balanced. That is very important info to people that want a sporty handling 4door.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Hey, I've got an off-topic question for you then: On a CX-9, any bluetooth or other hands-free connectivity available? I don't need it (SUVs are not me), but the Mrs. is looking, and that would be a major hurdle for her.

    Let me know if you to post it in the CX-9 thread instead.

    Seems to me a lot of the examples in here point up just how little we really glean from 0-60. I definitely think of all qualifications any car may have, straight line acceleration is a highly over-rated focus...
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    "An unfair comparison between the Honda V6 and Audi 2.0T in 0-60 and 5-60 is what you provided. How about you provide the automatic Accord's numbers vs. the Automatic DSG Audi?"

    Screw automatic drivers. :surprise: If a sport coupe or sport sedan comes with a stick, that's what any warm blooded enthusiast should buy. And that's what should be road tested. :)

    It's particularly lame when C&D, R&T or Motor Trend does a comparison between cars like a Lexus GS430 and BMW 550i and then saddles the BMW with a slushbox to "make it fair", since the Lexus doesn't come with a manual. Fair to who? The lazy non-enthusiast slushbox driver that doesn't probably even read the darn magazine anyway?

    Sorry, I'm in a bad mood this afternoon. But if you read between my poor temperment above, I think the message is still valid.

    P.S. Audi's DSG is not really a "slushbox" automatic with a torque converter. It may not be my preferred three pedal manual, but it deserves respect. If that's what most enthusiast Audi buyers go for, then perhaps it should also be tested. But not against a Honda slushbox. I own a 2004 TL 6-speed and am pretty sure that there are at least as many Accords sold with 6-speeds. And a self proclaimed "driving enthusiast" that goes for a slushbox better get their Prozac prescription refilled.
  • I put a post up on the CX-9 thread.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    I don't disagree that a true driver would want the Honda with the 6 speed, but it didn't exist a couple years ago in the 4 door, and was extremely rare in the coupes. Maybe 1 tops per large Honda dealership.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    How is comparing 6MT to 6MT unfair? I tried my best to find an Audi/VW with curb weight as close to each other as possible while eliminating transmission discrepancies.

    BTW, if you still care, C&D's 0-60 number for Accord EXV6 sedan with 5AT is 6.6s (posted in a 2006 comparison of midsize sedans).
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Seems to me a lot of the examples in here point up just how little we really glean from 0-60."

    Well, I used to live and breath 0-60 back when I was (much) younger; but I'm beginning to think that IF some sort of standing start metric is desireable for benchmarking (benchracing) that a 5-60 test makes more sense. Simply from the standpoint that the results are probably more repeatable (since they aren't as dependent on clutch engagement practice, brake torquing practice, tire hookup, etc. etc.).

    "I definitely think of all qualifications any car may have, straight line acceleration is a highly over-rated focus..."

    Yep. But it provides such good fodder for internet debate.... :blush:

    BTW - I'm fairly sure that Bluetooth is AT LEAST available on the CX-9 (and may be standard on certain trims). Did you guys look at the MDX or did she just write off Acura out of hand? Too bad Lexus stopped making the wagon version of the IS......
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    "BTW - I'm fairly sure that Bluetooth is AT LEAST available on the CX-9 (and may be standard on certain trims). Did you guys look at the MDX or did she just write off Acura out of hand? Too bad Lexus stopped making the wagon version of the IS......"

    She wouldn't even set foot on the Acura lot. Go figger.

    I don't care for the whole class in the first place, but the MDX certainly gets good press. I don't think it's much to look at though, just personally (highly subjective of course). The Mazda floats my boat much more before I even sit in it.

    The less said about Lexus and their soft-padded, porcine ways, the better, good brother Roach... :sick:
This discussion has been closed.