0-60 is so yesterday!

robertsmx

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

Choice of gear ratio is largely dependent on what overall ratio engineers strive to achieve. If I had to take a guess, I would say a typical 5 speed automatic transmission will have an overall drive ratio of about 12.00:1 in the first gear. That can be achieved using a 3.00:1 axle ratio to go with 4.00:1 first gear ratio, or using a 4.00:1 axle ratio to go with 3.00:1 first gear ratio. The second gear is generally 40-45% taller than the first.

And, generally, the overall span for a 4 or 5 speed transmission is 4.5-5.0 (overall span = first gear ratio divided by fifth gear ratio). So, a typical 5-speed auto (or manual) may have the following gear ratios to go with 4.00:1 axle ratio -
Gear 1- 3.00:1 (overall drive ratio- 12.00:1)
Gear 2- 1.80:1 (overall drive ratio- 7.20:1)
:
Gear 5- 0.65:1 (overall drive ratio- 2.60:1)

In a typical 6-speed auto transmission, emphasis has been on increasing that span to about 6.0 or better. This tends to allow shorter low gears and a more relaxed top gear. In fact, many 6ATs have overall ratio in first gear of over 16.00:1 (that is how BMW's generally provide feel of being more powerful from lower rated power).

andres3

I think this gives the best indication of how powerful a motor is, with the most consistent results. Plus, no one drives 60 MPH anymore, 70 is a better highway freeway speed.

robertsmx

Well, 0-70 is no better or worse than 0-60. Besides, most cities have 60 mph speed limit on freeways, where you're most likely to use a 5000 rpm "launch" from 0 mph.

andres3

Then why not standardize the rules. Just make the standard that you can't have any time to do anything other than start the car and have it at idle. Therefore, no revving, no prepping the launch. Just start from idle, any time you spend trying to rev up your launch, is time that is part of your 0 to 70 or 0 to 60 time. I like 70 more because virtually no car will get there without at least 2 shifts, whereas 60 might be obtainable in 2nd.

robertsmx

Its more logical to expect more realistic runs incorporated in road tests than one that is flashy. But magazines want flash! There is no excitement when you see 0-60 runs posted in Consumer Reports.

In fact, I'm not opposed to 0-60 runs the way magazines do it. Let them! It does make for a good reading. But IMO, more realistic tests should also be incorporated.

wale_bate1

I think the mags often do their readers a disservice with the tests. It's not the test itself, but the presentation.

From an Autoweek article on Aura v. Camry: "On the track, the Toyota drew first blood. From a standstill to 60 mph, the Camry clocked a best time of 6.22 seconds, 0.33 faster than the Aura’s 6.55, no doubt hampered by its extra 164 pounds of mass." Hello? .33 seconds is drawing "first blood"?
:sick:

No wonder the unwashed think 0-60 means more than it does...

john_324

The problem with the auto mags is that for almost all of them, the mindset is driven by either:

A bunch of testosterone-fueled middle-aged men who found a way to turn their racecar-driver fantasies into a paying job,

or

A collection of scolds who'd really rather people took public transportation, but if they *must* have a car, they should buy something that would make a government bureaucrat happy.

I wish there was "Real-world Automotive Fun" magazine...

saabgirl

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!

Fortunately, this nugget of information is readily available from other sources on any model I'd be interested in, so I'd already know the answer. It seems to me that 0-60 is so much a part of automotive nomenclature that I'm surprised people seem to be suggesting that it can't be answered without reference to torque curves and other technical jargon.

wale_bate1

I think you're making a valid point. I believe our fellow techno-motor-geeks in here are simply suggesting there are more complete ways to evaluate performance on paper.

My thought is that all the paper in the world won't give you the real story. Certainly I've experienced cars with numbers that don't look competitive, but that had it all over the competition on the road...

wale_bate1

"Fortunately, this nugget of information is readily available from other sources on any model I'd be interested in, so I'd already know the answer."

That was kind of my point - you probably know more hard info going in to the dealership than you can get there.

habitat1

Although I don't believe that straight line acceleration is the most important factor in "performance", when I do want to get a feel for waht to expect in a test drive, I might consider 0-100 times more relevant than 0-60 times.

The differences in 0-60 acceleration can often appear not that significant - under 4.5 seconds is very fast, 5.5 seconds is average for a sports car, 6.5 seconds is my 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed, 7.5 seconds is SUV territory. Add to that that "launch" techniques, different testing methods and manufacturer conservatism (or not) can lead to fairly large variances, and you do have to be careful about concluding too much. For example, my 911S is rated conservatively by Porsche at 4.6, tested by the three mags at 4.3, 4.2 and 3.9.

One of the mags lists 0-100 times. They tell me a lot more about the true acceleration performance. Not because I try to replicate that in my daily driving, but because it takes out some of the testing variation, it is a good surrogate for passing power, and it really separates the men form the boys. 0-60 vs. 0-100 times for three of my current/past cars.

2005 911S 0-60: 4.2s 0-100: 10.1s
2002 S2000 0-60: 5.5s 0-100: 13.9s
1995 Maxima 0-60: 6.6s 0-100: 20.5s

So, as you can see, although only 2.4 seconds in 0-60 separates a 12 year old family sedan from a current model serious sports car, the difference expands to 10.4 seconds going to 100 mph.

As if this gang needed more numbers to consider. I still think that my Honda S2000 was arguably about the most fun one could have under $60k because of its go-cart like handling. I've never seen a true quantification of that. It's not just lateral g's or slalom. The car just felt spectacular through my favorite stretch of Rock Creek Park. Damn close to as good as my three times as expensive 911S. And way better than a business associates Corvette that is just as fast as the 911, but feels big, stiff and bulky through that stretch of road.

Ultimately, every buyer should put their rear end in the seat for an extensive test drive, no matter what the published numbers and reviews say.

andres3

So maybe 0-60 is too short a period to judge, but maybe 0-100 is more than is necessary to get the best idea of performance in a straight line.

Why not settle in the middle and use 0-80 MPH times? This way, you don't get too carried away, but you do lessen the variations in performance.

habitat1

Because 0-100 is already readily available by at least 1 magazine.

blufz1

There are 2 benchmarks in virtually every complete road test,0-60 and 1/4 mile time and speed. They are sufficient for the average person. Most car buyers don't even know these #s,much less care. So relax about the benchmarks.

readerreader

"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.
-------------------------

Good thing I am here to set the record straight!

1. All Porsches are good at acceleration because they are rear-engined. That means the weight of the engine sits atop the rear axle--contributing to grip off the line.
That also means that they are prone to oversteer.
"Even in RWD form"?
Please! In both configurations it has an acceleration advantage.

2. If it's the GT3, it's even more at an advantage, because it has racing slicks on. The Corvette have everyday run-flats because it is a car that is used every day.

It has nothing to do with "dynamic engineering", "flux capacitors" or the like.

lobe

If one wanted the most "realistic" times, with realistic being defined as how most people would actually drive their car, it would be the 5-60mph acceleration times. I usually only read Car and Driver, so I don't know if the other magazines tend to include those.

There is a reason they put that measure in. It eliminates what a skilled driver can do with the car while it is still sitting at zero mph getting ready to go. If it is an automatic transmission vehicle, they will stand on the brake while accelerating the engine to whatever rpm they can that, when they let go of the brake, they don't spin the wheels. That will give them the fastest launch and the fastest 0-60 times. It is the RARE driver that is going to do that to their own care very often.

If it is a manual transmission, they will rev the engine to whatever rpm they can (without spinning the tires when they let the clutch out), and then dump the clutch. It makes for a great looking 0-60 time. But do that in real world driving from a lot of stops. See how long your clutch lasts.

This kind of behavior favors cars that may have a lot of horsepower, but not as much torque. Someone mentioned their Honda S2000. Great power at high rpm's. Not a lot at low rpm. Great 0-60 time. Good 5-60 time. Mazda Rx-8. Same thing. Great 0-60 time. Good 5-60 time. Same with turbo engines, like my old Saab 900 turbo, or like the Mazdaspeed 6.

In real world driving, starting the measurement at a rolling 5 mph start eliminates those "optimizing" techniques that RARELY are done in "real world" driving. So those times probably gives the majority of drivers a better comparison of what a car will "feel" like when they are accelerating.

But 0-60 times are way more available, and get you at least in the ball park of what certain cars do, and are somewhat fun to follow. Just need to keep them in perspective.

Similarly, people love to look at horsepower numbers. When for driving in the U.S., for most people, torque numbers would be more likely relevant.

0-60 and 0-100 and 1/4 mile times are fun comparators. 5-60 mph times, in my opinion, are most helpful as a "real world" comparison (albeit less available).

robertsmx

I agreed with you completely, until you said this...

Similarly, people love to look at horsepower numbers. When for driving in the U.S., for most people, torque numbers would be more likely relevant.

Torque is only as good as the HP it translates to. In the end, HP wins. Torque numbers by themselves are useless.

Having said that, I just noticed, reading a Camry and Aura comparison, that AutoWeek includes rolling acceleration. Note these numbers:
0-60: Camry (6.2s), Aura (6.5s)

Looking at 0-60, there isn't a meaningful difference between the two cars. Now, here things get interesting:
60-80: Camry (4.3s), Aura (5.4s)

60-80 acceleration would be most important in overtaking situations on 2-lane highway. And the difference between the two is 1.1s.

Those are the kind of acceleration numbers that need to be a part of any road/comparison test.

cobraboy1

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!

I'm a sales person, ask me a 0-60 time on any car.

wale_bate1

Cobraboy my new friend, that makes you about as atypical as they come!

I will say that when I test drove the IS350, all the salespeople knew the 0-60. Mostly I believe it's because there's little else on which to make an IS350 sale, IMO.

What do you sell?

andres3

I've never heard a good explanation either way for which one is more important. In driving a Honda and a German car now, i'd say the wider power band of the german car is what really makes the difference, though if you can keep your Honda in the high rev's, its gonna be faster. If you start from idle you'll be left in the dust.

robertsmx

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.

heffling

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.

robertsmx

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_kev

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.

redmaxx

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.

andres3

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_kev

"But the 2.0L Turbo is an amazing engine too."

Yes it is.

robertsmx

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_H

Please update the e-mail address in your profile to one that works. Tried to contact you, got a bounce-back (not a nastygram ).

andre1969

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_bate1

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...

andres3

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.

cobraboy1

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_bate1

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...

habitat1

"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.

cobraboy1

I put a post up on the CX-9 thread.

andres3

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.

robertsmx

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).

rorr

"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....

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_bate1

"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:

cobraboy1

As I said on the CX-9 thread bluetooth is indeed available, on the Grand touring trim level of the vehicle and I'm checking whether it is available on the touring level.

rorr

LOL!

Yeah, I figured as much. But it sounds like she's got her heart set on a crossover of some description. It's probably just as well Lexus killed the SportCross 'cause she probably wouldn't look at it anyway.

wale_bate1

Thanks, I'll catch up with you over there.

wale_bate1

"It's probably just as well Lexus killed the SportCross 'cause she probably wouldn't look at it anyway..."

She absolutely wouldn't have, but even with their inane focus on 0-60 (see, it's not off-topic), and their redone-till-overdone interiors, and their propensity toward stuffing every useless piece of gizmatchy junk in there in the name of "luxury", and their "we stole it from Honda by way of Chris Bangle" styling... I might have. Assuming availability with a real sport package, and none of that wood trim garbage, of course.

rockylee

http://www.performancecarnews.com/Fastest-Cars-0-60.asp?Process=ShowTable&Irate=- - 0.0&Month=60&DPay=0&STax=0

Some very good estimates...Now days anything above 7 seconds is yesterday....My personal favorite 0-60 est. is for my 2009' Cadillac CTS-V which is est. to cost $56,000 and has a 0-60 time with "ONLY" 505 hp. which btw I think it will be more than that but does run 4.0 seconds flat to 60 with 505 hp. est.

I don't know if that kind of 0-60 time is quite fast enough for me ????? Come-on GM, drop 600 horses under the hood and gimme down in the 3.7 range at least so I don't die of old age getting her to 60 mph. :P

-Rocky

habitat1

Fantasize away, but that database is chock full of errors. The curb weights on the 911 are all wrong (cab weighs same as coupe?). A 300hp BMW 535i is quicker than a 360 hp BMW 550i??

In any event, I think you should try getting your kicks out of putting your butt in the seat of a real car today. Not sitting on the throne reading some magazine or GM press release about what might be coming down the line next year or the year after. Especially when they can't get their simple facts straight and GM is back to flirting with bankruptcy.

And, by the way, the actual road tests of the 911S put it at 3.9 to 4.2 seconds, not Porsche's conservative 4.5 number that the list quotes. Imagine that, under-promising and over-delivering - I know, a foreign concept to GM.

rockylee

In any event, I think you should try getting your kicks out of putting your butt in the seat of a real car today.

There is nothing I really like made right now habitat. I don't have a need for new transportation as I have a car and a truck. I'm likely going to sell the truck and buy another used car and then when the right car comes a long new I will jump on it. The 09 CTS-V is something I know I'd like to own. The Buick Velite Convertible, is another I sure would like to own. The 09' CTS-V is coming and it not some fantasy as their are several pics of it and a few video's watching GM, test it. So I will gladly wait until my CTS-V comes out if their isn't going to be anything great enough for me to buy. It appears no other car company is going to step up to the plate and offer me most of what I want. I suppose the Lincoln MKS, could get some consideration from me this fall but I think the CTS-V will ultimately be the car I buy as it is indeed a 4-door Corvette and will fit the wife and kids comfortably. :shades:

-Rocky

P.S. Where and how is GM, back to flirting with bankruptcy ? :confuse:

Kirstie_H

Since this discussion isn't about GM, we'll ignore that "P.S." and have that conversation in one of the GM-focused discussions

rockylee

okay....

Rocky

buymea911

I've got no idea what the 911 cab actually weighs but according to Porsche's website it weighs the same as the coupe.

911: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/911-carrera/featuresandspecs/?gtabindex=5

911 Cab: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/911-carrera-cabriolet/featuresandspecs/?gtabindex=5

Who's right? You...or Porsche and PCN? Not being sarcastic. Just curious.

Didn't see too many other errors in their database. I've been shopping for new wheels and purusing their stats for a few weeks.

As for the 2008 535i being quicker than the 2007 550i, that is possible. They are different model years with totall different engines and gearing.