0-60 is so yesterday!

Replies to this message:
• robertsmx (Jan 26, 2007 1:14 pm)
  • andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 1:19 pm)
    • robertsmx (Jan 26, 2007 2:00 pm) and 2 more...

Replying to: andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 12:00 pm)

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.

Replies to this message:
• andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 1:19 pm)
  • robertsmx (Jan 26, 2007 2:00 pm)
    • wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 2:10 pm) and 1 more...

Replying to: robertsmx (Jan 26, 2007 1:14 pm)

Replies to this message:
• robertsmx (Jan 26, 2007 2:00 pm)
  • wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 2:10 pm)
    • john_324 (Jan 26, 2007 2:29 pm)

Replying to: andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 1:19 pm)

Replies to this message:
• wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 2:10 pm)
  • john_324 (Jan 26, 2007 2:29 pm)

Replying to: robertsmx (Jan 26, 2007 2:00 pm)

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

Replies to this message:
• john_324 (Jan 26, 2007 2:29 pm)

Replying to: wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 2:10 pm)

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...

Replying to: wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 9:54 am)

Replies to this message:
• wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 3:18 pm)
• wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 3:21 pm)

Replying to: saabgirl (Jan 26, 2007 2:38 pm)

Replying to: saabgirl (Jan 26, 2007 2:38 pm)

"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.

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.

Replies to this message:
• andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 4:00 pm)
  • habitat1 (Jan 26, 2007 4:24 pm)
  • blufz1 (Jan 26, 2007 7:28 pm)