0-60 is so yesterday!

hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
As a performance measure, 0-60 used to be very important to me, but not anymore. I value overall performance as much as I ever have, but assign less value to standing start acceleration than I used to. Do any of you feel similarly? To cite an analogy, one could argue that Europeans enjoy performance as much as Americans do, but it's been my observation that you rarely see anyone burning rubber in Europe. Enthusiasts there tend to drive in a spirited manner, or fast/very fast, even, but they seem to depress the accelerator rather than stomp on it.

I know that the title of this topic is more provocative than accurate, because the automotive media emphasizes 0-60 as much as it ever has, reflecting the fact that standing start acceleration remains an important performance benchmark for many car enthusiasts. On the other hand, some of you may agree that 0-60 is overplayed.

What are your thoughts on this?


  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    A. Stop and go traffic is big in the states, especially the urban centers, so 0-60 is somewhat important.

    B. It may be becoming less important only in the fact that most cars have more power than they need to satisfy 0-60.

    No one needs a 270HP Camry. With a 6 second 0-60. that's fast! V6 Mustangs can't get close to that fast. And '04 V8s need to work to stay ahead!

    It certainly is more tangible than slalom or skidpad measures. Braking numbers are pretty important. The difference in 15 feet could be everything.

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "It may be becoming less important only in the fact that most cars have more power than they need to satisfy 0-60."

    My thought, exactly.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    B as well.

    The straight-line and HP wars have gotten silly.

    Lateral acceleration, quick reflexes, great stopping power and a little character take you a lot further than stomp and go.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    It has become a important part of performance testing IMHO. ;)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    ...fix the title of this discussion to 0-60 "Is." Sorry for the mistakje.

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    0-60 testing is indeed a silly number, but primarily because the way it is established. It is unfortunate that few reviewers actually care about rolling acceleration (like 5-60 or 10-60) which is far more indicative of performance than those involving brake-torque launch (when was the last time anyone here did that to their car?). The way 0-60 run is conducted contributes more towards satisfying (or dismantling) ego than reflect realistic/practical driving situations. In many cases, automakers have made it a point to gear the vehicle right for excellent 0-60 runs while some compromises are made elsewhere. But then, a good 0-60 run helps in propaganda.

    Some reviewers also test rolling acceleration like 30-50 and 50-70. While they are useful too, again, sometimes these magazines act silly and test the time only in top gear for manual transmission equipped cars. They should instead focus on elasticity of the vehicle by going thru gears (vehicles equipped with automatic already get that). Some European reviewers use this method perhaps because they understand the point of having manual transmission unlike in America where slush box rules and one can live with leave it and forget it attitude which is also passed down to manual transmission equipped vehicles.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    I think 0-60 in 8 seconds is good, with the standing quarter mile in 16 seconds with a speed of 90+ at the end. Vehicles that are quicker are not going to be quick enough to get you out of trouble, but may get you into trouble. Slower vehicles are not bad, but you may need to plan ahead better.
  • cobraboy1cobraboy1 Member Posts: 69
    No one needs a 270HP Camry. With a 6 second 0-60. that's fast! V6 Mustangs can't get close to that fast. And '04 V8s need to work to stay ahead!

    Check your facts again, pick up a motortrend. They show that the V-6 camry hits 60mph in 6.8 seconds. Your are correct it has 268hp.

    The New Mustang V-6 has 210hp and it hits 60 in 6.9 seconds with the 5spd.

    The 2004 Mustang GT Has 260 hp and it hit 60mph in just 5.4 seconds which blows the toyota out of the water.

    but youare correct 6.8 to sixty is FAST for a camry, which no one needs in the everyday hall the family to picnic kind of car. On the other hand for those people that want to take the kids to school and then carve through the mountains. Or if they do not have the budget for a second toy car, then the V-6 camry is a good option.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    OH god please don't try to carve any mountain roads with a Camry you will just be disapointed.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    I still remember when (must have been around 2000 or 2001) I had a Camry rental (current car at the time was a Focus) and the first decent bend I came around, I nearly plowed off the road because it was that sloppy of a handler. Scared the carp out of me as I wasn't really going that fast. Just was spoiled by the handling of the Focus I guess. I'm sure the tire package on the rental Camry was not exactly the best either.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    Back to the original question, yes I think 0-60 times are way over-rated for use.

    Really to be honest, I'm all about the 2000-3000 RPM range. That's where I spend most of my time. Yes I'll rev up well beyond that at certain points, but really I'm all about how the engine and car feels in that range. I could be weird though. Definetly explains why I always look at the torque ratings and the torque curve (if I can get that info) rather than the horsepower numbers.
  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,444
    I think 0-60 in 8 seconds is good, with the standing quarter mile in 16 seconds with a speed of 90+ at the end. Vehicles that are quicker are not going to be quick enough to get you out of trouble, but may get you into trouble. Slower vehicles are not bad, but you may need to plan ahead better.

    You know, I would like to provide a counterpoint. I own 3 cars; the first is an old Mercedes 380SE (I would guess 8-9 seconds 0-60), a 6 year old Jag (0-60 in about 6.5, I'm told), and a 4 year old Corvette (0-60 in about 5). I merge onto California freeways frequently, and I definitely feel more confident in the Jag than in the Merc. There is very seldom that I need more than the Jag has, but the Vette allows me to feel more in control in this situation.

    The bottom line is that quicker acceleration is a safety factor if used well, and 6.5 seconds is much better than 8 when merging into traffic. In fact, 5 seconds is damn nice when things get dicey.

    As a note, I think that 0-60 is not the best measure, I would be more interested in rolling start numbers; maybe 10-60.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    ..."invented" the 0-60 performance test over 50 years ago, 60 mph did seem fast for most cars. Remember that two of the three most popular cars of the era - Chevrolet and Plymouth - were still using bog-slow sixes.

    At that time, 60 mph, in and of itself, probably seemed fairly fast. There weren't many interstate highways, with their entrance ramps allowing a "running start," so most drivers entering a road probably did start from a dead stop.

    It was a test that was easily performed, and easily understood by readers (the car is idling, you floor the accelerator pedal, and count the seconds until the speedometer hits 60 mph).

    Probably not a test that gives a good reflection of a vehicle's overall capabilties in today's driving conditions, but one that is still easily understood (and, as a result, and just as important, easily advertised).
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    the test still has relevance as a parameter in an overall evaluation.

    I think it's the fascination with it as a class-defining number that's currently ludicrous. There are other factors which, along with broadly acceptable acceleration numbers, mean so much more in zeroing in on a quantified driving experience; itself merely a weather indicator in shopping. To discount a prospective vehicle in a class soley on the numbers without having driven it is, IMO, an idiot's game.

    Point being, especially around this site, that people are all too ready to call something a dog in its class if it trails the "leader" by .5 secs in 0-60. I ask a lot more meaningful things of a car than just getting me to 60mph first!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,543
    Point being, especially around this site, that people are all to ready to call something a dog in its class if it trails the "leader" by .5 secs in 0-60. I ask a lot more meaningful things of a car than just getting me to 60mph first!

    I think one thing that should be noted is that often the same car can have a variance of a second or more in 0-60, depending on who does the test, elevation, weather, time of day, which planets are in alignment, who won last year's superbowl, and whether or not my co-worker is having Mr. Monthly Visitor! :P

    I think 0-60 is much less relevant than it was in the past. For example, in 1957, if you had a car that could go 0-60 in under 10 seconds, you had a pretty fast car. And if it could do it in under 8, you had a monster on your hands. Yet at the same time, many cars in 1957 would take 30 seconds or more to get from 0-60, and some had a top speed that wasn't much faster. Heck, even my buddy's old 1980 Accord took about 26-30 seconds to get from 0-60, if you had three people on board. I know, we timed it with a stopwatch a couple times.

    I have an old 1985 Consumer Guide, and IIRC, the slowest car in there was a Mercury Topaz automatic, at 15.9 seconds. And I think there was a Jeep model with the 2.8/auto that might've been as bad as 17. Still, even by this time, not that many cars were breaking the 10 second barrier. They tested a BMW 6-series that did it, but their 3-series models did not. I think the Maxima was right around 10, with a stick. The Cressida was 9.6. The Jag XJC with the V-12 was 8.2. All of Chrysler's turbo models were around 9.5. Obviously, the Mustang GT and Camaro IROC were well below 10.

    Nowadays though, there just isn't the spread that there used to be. A lot of cars might be falling into the 5-6 second range, but I'd imagine there are precious few modern cars that take more than 10 seconds to get from 0-60. Off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are the 2.7-inflicted Charger/Magnum/300 which are good for about 11 seconds. The Taurus with the old pushrod Vulcan 3.0 was in that range too. And so was the Focus with the base 110 hp 2.0 4-cyl, but I don't think they even offer that engine anymore.

    And FWIW, even though the cars might be able to accelerate quicker, that doesn't mean the people are using the power. Often you have to really make the newer cars scream to get them to move out, and the drivers just don't want to do that. The end result is that I find more 250 hp+ cars than ever before backing up the freeway entrance ramps.

    My '85 Silverado, which has 165 hp from a 305 V-8, might do 0-60 in about 12 seconds. Yet the chances are I'm not even going to need to take advantage of that, because some yahoo in the car in front of me, who could easily do 0-60 in 7-8 seconds or quicker wants to merge onto the highway at 45 mph.

    I used to care more about 0-60, but once it got to the point that the majority of new cars could do it in under 10 seconds, it just didn't seem that significant anymore.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    Wasn't 0 - 60 meant originally as a maximum speed test, as 60 mph was as fast as the average car would go?

    I agree with seminole_kev...torque is what matters to me, and to most drivers. When the average guy on the street is talking about his car's horsepower, he's really talking about its torque...
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Am I the only person here who guns a car from a stop at every light? I agree that a rolling start would be a good measure of highway merging, however, is someone going to tell me that 10-60 speeds are vastly different from 0-60 speeds and do not scale in any way making the 0-60 mph value not a valid indicator for 10-60 speeds? A 0-60 mph measurement is still the best measure for acceleration, however, I believe that there should be a caveat. ALL launches should be done as soft launches (i.e. meaning the takeoff is from idle rpm not revved up to some insane value and then popping the clutch) and representative of people who are not at the race track and want to preserve their clutch for 50 K or so.
  • spiritintheskyspiritinthesky Member Posts: 207
    "Am I the only person here who guns a car from a stop at every light?"

    No, from what I can tell, you have at least some competition for the title of "King of the Jerks". But just out of curiosity, what does that behavior get you, if you don't mind me asking?

    I have two cars with a combined 0-60 time of roughly 8 seconds. A 2003 M5 at about 4.5 and 2007 911 Turbo at about 3.5. If I had bought either car so I could act like an [non-permissible content removed] at every stoplight, I'd consider myself pretty pitiful. Not that I lollygag around when the light turns green. But I don't have some genetic predisposition that requires me to burn rubber to show I have an ample supply of testosterone (to go along with mental deficiencies).

    I can eschew the virtues of handling, steering, braking, etc. as just as important as acceleration in "performance". But inevitably, I am repeatedly asked "how fast" one or the other of my cars is. And occassionally, someone will attempt to lure me into a debate about why a 911 Turbo costs $140k and a nearly as fast Corvette only costs $50k. It takes some self discipline to keep from pointing out that it doesn't really matter, with that kind of mental capacity, they are unlikely to have the choice of the latter, let alone the former.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    My car does a 0-60 mph in 9 seconds. The 100 K that I saved relative to the two absurd vehicles that you purchased is earning a large dividend relative to the loss that you are now incurring. In addition to the fact that you can't legally drive those vehicles at even 1/2 speed, tell me again the technical insight as to how the 0-60 mph is meaningless and "yesterday". I believe the Sesame Street forum offers more meaningful logic rebuttals.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    how the 0-60 mph is meaningless

    How many of your stints going 0-60 mph involve launches the way reviewers do? Have you measured your time? Or, do you look out the window and look at couple of teenagers you're racing on the streets with?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Today's 0-60 is the equivalent of 0-30 in Uncle Tom's day.

    Incidentally, McCahill wasn't just another auto tester. His road test reports were really witty.

    Let's distinguish between fun and safety. I disagree with the notion that you need pavement scorching 0-60 or 10-60 to enter entrance ramps safely, or to ensure that you can do so. I think that very fast acceleration is more for fun than for safety, and that all the new cars from major manufacturers have sufficient power to access freeway ramps safely. You can always conjure up a hypothetical situation where 0-60 in 6 seconds avoids an accident, where 0-60 in 7 or 8 seconds wouldn't have. But then, why not 0-60 in 3 seconds, or 2 seconds? What percentage of accidents occur because someone didn't enter a road quickly enough, or didn't accelerate from a situation fast enough? And for every one of those accidents, don't you think that another one, or maybe two, was attributable to someone having more power than they could prudently use? I mean, within a reasonable range, why is slower acceleration, say 0-60 in 12 seconds, automatically more dangerous than the potential risks associated with 0-60 in 3.9 seconds? At the risk of sounding sexist, let me use gender to make my point. Can we agree that, generally, more guys than women accelerate aggressively? If yes, then do women account for a disproportionate number of on-ramp accidents, because fewer of them floor it, or, on average, may drive fewer high powered cars than men? Anything's possible, but I don't think so.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Well, I would disagree...being able to accelerate quickly while entering a highway is a safety factor, especially in Pennsylvania where plenty of poorly designed entrance ramps and lots of congestion often provide a nerve-wracking combination.

    Some of the entrance ramps to the Schuylkill Expressway are a nightmare, especially when traffic is heavy. And we've got a few around Harrisburg that make me wonder what PennDOT was thinking.

    As for "all the new cars from major manufacturers have sufficient power to access freeway ramps safely" - this is true, but that is because by historical standards, virtually all new cars are very fast.

    A dead-stock V-6 Accord can probably blow away most of those vaunted muscle cars from the 1960s, not to mention more than a few of the German performance machines from the 1980s.

    The new "average" would have been sensational 20 years ago.

    As for the male-female breakdown. That is disappearing. Younger women are just as aggressive as younger males when it comes to accelerating. And is there proof that accidents are caused by people flooring it (as opposed, to say, being too timid and hesitating)?
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    "Am I the only person here who guns a car from a stop at every light?"

    Without getting into name calling, I'm curious too - what does that behavior get you? You saved $100k over a high performance sports car, yet feel compelled mash the pedal at every stoplight? You must admit, it sounds a little bi-polar. Certainly not the best way to save additional bucks at the gas pump.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    "A dead-stock V-6 Accord can probably blow away most of those vaunted muscle cars from the 1960s, not to mention more than a few of the German performance machines from the 1980s."

    Top Gear did this great bit where they were open tracking a beautifully-maintained and all-original old Jag E-type convertible (with the 12 cyl engine).

    After putting it through its paces, they raced it against a middle of the line current model Honda Accord. The difference in acceleration was astounding, as the Honda left it in the dust, with Jag driver Jeremy howling in protest. ;)
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    No offense intended to anyone. Allow me to explain. I had to take the Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia, PA for my first job. It's been about 15 years so I don't know what it is like now. Here is my recollection.

    It was an urban road, highly congested, mostly commuter cars, a lot of traffic lights (say every 1/2 mile). The traffic would literally go 0-60 mph in about 10 seconds after each traffic light with or without you.

    Scenario 1. You have a car that goes 0-60 mph in under 8 seconds and can turn without making a complete stop. You are in good shape.

    Scenario 2. You have a car that goes 0-60 mph in 10 seconds. You are still OK, however, you will have to floor it to reduce driving stress.

    Scenario 3. You have a car that goes 0-60 mph in 12 seconds. You will not keep up with traffic. In a 3-lane road, cars will exit the other lanes to "space fill" in front of you creating additional traffic congestion.

    Scenario 4. You have a car that goes 0-60 mph in 15 seconds or longer. You are a hazard. Cars will "space fill" in front of you and others will be desperately trying to get out from behind you. If you happen to come across 4 teenagers in a car that was behind you, they will be waving you over to initiate a fight for the next 3 miles because they believed you were deliberately delaying them. If you are an old man, a woman or look mentally challenged, the teenagers will usually give you a free pass with a dirty look. Unfortunately, I didn't fall into any of the free-pass categories since I was basically 20 or so at the time.

    There are roads like this in every city in the US. I realize my driving pattern might not be appropriate now, however, it is ingrained. A 0-60 mph number is the first thing I look at in car.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    When you say, 0-60 in 8 seconds, do you imply a real life scenario, or those involving launch techniques that virtually all magazines use?

    I have driven virtually everywhere in the USA, and can't imagine a scenario I haven't. Something I have found a better measure than published 0-60 run is that cars with about 20 lb/HP are enough to safely merge on short ramps (and actually in those situations, a complete stop does not make sense unless there is a light in which case, you're not really merging right away, so rolling acceleration makes more sense).

    I drive a car that is said to do 0-60 in about 9.5-10s, and more often than not, I am braking while merging with traffic going 65-70 mph. And thats on crowded freeways in Dallas area (most freeways do have service roads and the ramp may be short, but the car is already running at about 35-40 mph at the beginning of the short ramp... again, a 40-70 mph acceleration test would be more meaningful there than a 0-60 with high rev launch.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    On some Pennsylvania roads, coming to a stop at the base of the entrance ramp is the only choice the driver has. Too much traffic and not enough entrance ramp.

    I can take you to several entrance ramps within 10 miles of my home where, when traffic is heavy, but still moving at 65-70 mph, the driver must be prepared to come to a complete stop before merging (most of these are along I-83).
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Fair enough response, and I wasn't looking to offend either. However, if that is why...

    "A 0-60 mph number is the first thing I look at in car".

    ...I'm not sure quite how you ended up with a car that only does 0-60 in 9 seconds, forcing you to gun it to keep up with traffic at every light. I bought a 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed 12+ years ago for $20,500. It's given me 155k miles of excellent service and the maintenance and repair bills have been minimal. And it did/does 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, according to R&T. I didn't buy the Maxima thinking I was getting a "4 door sports car", but it certainly had more than adequate performance to feel safe in the traffic situations you describe.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I've driven enough in PA, and similar cases can be found in Seattle area too (but traffic doesn't move there as fast as it does in Dallas area although there aren't ramp lights here).

    That said, people that focus on 0-60 published in magazines should realize that in real life situations, those numbers would be hard to replicate. How many people do 4500 rpm clutch drops (or figure out the best possible rpm for their launch) to go from 0-60?

    It is how we have seen a discrepancy of 1.5s between 0-60 (5.4s?) and 5-60 mph (6.9s) acceleration for MazdaSpeed6. It is why you see Consumer Report's 0-60 usually being a lot slower than what most magazines obtain in their runs.

    The inconsistency in testing procedures renders 0-60 run useless (even if it were useful in some situations), A rolling acceleration (like 5-60) is far more useful indicator of a cars acceleration potential to a typical driver outside of a drag racing circuit.

    I would rather see those acceleration numbers being published, along with acceleration from different speeds (say, 45-70 or whatever) going thru gears than the "best" measurements magazines focus on today.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    What's the old saying...."Americans buy horsepower, but drive torque"?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,543
    What's the old saying...."Americans buy horsepower, but drive torque"?

    Exactly. And that's probably the reason that my decrepit 22 year old pickup truck, with all of 165 hp out of 305 cubes still ends up getting up to speed quicker than most drivers I come across. 245 foot-pounds of torque @ 2400 rpm. You really don't have to step on it very hard to make it move. In contrast, most smaller, high-revving cars DO require you to stomp them a bit more. And it's not that it's going to hurt them, it's just that the drivers don't want to do it! It's almost like they're trying to drive their modern, high-revving DOHC engines like they're mid-70's 455 Electras or something! And that just doesn't work.

    I remember about 7 years ago, a co-worker's mother traded in a 1994 Intrepid with the 3.3 pushrod and 161 hp for a 1999 with the 2.7 DOHC and 200 hp. And then she complained that the new car didn't have the power of the old one! Now interestingly, in this case, the 2.7 actually has a bit more torque, 190 ft-lb at something like 5900 rpm, versus 181 ft-lb @3200 rpm.

    However, not too many old ladies are going to rev a car to 5900 rpm, unless they're like from Pasadena or something. And that's what was happening in this case.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    Have you driven some of the modern, low pressure turbo motors that are out these days? Pretty nice as you get a bit of that bigger-block feel with lots of torque available down low and pretty nice, flat torque curves. Definetly makes them feel much bigger than some of the modern, normally asperated motors that you have to really rev to get the power out of.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,543
    Have you driven some of the modern, low pressure turbo motors that are out these days?

    Nah, can't say that I have. About the most exotic things I've driven lately were a V-6 Fusion, Accord, and Camry at a local test-drive event that was sponsored by Ford and C&D. They let us kind of flog the things around a test course, which was fun.

    I actually don't have a problem with higher-revving engines, once I get accustomed to them. But if I've been driving my pickup truck for awhile, and then get behind the wheel of my Intrepid, it feels a little weird and gutless at first. Until I remember oops, gotta give this one a little gas to make it go! :)

    **edit: I goofed up on the Intrepid's torque specs. It gets peak torque, 190 ft-lb at around 4850 rpm. It's the peak hp of 200 that comes on around 5900 rpm. Still, I'd imagine that 4850 rpm is a lot more than a lot of people want to rev it to, especially if they're used to older, more luggy engines.
  • booyahcramerbooyahcramer Member Posts: 172
    I'm with ya Johnny.

    Having the HPs doesn't mean you always have to use them. But if you're not gonna use them....why buy them? There are many times you want to just get ahead of the pack for whatever reason. Its nice to know you can do it at will. Cause there are many, many times in urban traffic it just doesn't matter how many HPs you have, you're not gonna use many of 'em.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    We may not agree on the acceleration required to access expressways safely, but not on the inappropriateness of stereotyping. My qualified references to male-female driving habits are based on observations and perceptions (which may be inaccurate), perhaps similar to Andre's gender reference in Message #32. In any event, the differences in driving styles may indeed be narrowing or disappearing.

    If you don't mind my asking, how far must you depress the accelerator of your Accord V6 to safely enter the expressways that you cited?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Was it you yesterday that took a mile to get up to 60 mph on the freeway because you wanted to stay in that low end torque zone as opposed to actually trying to accelerate faster? :D
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    0-60 is a benchmark for comparison,if you knew what a benchmark is there would be no need for your post.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    To clarify the excessive double negatives in my previous message, I intended to say that we agree that stereotyping is inappropriate.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Which magazines benchmark do you use? R&T? Edmunds? C&D? What are you using this benchmark for? Lets say two cars (real numbers) posted the following numbers (0-60):
    Acura CL-S/6MT: 5.9s
    BMW 330Ci Sport/6MT: 5.8s

    What do you conclude from it? Wait, let me throw in another number from the same test (5-60 mph), and tell me what you conclude now...
    Acura CL-S/6MT: 6.2s
    BMW 330Ci Sport/6MT: 6.5s

    If you use one for benchmarking something, I am curious if you would use the other for the same. Would you?

    Thats a lot of questions for you.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    ...there's no significant difference between the two. You'd look to other factors for your choice between these two cars.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    I always drive in the high rpm band and I do not get fuel efficiency numbers significantly lower than the EPA values. The 2003 Honda Civic SI that I had was always driven at 5000 rpm and with the 2006 Toyota Corolla that I currently drive I try to stay at 4200 rpm (these are the rpm values that produce maximum torque according to the Edmunds site). I have read multiple citations that indicate that a diesel engine should be operated at the rpm that produces the maximum torque. For years, that is what I have done with gasoline cars (primarily because I drive smaller cars and I want to keep maximum passing power if I need it by staying in the power band - I am not very concerned about maximizing efficiency).

    I would like to understand why a gasoline engine would be fundamentally different than a diesel engine. Intuitively, it makes sense to me that running the engine at the rpm that produces the maximum torque would make it the most efficient (which is about 65 % or the redline for a Corolla). Can anyone provide actual data isolating engine rpm versus fuel efficiency (that does not incoporate velocity which has clearly been theoretically and experimentally shown to decrease fuel efficiency via aerodynamic drag) for a gasoline engine to convince me to drive like a grandpa and "save" gas. Otherwise, I will be keeping my car at the maximum torque rpm range

    Does anyone have actual data showing rpm versus fuel efficiency? I would like to see it. I would certainly believe the data showing that lower rpm gives better fuel efficiency, however, I would like a technical explanation (engine oil viscous drag due to the higher rpm of a gas engine, spark timing effects that are absent in diesel engines, etc.)
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    What I conclude is that you are a kid that thinks too much about cars and not enough about women. Use the 1/4 mile and 40-60 passing #'s if you need more #s.
  • blue330xiblue330xi Member Posts: 56
    Man someone who likes driving slow posting on an auto enthusiest forum thats so last decade. If you dont like fast cars why not gripe about them on the environmental blog, they will agree with you. I use maximum acceleration every day. Why? its fun. I could do it the grand ma way and drive 45 on the freeway but I would rather go 80 like everyone else. If you dont get it then you should be driving a base level daewoo or a mercury grand marqee.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Last time I checked, Edmunds was about cars. Well that makes it a day care center, I suppose.

    Having said that, there is no need to get so defensive about 0-60 measurements. Having avoided answering my questions tells me that there really isn't much for you to defend.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    Tom McCahill! Talk about an answer to an automotive journalism trivia question!! LOL

    I think you're right on the origin of the 0-60 test. Today, family sedans turn in comparable times in the 0-100 test that Uncle Tom used to get in his 0-60 tests.

    I still think 0-60 serves as a rough measure of a car's spunk. Around my territory, it's common for traffic to come to a dead stop on highways, sometimes from traffic, toll booths or the famous invisible stop sign. Once the obstacle (real or imagined) is cleared, it's considered highly improper to impede following cars, many of which will go to full-bore acceleration trying to make up for the time they lost. May the spirit of Uncle Tom help you if you happen to be in the far left lane at the wheel of a Corolla in this situation.

    I'd say the 0-60 time will continue to influence motorists, because it does give an idea how a car will respond when asked. It's as good as or better than similar measures. And, maybe most important, 0-60 times are pretty firmly embedded in common auto performance nomenclature.

    I don't need a car to turn in a 4.5 sec time, but I'd be a little nervous if it was up near 10.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,543
    Once the obstacle (real or imagined) is cleared, it's considered highly improper to impede following cars, many of which will go to full-bore acceleration trying to make up for the time they lost.

    Wow, what a refreshing, novel idea. Just imagine, the thought of driving considerately, and going out of your way NOT to impede the flow of traffic! Alas, my experience has been, more often than not, once you get past said obstacle, if the flow of traffic is back up to to 60 in under a minute, consider yourself lucky.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    LOL Robert, I doubt it. While I spend probably most of my drive time in the 2-3K zone, doesn't mean I don't venture outside of it!

    Sidenote on your comment, one thing that always annoyed me when I would drive a relatively lightly powered vehicle is when someone would loaf along in the on ramp...say in a corvette, and then at the lest second, gun it up to speed. Great for you buddy, but what about the rest of us schmucks you just screwed who needed the on ramp to accelerate? Ugh. The GTI doesn't put me in that boat, but I've had plenty of vehicles in the past that needed a good portion of that stinkin' on ramp! :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,543
    Sidenote on your comment, one thing that always annoyed me when I would drive a relatively lightly powered vehicle is when someone would loaf along in the on ramp...say in a corvette, and then at the lest second, gun it up to speed.

    Yeah, I hate that too. Sometimes, when I see somebody doing that, I'll purposely hold back a bit, creating some distance between them and me so that I have more room to get up to speed. But then I have to balance that, becuase if I hold back too far then it's screwing the people behind me.

    It might be different in a stick shift car, but even with more powerful automatics that can cause a problem, especially ones with a lot of gears. They'll often just detect that there's a situation with no load and upshift into a gear that's utterly gutless. So when you do have to punch it, it takes a moment for the engine to rev up and the tranny to pick the right gear. Now once you're in the right gear, it'll make up for lost time very fast, but it's still cost you some time, made it more difficult for you to merge, and screwed the people behind you even more.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    one thing that always annoyed me when I would drive a relatively lightly powered vehicle is when someone would loaf along in the on ramp

    Yeah, that is pretty irritating. I always see it from Buicks and SUVs, probably because their suspension can't take the ramp at more than 30 mph without rolling out of the curve and down the embankment.
This discussion has been closed.