0-60 is so yesterday!

bumpy

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.

How about upper 11s? Edmunds says the 2000 Accent runs a 11.5, yet I somehow seem to have survived merging onto the interstate with it just fine. The SE-R is a bit more fun at mid-7s (VLSD = ), and with the S2000 I just aim the car at a point and Mister Scott will beam me over there. :shades:

Kirstie_H

Let's knock off the juvenile personal comments, please.

john_324

"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."

I really think much of today's "road rage" comes about because of selfish drivers who think of the driving experience only in terms of themselves, and never consider the externalities they create by their actions/inactions.

Sure, the guys who ride your bumper and whip between lanes at high speeds are usually (and rightly) singled out, but what about:

- the drivers poking along in the left lane, there only because they're going to make a left turn in say, 2 miles?

- The "good samaritans" who decide they're going to let every single car into the traffic stream ahead of them?

- The drivers who come to a complete stop at yield signs before they attempt to merge?

And many many more. :mad:

andre1969

How about upper 11s? Edmunds says the 2000 Accent runs a 11.5, yet I somehow seem to have survived merging onto the interstate with it just fine.

I think about the only time in recent memory that I've had trouble merging was for about a week and a half, with my pickup truck. I had to have a new exhaust system put on before going through the emissions test, but the muffler shop, well, put a muffed up muffler on the thing that didn't breathe right. It raised the shift points for 1st and 2nd gear by about 10 mph, and at the same time really held it back. At the end of my street, I have to make a right turn from stop onto a 4-lane divided road with a 45 mph speed limit, but traffic is often going 50-60. In the past, I could usually get the truck up to about 45-50 by the end of the short merge ramp, but there's usually enough gaps in the traffic to merge in. And heck, I'm usually merging in faster than other people tend to do!

But with the muffed up muffler, often I was struggling at 35-40 to get onto the road. And while in the past, the truck would hit the end of the ramp at 45-50 and still accelerating strong, it was often still straining to gain speed.

There's a steep hill on my street before that right turn, and one cold morning, I had to limp up the hill at about 5 mph! That was an experience. Thankfully it's fixed now, though. And during that time I only had to go out on a real highway a few times.

but even with that defective muffler, I could still time it to merge fairly safely. And heck, how fast does a school bus do 0-60? They have to merge onto this road all the time!

robertsmx

I get to experience it virtually everyday. Sometimes when I am lucky, I don’t have anybody in front of me, and my cars are good for 45-50 mph on that 30 mph ramp. And usually when I do, it doesn’t matter whether the vehicle in front of me is a Corvette, an SUV or an 18-wheeler.

In any case, the car is still rolling at 30-40 mph before merging with a freeway that usually has an average traffic flow of about 70 mph. This is another case where 0-60 mph acceleration is simply useless. It would be weird for me to see someone stop completely, rev the engine and drop the clutch to get to the traffic. What matters in these situations is how well the cars accelerate from 40-70 mph. And last time I checked a magazine that publishes 50-70 mph acceleration, Corvette takes over 10 s to accelerate. My lightly powered Accord is said to do it in about 6.5 seconds.

robertsmx

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.

Hmmm... my Accord seems to fall in that near 10s category. And thats with professional behind the wheels who do their best to extract the best 0-60 time and publish it in their review. In my hands, and driving style (still leadfooted but I don't do torque brake launches), I might be getting the car to do 0-60 in about 10.5 s. And based on my experience, I usually end up traveling faster than the traffic around me. Nervousness only strikes from the fear of rear ending the car in front of me.

andre1969

And last time I checked a magazine that publishes 50-70 mph acceleration, Corvette takes over 10 s to accelerate. My lightly powered Accord is said to do it in about 6.5 seconds.

Robert, are those 50-70 times for the Accord and Corvette both for the same type of transmission? If the Accord is an automatic and the Corvette's a stick, then the way they do those tests, the Accord would blow it away. The automatic tranny will simply downshift and take off, but when the buff rags do that test with a stick shift, they just leave it in high gear and let it do the best it can.

But now if the Corvette and Accord both had the same tranny, then that just shows the Corvette sucks! :P

wale_bate1

My old '95 Stratus with its nice little Mitsu V6 turned in a verified 9.6 to 60, and handled on ramp duty, even in LA (some of those ramps are circa 1925), with relative ease.

Sub 10 0-60s work fine for the real world, IMO. Everything else is frosting. This is not to say that after six years of driving it I would not have taken an extra 10lb/ft in that Stratus, but reality is/was that in comparison to the rest of its class at the time, though not the fastest off the line, it was a far more capable and competent car in almost all other respects.

I would agree it's still a useful component in assessing a car's qualifications on paper, but too many people put way the heck too much emphasis on it. A sub-6 second sedan, whether a "sport sedan" or not, is simply over-kill, especially if the increase in grunt hasn't been matched by an increase in handling parameters.

All that said, I do harp on the virtues of the S4 Avant from time to time, and that certainly has the aforementioned grunt in spades, but the real joy of that car is in the suspension, brakes, steering and feel; the seat-back squashing torque is, as I said, merely icing.

Really thick, yummy icing.

But merely icing, all the same.

robertsmx

Hence my original point (see post #7). People buy too much into published numbers by magazines, most of them are far from reflecting anything "real".

rorr

...with published 0-60 times is that they are highly dependent on launch technique, type of pavement, etc. And the fact that one can find wildly varying times from supposedly 'identical' cars depending on which source is being consulted (and who was testing the car that day and how many runs were done to arrive at the published number).

Personally, I think that IF acceleration times from a standstill to 60 mph is 'needed' for vehicle evaluation, that a 5-60 mph test makes more sense as it eliminates many of the varibles that will effect the final numbers.

seminole_kev

really, of more interest to me would be a torque and HP dyno chart for the engine. As a buyer, I would be far more interested in seeing that than seeing 0-60 times where the guy's dumping the clutch at 5000 RPM.

andre1969

really, of more interest to me would be a torque and HP dyno chart for the engine. As a buyer, I would be far more interested in seeing that than seeing 0-60 times where the guy's dumping the clutch at 5000 RPM.

Yeah, it's a shame that kind of stuff isn't more readily available. I still have the brochure for my 2000 Intrepid, and it shows power and torque curves, plotted on a graph, for the 2.7 variable intake, 3.2, and 3.5 (but not the basic 2.7 that I have). And I know that those plots are pretty readily available for GM cars at www.gmpowertrain.com.

What I'd really like to see is for them to start taking hp measurements at the wheels, instead of just listing net hp. While net is more realistic than gross hp, it's still taken at the flywheel, and doesn't account for the transmission, driveshaft, differential (or just the transaxle on FWD cars), axles, cv joints, etc.

There's a guy in one of my Mopar clubs that beefed up the 2.7 in his Intrepid and got it to put out something like 250 hp at the wheels. It's rated at 200 net (although the variable intake had 202 hp), but he said that once the power gets to the wheels, you're down to about 150.

It would be interesting to see how different transmissions and other components sap the power of various cars.

bumpy

Honda has the JDM data online (I'll have to find the link later), but for most other makes you really have to extrapolate it from dyno runs.

fintail

I think 0-60 is used so widely because it is very easy to measure and to quantify in ones mind.

Speaking of flooring it from every intersection...I floor it in the fintail a lot...sometimes I have to. Usually I keep it shy of 1st gear kickdown, but sometimes not.

wale_bate1

Absolutely the truth, fintail.

seminole_kev

"What I'd really like to see is for them to start taking hp measurements at the wheels, instead of just listing net hp. While net is more realistic than gross hp, it's still taken at the flywheel, and doesn't account for the transmission, driveshaft, differential (or just the transaxle on FWD cars), axles, cv joints, etc. "

The only problem is everyone would have to convert to the same rating at the same time, or else joe-bob on the street would say, "Hey, that car (net rated) has 200 HP, while this one here (at the wheels) has 175 HP. This here 200 HP one will blow its doors off!"

As it is, I can see all the complaining:
Buyer "Hey, last year this car made 220 HP. How come this year it's down to 200?"
Salesman "Well you see, they changed the rating and"
Buyer (cuts him off)"Quit trying to screw me over!!!!"

or something to that effect.

andre1969

I wonder if that kind of carrying on happened back in the early 70's when they started switching from gross hp to net?

seminole_kev

Probably.

Heck, my father still thinks that the switch to liters from cubic inches was just a way to make smaller engines not sound so small.

robertsmx

While it would help nerds like us, dyno chart would make no sense to most other people. Besides, HP and torque curve aren't going to tell you anything about performance either, until you throw in gearing.

habitat1

"really, of more interest to me would be a torque and HP dyno chart for the engine."

What would that tell you?

From Motor Trends comparison of the 2005 Corvette Z51 and the 2005 Porche 911S:

Corvette:
6.0 liter V8 SOHC
400 hp @ 6,000 rpm
400 ft-lbs @ 4,400 rpm
3,267 lb curb weight
0-60 in 4.4 seconds
600 ft. slalom in 68.9 mph
60-0 braking - 113 feet

911S Coupe:
3.8 liter F-6 DOHC
355 hp @ 6,600 rpm
295 ft-lbs @ 4,600 rpm
3,283 lb curb weight
0-60 in 4.2 seconds
600 ft. slalom in 70.1 mph
60-0 braking - 106 feet

Frankly, I have found horsepower and torque ratings to NOT necessarily be a good surrogate for performance. Just about every entry level luxury performance sedan (ELLPS) today is rated at over 250 horsepower, several over 300. Try driving one next to the old "meager" 240 hp BMW M3 and few, if any, can hold their own. There are clearly manufacturers, such as Porsche, BMW and Ferrari, that are more efficient in getting superior performance out of similar or lower power.

I am not arguing for 0-60 as being a metric of performance, but looking at the above power ratings would lead you to a very distorted and incorrect conclusion.

seminole_kev

I'm not asking for the ratings. I'm asking for the chart (dyno graph) that shows HP and Torque over the RPM range. Such as

Robert, gearing is important, but again, I know how I drive. I'm more interested in a flexable powertrain with a nice, relatively flat torque band then I am a engine that really starts coming on cam at about 7000 RPM.

A dyno graph (chart) would tell me more regarding that then a 0-60 time.

seminole_kev

Granted my above example shows before and after a modification, and I just need the stock HP and Torque ranges.

habitat1

I admit to finding such graphs intellectually interesting (my math orientation, probably), but until I get in a car and test drive it myself, they remain purely intellectually interesting and still not very indicative of real world performance. If you have access, put up comparison charts of the Corvette vs. 911S and show me where the Corvette's extra 45 hp (13%) and 105 ft-lbs (35%) is going? Running the A/C or mega-bass stereo?

robertsmx

2008 Ford Escape AWD/AT
From the spec sheet...
Peak Outputs: 200 HP @ 6000 rpm, 193 lb-ft @ 4850 rpm
Curb Weight: 3547 lb

From test results...
0-60: 10.1s

2007 Honda CR-V AWD/AT
From the spec sheet...
Peak Outputs: 166 HP @ 5800 rpm, 161 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm
Curb Weight: 3549 lb

From test results...
0-60: 9.8s

Those who take 0-60 run as a measure of a vehicle's performance capabilities, are you still betting on it?

bumpy

The first thing I'd conclude (leaving aside the question of the mysterious extra cam in the 'vette's engine :P )is that the driver of the Corvette is not competent since the car has a surplus of both horsepower and torque to the 911 in the mid-4 to mid-6k rpm range. Unless the Corvette is wheel-hopping badly or suffering from inordinately high drivetrain losses, it should be able to dispatch the Porsche.

herolet

[quote]And last time I checked a magazine that publishes 50-70 mph acceleration, Corvette takes over 10 s to accelerate[/quote]

If you go back and check the magzine again, you may notice that was done in top-gear. It would be less than 3 seconds for a regular vette to reach from 50 to 70 for an average driver when he drop the gear down to the 3rd. Try your accord in tog-gear too if you have a manual tranny. You won't be supprised to see it take much longer than vette does.

robertsmx

If you want to understand flexibility afforded by an engine, well, that’s where my complaints come in. Magazines simply don’t focus on that aspect. Only one seems to do 5-60 which I consider quite meaningful. They also do 30-50 and 50-70 but I find it ridiculous that they don’t change gears if manual transmission is involved.

Speaking of flexibility though, if we know the peak power and peak torque of an engine, it is relatively simple to figure out what the outputs are at other engine speeds. It will be very surprising if most engines didn’t produce 90% or better of their peak torque from about 2500 rpm or under (cars with very high specific torque output may be exceptions).

Here you have rear wheel dyno plot for Acura 3.2/V6 used in the 1997 NSX. It has a torque curve as flat as Kansas, but could you conclude by looking at it that it could propel a 3166 lb car to do 0-60 in 4.7s and thru the quarter mile in 13.2s?

My comparison (above) between CR-V (2.4-liter I-4) and Escape (3.0-liter V6) is a good example where simply having a dyno chart is not going to help you determine better 0-60 performance. I don’t believe at any point the Honda four-cylinder should be producing more torque (hence power) than the Ford V6.

robertsmx

You guys are trying to defend the Corvette. My argument isn’t that Corvette is slow. Read my first post in this thread (#7 on the first page). Things like that only prove how magazines go after meaningless numbers. They do not measure things that better reflect reality. Although their point does prove that engine torque isn’t the end game after all.

Blindly believing in 0-60 performance is not unlike believing in EPA estimates for fuel economy. I could be a Prius owner claiming that my car does indeed get 60 mpg in city. Then, EPA won’t be considering a change in its measurement methodology which went into effect on Jan 2.

herolet

I am not defending corvette. I just wanted to point out that your "vette takes 10 second while accord takes 6.5 seconds from 50 to 70mph" statement was comparing apple to orange.

ACCELERATION: Seconds
Zero to 30 mph: 1.6
40 mph: 2.2
50 mph: 2.8
60 mph: 3.6
70 mph: 4.5
80 mph: 5.5
90 mph: 6.7
100 mph: 7.9
110 mph: 9.3
120 mph: 11.0
130 mph: 12.8
140 mph: 15.0
150 mph: 17.5
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.3
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 12.9
50-70 mph: 10.6

When a vetter driver merges to the highway, he won't hold on the 5th gear. He will drop it to the 3rd or even the 2nd to accelerate. So you would never see a 10 sec vette (from 50 to 70) on the public road. I bet your auto-accord automatically drops to the 3rd when you accelerate it from 50 to 70. In reality, it's probably 6.5 vs 3. Not 6.5 vs 10.

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.html

john_324

a more statistical study with a bigger sample re this question.

I'd imagine that generally, there is a correlation between higher HP and TQ numbers and faster 0-60 times.

Sure, there are some outliers that don't fit the theory (the previous two examples) and problems re standardizing the human factor involved, but I suspect we'd see a clear trend.

So having those numbers would provide useful information to average (i.e. not us) prospective buyers...provided they understood the context.

robertsmx

Another that comes to mind is a (1999?) comparison by R&T that involved a few high performance cars. Mario Andretti was the driver (unfortunately, I don't remember the quarter mile trap speeds)...
NSX (290 HP/224 lb-ft, 3166 lb)
0-60: 4.7s
Quarter Mile: 13.2s

Corvette C5 Coupe (345 HP/350 lb-ft, 3250 lb)
0-60: 4.8s
Quarter Mile: 13.3s

Despite of better power to weight ratio, and considerably more torque in C5, it barely matched the NSX.

Now, while the next two are similar in power, torque and weight, and both use turbo charged 2.3 liter engines equipped with automatic transmissions, note the difference in performance (from CR road test):
Acura RDX (240 HP@6000 rpm/260 lb-ft@4500 rpm, 3982 lb)
0-60: 7.4s

Mazda CX-7 (244 HP@5000 rpm/258 lb-ft@2500 rpm, 3929 lb)
0-60: 9.1s

For yet another sample, and I have not seen the latest copy of C&D which has comparison of mainstream sedans, the two quickest were Altima and Aura. The Nissan (175 HP 2.5/I-4) beat the Saturn (210 HP/220 lb-ft? 3.5/V6) in 0-60 run.

There are many more examples like this. This is not to suggest that HP and torque don't play a role or are meaningless, it is all about how those numbers are put to use.

IMO, it is ok to measure 0-60 performance. It will be better if they are determined using ways a typical driver would. And to make the stats even more meaningful, rolling acceleration should be a part of every road test. I don't use 0-60 at all (with toll tag, not even at toll booths). But I do utilize rolling acceleration capabilities of my vehicles everytime I am on the road.

robertsmx

Read my post #7.

blufz1

Agree,RMX,gets a lot of things wrong.Benchmark,a point of reference for a measurement. You could look it up. By using traditional benchmarks 0-60,standing 1/4 w/mph and the newer 50-70 passing #s the average person can learn enough about a car's RELATIVE performance for his/her needs.

john_324

Maybe a 5-50 mph time?

robertsmx

That would work. 5-60 is already a part of C&D road tests that I like. The more like it, the merrier.

saabgirl

The Feb Car & Driver that tested family sedans also tested the captioned rockets. Measurements included: 0-60, 0-100, 0-150, 30-50 and 50-70. The two latter are done in top gear.

The BMW gets from 0-100 in a snappy 10.3, but only manages 50-70 in 7.4. Looks like a typo, doesn't it?

The MB did 0-100 in 9.7 and 50-70 in 3.2.

0-60 times for these wailers was Audi, 5.4; BMW, 4.7; MB, 4.2.

What would Tom Cahill say about that?

th83

I know this is slightly off-topic, but how exactly is the 5-60 test done?

C/D's explanation of the test is pretty vague, leaving one to wonder if they get the car rolling 5 MPH before just stomping the throttle, or if they actually launch the car from a dead stop, only without their standard, abusive launch techniques (high-rpm clutch drops and the like) and wheelspin.

When Car & Driver tested an automatic Accord V6 like mine in their 12/05 issue, they managed a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds and a 5-60 time of 7.1.

My own (admittedly unscientific) test results differ somewhat, with 0-60 and 5-60 being equal at 6.9 seconds. For the 0-60 test, I just stomp the throttle without using brake-torque (I'm not trying to destroy my transmission, after all) and start the timer just as the car begins to roll. My 5-60 is just as the name implies: I ease the car up to 5 MPH and then floor it so that there's no wheelspin whatsoever, starting the timer as soon as 5 MPH is reached and the throttle is floored.

It's strange that C/D's results show a half-second difference between the 0-60 and 5-60 tests, while my results show no difference at all.

Could a brake-torque launch really improve my car's 0-60 time by a half-second as opposed to just stomping the throttle outright? Or does C/D just do their 5-60 test differently than I do, accounting for the half-second discrepancy between the two tests? It'd be nice if my Accord could hit 60 in just 6.4 seconds, but I'm going to put my money on the latter. But, if so, how is their 5-60 test done?

blufz1

Good point,th83, tests from a standstill are easier and more consistent than rolling starts. There are too many variables with rolling starts.

bumpy

http://www.honda.co.jp/factbook/auto/index.html

saabgirl

tests from a standstill are easier and more consistent than rolling starts. There are too many variables with rolling starts.

For typical consumers who are better conncected to the seat of their pants than torque curves, that's an important observation. I know what zero is. But is 5 actually 3.5? 6.2? Or what? And the passing times that are limited to top gear just encourage skepticism IMHO.

cccompson

Hmmm...maybe that's true with slower cars but, IMHO, it's just the other way around with high performance machines where launch skills/techniques can make a huge difference in timeslips.

blufz1

Benchmarks! We are talking about real world passenger car tests and car mag editor drivers not John Force and his Funny car.

hpmctorque

"What would Tom Cahill say about that?"

He'd probably say something like, "these '07 technorods go like scalded banshees shot out of a cannon." Naw, I can't begin to he as humorous with words as Uncle Tom.

fedlawman

HP and TQ curves are no more reliable than 0-60 times. A dyno run printout can tell you a lot about how much power the car is making at the wheels, but what was the temperature, air density, and humidity that day? Was it performed with Mustang or Dynojet equipment?

0-60 testing suffers from the same variables, with the additional problem of different drivers and different roads. Another problem I haven't seen mentioned yet is gearing. Some cars can reach 60 MPH in 2nd gear, and some require an upshift to 3rd in order to reach that "benchmark" - time lost.

Gearing also comes into play when looking at acceleration figures of two different cars. Why can a less powerful 4 cylinder CRV accelerate to 60 as quickly as a 6 cylinder Escape? Just look at the final drive ratio for your answer. 4.36:1 for the Honda compared to the Ford's 3.76:1.

If you really want a good idea of how quick a car is compared to another, review 4 or 5 different sources and compare the numbers across the board. Look at 0-30, 0-60, 0-100, and 1/4 mile times/speeds. Look at curb weight, gearing, and HP/TQ curves - not just the peaks, but the amount of "space beneath the curves." Interpret all of this, and you can get a pretty accurate picture of not just how fast the car is, but what kind of power delivery it has. Oh yeah, don't forget to drive the car.

habitat1

"The first thing I'd conclude (leaving aside the question of the mysterious extra cam in the 'vette's engine" )

I am guilty of a misprint, the Corvette engine is listed as "OHC" vs the 911's "DOHC". I'm not an engineer, I take it that "OHC" and "SOHC" are not the same?

"Unless the Corvette is wheel-hopping badly or suffering from inordinately high drivetrain losses, it should be able to dispatch the Porsche."

I think you nailed part of the answer. In spite of massive rear tires on the Corvette, the 911, even in RWD form, is far more effective in putting it's power to the pavement. The pictures show a lot of tire smoking on the Corvette, with the 911 sling-shotting out of the start. Unfortunately, American performance cars are still designed with an approach that over-emphasizes "quantity" - hp, torque, tire size - than "quality" in the form of cutting edge dynamic engineering.

Good thing that's not the case with Boeing and airplanes, or they would be the GM of the airplane business instead of the world leader.

bumpy

I am guilty of a misprint, the Corvette engine is listed as "OHC" vs the 911's "DOHC". I'm not an engineer, I take it that "OHC" and "SOHC" are not the same?

Except for the early-90s ZR-1, Corvettes have always had pushrod engines with a single cam buried down in the block (OHV) instead of one or two cams on top of each head (SOHC or DOHC).

andre1969

Gearing also comes into play when looking at acceleration figures of two different cars. Why can a less powerful 4 cylinder CRV accelerate to 60 as quickly as a 6 cylinder Escape? Just look at the final drive ratio for your answer. 4.36:1 for the Honda compared to the Ford's 3.76:1.

Actually, it can get even more complicated than that. In addition to the axle ratios of 3.76:1 or 4.36:1, you also have to look at the ratios of the various gears. When you floor a car from a standstill, most likely it's only going to use the first and second gears to get to 60. I dunno, maybe these trannies with 5 and 6 gears might use more, but I doubt it. Usually I think those additional gears are just there to cut down highway revs, or to give you more flexibility at high speed passing.

So in theory, one car could have a quicker axle but slower first and second gears than another. But in the case of the CRV versus the Escape, that doesn't seem to be the case.

BTW, what is a typical first or second gear ratio these days? I've had a lot of old Mopar products over the years, and traditionally the Torqueflite would use a 2.45:1 first gear, although once they started going to ultra-tall 2.26:1 rear ends in 1981, they changed first gear to something like 2.74:1.

I have an old '79 New Yorker with a 2.45 axle, which puts the multiplication for first gear at about 6.00:1. I guess with a ratio like that it's a miracle it moves at all, but on the plus side it can almost make it to 60 mph just in first gear!

bumpy

BTW, what is a typical first or second gear ratio these days?

Depends on how much of a barge the car is, but a typical 5-speed manual in a compact was something like 3.3, 1.9, 1.3, 1, and 0.85 with a final in the upper 3s. Automatics are usually geared taller.

saabgirl

The technical information and variables are relevant to a segment of car buyers, I'm sure, but it seems to me to be unresponsive to the consumer who is simply after some accurate indicators of what he or she can expect from a car, planning to use the information to make comparisons with other choices.

If I asked a sales person about 0-60 times, framing it as a measure of performance that was of use to me, I'd frankly be put off by a monologue on gear ratios, launch techniques, weather conditions and tire brands. I'd expect to hear a number and credit for having enough common sense to understand that the number could vary somewhat depending on whatever.

I once had a boss who liked concise answers. When he started to get too much info he'd cut the person off with, "I asked what time it is. I don't need to know how to build a watch." He'd let people add detail -- AFTER they answered his questions concisely.

Maybe a Porsche buyer, tuner or the Schumacher brothers have different assumptions (and I'm sure have far more expertise than I do), but if I sold cars, I'd try to be clear and concise in my responses to customer Qs.

wale_bate1

"If I asked a sales person about 0-60 times, framing it as a measure of performance that was of use to me, I'd frankly be put off by a monologue on gear ratios, launch techniques, weather conditions and tire brands."

If you can find a typical salesperson on any given Wednesday on any average car lot who could even come up with the correct 0-60 time for the model about which you inquire, I'll buy a new hat and eat it!