In today's Cayenne GTS review, we learn that the autobox-equipped porked-out Porker blasts from zero to sixty miles per hour in 6.1 seconds. So what? Aside from the fact that doing so costs about $4 worth of gas, sprinting from rest to five miles over the double nickel is not something you could or indeed should do on a regular basis. More specifically, TTAC does not condone racing for pinks or blowing someone off at a stoplight (as stoplights tend to indicate areas with speed limits well below 60mph). More importantly the sprint stat tells you nothing about general driving pleasure; such as the fact that the Cayenne GTS' befuddled gearbox makes the SUV lousy at smooth in-gear acceleration. While we're at it, what's the point of knowing a 730hp modded Merc's zero to sixty time? So, is it time automotive journalists ditched this shopworn performance metric? Is there a better way to measure a car's accelerative excellence and/or general desirability? Quarter mile? Just kidding.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Assuming all reviewers test it in a fundamentally identical manner, it’s valid.
It’s a nice, shorthand method to determine how a vehicle compares to another, and with the amount of on-ramp merges and green light lane-changes our commuters do it’s nice to have a rough idea whether or not you should try to beat the Odyssey in the next lane or merge behind it.
Yes, 0-60 stats are worthless. (Rolling 5-60 time would be a better judge of whether your SUV can cut in front of the annoying Prius on the left.)
For accelaration, I prefer quarter-mile more.
For overall handling, slalom speed and track time, such as time on “ze ‘Ring”, are more informative.
5-100, 100-0, and the Ring.
I have some sort of attachment to the 0-60 times, but I agree that it is not always a good representation of performance. A useful measure for me would be the car’s passing times (30-60, etc) skidpad numbers and the like. On the reality side, it should be noted that especially with manual transmission cars rarely are most drivers able to get close to the advertised speed.
0-60 is useful because the 10/10th’s measure should be a hint of how nicely it operates at the 2- to 3/10’ths at which most cars operate most of the time.
In a vacuum, though, it doesn’t tell you much. Quarter miles, rolling start, and acceleration at highway speeds (50-70, for example) are helpful, too. And of course, it’s nice to know how well it can stop…
What about a 75Mph break to 50Mph then accelerate back to 75Mph measured starting in top gear and finishing in top gear (you may down shift but you have to mention which gear you accelerate with.
That represent a fairly common high way situation when you actually use braking and acceleration capabilities of your car.
I’d like to see more attention given to a “real-life stat”, maybe 20-70mph times. That is the best approximation of a highway onramp, in most cases. Plus, with more hybrids and diesels coming on line, it might help level the playing field a little in a useful sense…0-60 tends to favor high-revving gas engines above others.
Since people actually read the box scores in sports, I don’t see why they wouldn’t look at similarly detailed stats for cars.
0-60 is far more useful than, say, (peak) horsepower and torque figures, which are meaningless in a vacuum. The problem with 0-60 is that it can be gamed by sacrificing the clutch for a burn-out start. That makes the rolling 5-60 number much more useful. At the end of the day, what you want is a number that’s a good proxy for a car’s acceleration, in much the same way that city/highway mileage numbers are a proxy for gas consumption. Still, Top Gear’s power-lap times or Nürburgring times are also useful metrics that capture overall performance of the car.
(Another gripe is that 0-60 is such an “important” stat that manufacturers almost certainly select their gearing ratios to insure no need for a shift from 2nd to 3rd gear. That kind of engineering toward the specs is unfortunate.)
For what it’s worth, computer ‘performance’ measurement has similar problems. We all know (or should know) that the CPU’s clock speed is pretty much meaningless, but the last thing you want is a laundry list of the computer’s specs. That’s where you get hefty benchmarks like SPEC that are the moral equivalent of Nürburgring times.
I like 0-60 times as a useful shorthand for comparison, since it’s a yardstick I’ve used over the years. And if you’ve ever been behind someone who stops at the end of the on-ramp, the real-world application becomes painfully clear.
I like the 0-60 stat. I think all reviews should include the 0-60 time, the mpg values, and cargo capacity.
That way the clear winner in every comparo would be a wagon. The way it should be.
The only stat I care about is the 0-200-0 stat.
Highly misleading. Comparing 0-60 times is pointless. For instance, my xA has a 0-60 time of about a year, yet in normal daily driving, I’ve NEVER had trouble with acceleration, since most acceleration is done from 20-40, 20-60, 50-70, 5-30, etc. and so forth.
Besides, in most daily driving, the more important aspect isn’t how fast the car hits 60, but how properly the transmission is set up to down shift and distribute power appropriately. Who cares if straight-line 0-60 is blazing fast if the transmission takes 3 seconds to pick the appropriate gear at any other time?
Besides, with the insane HP wars, it seems that overall driving pleasure has been put on the back-burner.. I’d much rather have a nice, flat HP/torque curve while dropping top-end power (and even overall acceleration) if it means the engine will be more responsive – drive an N/A (stick) Z31 one day. While it might top out at 160-165HP, which seems completely absurd next to the modern day 3.0 V6, the daily driving and overall performance of the engine is wholly ignored when looking at the numbers. Throw it down to 2nd while going 40MPH, push the gunner, and THEN say 160HP isn’t “enough.”
All this is said while completely ignoring the fact that 90% of drivers don’t even know what half-throttle means……… (there’s nothing like unintentionally out-accelerating a ‘Vette or Z33 to highway speeds)
P.S. Did you guys pick the top-right ad to be funny?
LMAO – first picture screams 0-60 times right beside this article’s title… couldn’t be more appropriate of a car, either (seriously, what percentage of drivers who buy “sport sedans” EVER floor them?)
For me, it’s a useful metric.
Not only for comparing cars in my head, but I live right off the 110 north of Downtown LA. It’s the nations oldest freeway, don’t you know. In fact, it was at first designed as a parkway. Meaning that it features the world’s most frightening on and off ramps.
Meaning that I need to go from 0-60 mph as fast as possible every time I want to by milk. Er, buy beer.
I think the 0-60 time is mostly irrelevant. I can’t ever think of a time I made a purchase decision based on this statistic nor do I believe I ever will. Sure it gives a benchmark with which to compare, but honestly who is going to make a decision based on this statistic?
0-Fun is more important.
The best why to put the 0 to 60 stat into perspective is to look at the dramatic change in performance on a STi or Evo of you change 0 to 60 to a rolling start of 5 to 60.
Doing a rolling start in an STi will not get you to 60 any faster than any current v6 powered Accord, Altima, or Camry (5 to 60 in about 6+ seconds). BUT, if you are willing to abuse the sh*t out of your STi and dump the clutch at over 4500rpms you can pretend that you have a car capable of running with the truly big dogs 0 to 60 in under 5 seconds).
On the other hand if you launch a Corvette from rest or with a rolling start you will end up with pretty much the same time. with about a few 10th of a second.
In other situations I have driven a number of typically domestic cars that have engine tuning and transmission geaering that makes the car feel quick off the line to only run out of breath at 60 and chug along leisurely up to 80. This can be constrasted with other cars with smaller dohc 16v engines that have little to nothing off the line but pull like gang-busters once you get them up to highway speed.
5-60 may be closer to real world but we just need something to compare. So zero to 60 works nearly as well IMO. Nine out of 10 times the same cars that are faster at one would be faster at the other, and if they reverse positions, then the difference is probably too small to matter.
You know that if your car gets 0-60 in 8 seconds, you have have some idea what that kind of real world feel that translates into. And you get some idea that you would probable not enjoy one that took 14 seconds (ie Smart Fortwo).
1/4 mile time is not as instinctive and something a lot less people have done. I did 0-60 runs with my car and a friends accelerometer. I have never done a quarter mile.
Someone mentioned passing time. This is the most useless stat they have, they assume manual drivers are morons and don’t downshift to pass and thus manual cars get penalized for having a good economy overdrive. This test is probably responsible for the lack of good manual overdrive gears as manufacturers too often build toward the test. If any test should go, it is this useless one. What kind of manual driver doesn’t down shift to pass? This test may have some interest to automatic drivers but I wouldn’t know.
It’s a somewhat useful tool in that it is comparable between cars, to give some vague idea of on-ramp performance, for example.
But in the real world, 0-60 in 10 seconds (which is what my Prius can do) is generally more than adequate, because with gas prices being what they are, most of the big dogs (“BIG ENGINE!”) out there are trying to nurse 15 mpg out of them instead of 12 or 13, so aren’t accelerating hard any more, anyway. Unless they have money to burn, literally, I mean.
In fact if I need to get out in a break where I can see a huge line of traffic (I live in an area of mostly 2 lane roads), I am quite willing to mat the go-pedal on the Prius all the way to 60 then back down to 55-58 normal cruise so as to not be rude and cause the guy coming up on my tail to hit his brakes or swear at me. I am polite enough to zip up to speed and get out of the way.
Of course, when most big vehicle drivers come sailing out of side-roads (usually without stopping) they don’t seem to have any qualms about cutting me to pieces and making me hit my brakes. But that’s another story altogether.
@Bytor
While for the most part I agree that down-shifting before passing is a given, I’d have to say that around here, it’s completely unnecessary. But in the same instance, sometimes I’ve down-shifted as low as 2nd to pass on the highway – something that no Auto I’ve driven could outperform.
Manuals should be given Higher marks for overall versatility in said tests, since you have the option of staying in overdrive or down-shifting to wherever you’d like (within redline limits, of course).
But, here in the States, just about the only cars available with manuals are sports cars, anyhow… finding a new manual is about as easy as finding a non-pimped town car…
Its a great statistic (useful in the stop light onramps they enable during rush hour!). But like with other statistics its not the full picture, just know what its for: gearing+traction+torque to show what the car will do off the line. Don’t read everything into it and take into account the other numbers as well (quarter mile, skidpad, 60-0, etc etc) plus some seat time to get the full picture.
A time graph of the vehicle accelerating from 0 to 80 would be more useful. You could see the shifts. Also, 60 MPG really isn’t fast enough these days, as many highways are moving at more than 70 even in the slow lane.
The most silly stat I’ve seen is the 50-70 times “in top gear.” Well… what happens if your car is geared pretty tall and so barely accelerates at all in top gear? That same person wouldn’t be in top gear when going 50 in the first place. I once clocked my 1986 Mercedes 300E from 50 to 70 in about 15 seconds in 5th; the 50-60 time took about 2/3 of that.
How about the 0-60 time over the energy impact multiplied by the carbon footprint and raised to the square root of the EPA air pollution score?
Try merging onto the Grand Central Parkway from a certain spot in Queens… 0-60 times are actually useful, and good performance in that regard goes a long way in that situation.
How about 5-60 with a mandatory 2nd-gear start?
I know very few people who would actually force their car into 1st while moving forward. Apart from Autocrossing, maybe.
0-60 is a completely worthless metric.
Unless you are in the habit of running the stop-light grand prix.
I actually prefer a taller-geared car that revs less at highway speeds. Cruising behavior and fuel economy are far more important to me than acceleration times. Is the damn thing buzzing like a bee in a beer can at 70 MPH? Then forget it – I could care less about how fast it goes off the line, I’m buying this car to drive to work, not run at the drags.
When I drive a gasoline powered car every now and then, I’m always astounded by how annoyingly loud they are at highway speeds compared to me (gasp) Diesel, which hums along quietly at 2500 RPM @ 75 MPH.
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
Ash78 there are plenty of stick-shift cars where shifting into second as low as 5 MPH while not riding the clutch would be a terrible idea. A BMW 335i, for example, would be revving about 500 RPM, which is considerably below normal idle speed.
Yeah real useful for those drag races we do all the time, especially stuck in traffic or on our commutees every day. I really want to know how my vehicle doesn’t compare to a formula 1 car in a straight line. In this day and age with gas going up it shows what a waste it is too. Still makes me laugh seeing some guy in a pony car having to accelerate in traffic to make him feel better and get some use for his out of date beast.
More interested in 40-60 or 60-80 times for better over taking etc, more useful in a more real world situation.
Not only is it a worthless stat, it’s been abused by auto writers for ages. It’s really aggravating how they point out with self-important, faux gravitas that the new Car X gets to 60 2-tenths faster than the competition.
Big freakin’ deal.
I don’t know why any enthusiast would buy a car with more than passing consideration of its 0-60 capabilities. You know as well as I that any more than that will lead to a nice big serving of humble pie the first time you can’t keep up with a V6 Accord on the highway. Or when you realize that the V6 Accord has no problem whatsoever keeping up with you.
I think the more useful stat is the RPM and MPH range covered by each gear and where the car’s RPMs are at cruising speed.
A more useful speed stat might be something like 45 or 55mph to 75 or 80mph in fifth.
-Matt
for practical (read: everyday) transportation, 0-60 is absolutely useless.
however, in the world of mine is better than yours, vehicle performance has become a p-issing contest…
and, 0-60 is an easy way to show how well you p-iss…
could rant on more about this – but it doesn’t really matter…
Looking at it from the performance end of the spectrum, 0-60 isn’t useful because 60 is too slow. Too many cars can do 0-60 in under 5, and with a powerful car, those with good traction (AWD, rearward weight bias, stick tires, etc.) have an advantage disproportionate to their horsepower. 0-100 and/or 1/4 mile ETs and trap speed tell a much better story about straight line performance
ash78 :
Is it really that bad to downshift into 1st while moving? I downshift into 1st all the time when I’m under 10mph. My car tops out at about ~45mph in 1st so I don’t see why not
I like it. If no one measures a vehicle’s accelerative prowess (or lack thereof) how else will we know if a Vette can put its 500 horses down to the tarmac better than a 730 Merc? And even though the Merc has more power, the Vette is faster in this benchmark.
However, 30-50 and 50-70, or just 30-70 acceleration is also an important measure. The Merc probably beats the Vette there, unless, of course, the tires are still spinning (which would be sick!).
All statistics are useful if measured in a standard fashion under standard or adjusted conditions. The question is do we give too much weight to it? I think yes, as many have pointed out. But most of the time a review includes other statistics with the grand ol’ 0-60. A full set of performance results is really what you want. However, time has shown that 0-60 is what people want and whether they weight it properly or not really isn’t going to bother those who look at the big picture.
Freeway on-ramp.
I’m curious and my eyebrows are raised a bit: Is TTAC a site for pistonheads that appreciate what a well engineered car can do and hearing the truth about all the iterations out there that we may have seen or read about, but not driven? Or is it about who has the best idea to save gas, the planet, etc.? Both have merit and neither is better/worse than the other, but I’m kinda on the hair-on-fire side and if I need to move on, then so be it.
I’m sooo with Chuck, above. I find it funny that all those 0-60 mavens keep being stuck at the traffic light while I’m far ahead of them. That pavement rippling 100 hp from my Jetta TDI is far, far more useful than overwrought v8’s.
Yes, in a *real* race they’d blow me in the weeds but who drives like that all the time? And if they did, get away from me!
0-60 is a bogus stat that makes no sense in the normal day-to-day life everyone has to drive in.
0-60 tells you so little about a car today that it really is a pointless statistic, especially the way that buff books claculate it. 20-70 is definitely a better metric. It would at least give you an idea of on ramp/ passing power. However, I think a full power curve is the only way to get a real idea of where power comes in. This is especially true with the greater level of forced induction and variable valve timed engines. Am I going to be falling out of the power range in everyday driving? I think the best way to gauge the usefulness of the 0-60 statistic is to look at the listed times for the Honda s2000 and then read Mr. Farago's own review of it to see where the disparity comes in. I love the car, but not as a commuter.
losgatosCa :
I have been asking myself the same thing. I personally don’t understand (I’m not saying it’s wrong, I just don’t understand it) how somebody that willingly spends time on a car website isn’t interested in performance above all else, but apparently there are plenty of people here that feel differently
We are a community of car loving people. We all have different ideas of what constitutes the ideal car. For some it’s speed, for others handling, for other luxury etc etc etc. The important thing to remember is thet this gives us a forum to examine and exchange ideas so we can best decide based on other people’s experiences what is the direction we might wish to take for future purchases. Buying a car for us is an emotional gut feeling thing, but it is better to go to war prepared than not. Thank you TTAC for helping me in my decisions, and thank you folks who participate in the forum. Democracy at its finest.
thet = that
I think the 0-60 statistic will stay due to its historical use. You can compare cars from the 1960s with cars of today in terms of that time. You can also use the quarter mile, but most people never accelerate to that speed. On the other hand, 0-60 is a time anyone can use for a comparison.
Having said that, I think there are other tests that are better. Why not 0-70 or 0-80? Those are speeds you see on the freeway. I also think the rolling start is a good test since most people, even gear heads, don’t do a “proper” start when driving on the street. A 5-60 or 5-70 time would give a better indication of the real world.
I would use the following:
0-60, 60-0, skidpad, & quarter mile due to historical significance
5-70 (or 5-80) since it represents real world takeoff and speed on the freeway
70-0 (or 80-0) to show the distance from highway speed
Emergency lane change – fastest speed to do it safely
Repeat all of the above on wet pavement and with 10 psi under and over tire pressures.
thetopdog
I think I can answer your question. Being a piston head does not have age limits. I have owned and driven drag racers and open wheel circle track cars many years ago, and still enjoy riding my motor cycle on the tail of the dragon. But horse power and handeling are not that important any more. Yes your needs may change with time. Thats how we end up with this group.
The problem with statistics like these is that they only capture a very small part of what makes a vehicle better.
And to make things worse, the manufacturers look at the market’s response to these stats and alter their designs to make cars that excel in the current “stat of the day”.
mfgreen40 :
That makes sense, I’m only 24 so perhaps my priorities are not the same as someone a little bit older
0-60 stat is deceptive. As ttac pointed out the corvette has a better 0-60 time than the 700-odd Hp brabus, I’m confident the brabus would be much faster than the vette in a rolling start acceleration test.
Not so much that it sucks as that it is just one statistic that has to be taken into account.
Take the much maligned (here) current model Impala SS with FWD and 4-speed auto. The WRX STI handily beats it from a dig- 4.9 sec vs say 5.8 sec.
Take the same two vehicles 5-60 and the STI is well into the 6’s, with the Impala still pulling sub-6’s. See ya, Subaru.
For day-to-day driving the Impala will be cheaper, more comfortable, have much more room (fold-flat seats), be cheaper to buy and cheaper to insure. FWD with good tires will deal fine with most snowy streets.
It’s hard to overcome the torquiness of extra cylinders.
hokuto:
Yeah, the same thing occurred to me. But I’m not as convinced as you are that the Merc would win in a 5-60 mph sprint. I’d bet the Merc’s tires still wouldn’t have enough traction, unless there are some electrons on board doing the actual driving. And that just takes away the whole point (for me, at least).
That’s why I don’t like the new Nissan GT-R. I mean, it’s an awesome feat of engineering. But what’s the point when it’s the electronics that are keeping the car on the track and not the driver’s skills?
Yeah, but it’s not nearly as sucky as mpg. The feds ought to copy the Euros and give us a ratio of gallons-to-drive-62-miles, or similar benchmark.
ash78 :
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
How about 5-60 with a mandatory 2nd-gear start?
I know very few people who would actually force their car into 1st while moving forward. Apart from Autocrossing, maybe.
You don’t have to force it. You barely even have to blip the throttle during the double clutch to sync it.
I like knowing 0-60, and 0-30, and 5-60, and 1/4 mile, and 30-50, and, well, the more information the better.
I’ve never seen anyone accelerate to 60 faster than 12 seconds on normal roads. That’s normal driving, not street racing. My car has a reported 10 second 0-60 time and I pretty much beat anyone from a light who doesn’t think they’re a race car driver.
Most people take over 20 seconds to get to 50!
I like ybnorml’s idea, except make it 75mph to 30mph and back to 75. That way it would also test how well your tranny shifts. A lot of automatics take so long to react that there’s a huge lag when trying to pull in top gear from low speeds.
So, if you eliminated the 0 to 60 stat, what are you going to replace it with? Take off weight? MPG? CO2 output?
I’m feeling the same as losgatosCA and thetopdog.
I discovered TTAC way back at it’s beginning and fell in love with the witty, sarcastic, torpedoes be damned truth telling…
Unfortunately it seems to be turning into another left wing, global hoaxing, ANTI CAR website. I’m beginning to wonder if maybe that wasn’t the goal all along??? Calling all the global warming CO2 expelling environazis on here “car enthusiasts” is like calling Ann Coulter liberal.
The only reason they’re here is to spread their religious dogma… they hate cars people society… I find it sad that Farago apparently leans their way.
Wolven:
The only reason they’re here is to spread their religious dogma… they hate cars people society… I find it sad that Farago apparently leans their way.
Not true. Personally, I am an agnostic Darwinian pro-military AGW-denier and free marketeer somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. But I do not consider mine the only valuable perspective.
While it is true that there are plenty of Bush-bashing tree huggers hereabouts, there are just as many writers and commentators who see things… differently.
I allow any and all opinions here as long as they conform to our anti-flaming policy. I am impressed by the passionate intelligence of those whose opinions I do not share. I consider my close encounter with their POV an honor and a privilege. And although I do not see them as “my enemy,” I like keeping them close, if you know what I mean…
Anyway, anyone wishing to write for TTAC on an automotive issue from any angle is invited to do so in the comments section or in an editorial, review or blog. For the latter three, email robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com for our guidelines.
Left, right, environmentalist or no, thanks for putting food on my table.
0-60 times for motorcycles are even more misleading than cars.
From several sources my 600cc sportbike goes 0-60 somewhere in the 3’s…(I’ve seen 3.2-3.6). a zx-14/hayabusa goes from 2.9-3.5.
0-100 in my bike is 8’ish. A hyabusa can do it in under 5. That is a significant difference!
I like C&D’s 5-60 “street start” stat. I don’t like ways that the 0-5 in the typical 0-60 test can be gamed.
Two stats I look for that are sometimes hard to find:
70 to 0 braking distance
Road Holding / Skip Pad
0-200 km/h tells me everything I need to know about a car’s power band.
the slalom figure tells me everything I need to know about how the car handles.
most people tend to focus on the utterly useless 0-60 and skidpad.
and then, of course – there’s the joy of driving. Drive a 115 hp Miata. Ignore the numbers – you’ll have more fun than in almost any other car on the planet.