0-60 is so yesterday!

in General
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?
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?
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
DrFill
My thought, exactly.
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.
Rocky
Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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])
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).
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!
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.