Last post on Oct 09, 2007 at 11:40 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#105 of 154 Re: My vote goes to 0-70 MPH times. [robertsmx]
Jan 26, 2007 (2:19 pm)
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.
#106 of 154 Re: My vote goes to 0-70 MPH times. [andres3]
Jan 26, 2007 (3:00 pm)
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.
#107 of 154 Re: My vote goes to 0-70 MPH times. [robertsmx]
Jan 26, 2007 (3:10 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...
#108 of 154 Re: My vote goes to 0-70 MPH times. [wale_bate1]
Jan 26, 2007 (3:29 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,
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...
#109 of 154 Re: Horsepower, Torque, and Gearing [wale_bate1]
Jan 26, 2007 (3:38 pm)
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.
#110 of 154 Re: Horsepower, Torque, and Gearing [saabgirl]
Jan 26, 2007 (4:18 pm)
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...
#111 of 154 Re: Horsepower, Torque, and Gearing [saabgirl]
Jan 26, 2007 (4:21 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.
#112 of 154 Also consider 0-100 mph
Jan 26, 2007 (4:42 pm)
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.
#113 of 154 Re: Also consider 0-100 mph [habitat1]
Jan 26, 2007 (5:00 pm)
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.
#114 of 154 Re: Also consider 0-100 mph [andres3]
Jan 26, 2007 (5:24 pm)
Because 0-100 is already readily available by at least 1 magazine.