Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 0-60 is so yesterday!
154 messages, Last post on Oct 09, 2007 at 10:40 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jan 26, 2007 3:42 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 4:00 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Jan 26, 2007 4:00 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jan 26, 2007 3:22 am) 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. |
|
|
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).
|
|
|
Replying to: lobe (Jan 26, 2007 11:23 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: wale_bate1 (Jan 26, 2007 9:54 am) I'm a sales person, ask me a 0-60 time on any car.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cobraboy1 (Jan 27, 2007 12:28 pm) 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? |
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Jan 27, 2007 6:26 pm) 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.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views 0-60 is so yesterday!
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
