I saw this question asked elsewhere and thought it was valid.

Is it time manufacturers stopped headlining 0-60 times and moved to something more representative of a car's real world performance attributes? Say 30-80. So instead of the headline, "New Fabia vRS, 1.4 TSI, 143mph, 0-60 in 7.3sec" we have " New Fabia vRS, 1.4TSI, 143mph, 30-80 in 6.8sec". I ask because I find myself ignoring the 0-60 times and instead go looking for the in gear acceleration numbers because I know those numbers better represent how fast a car will be in real driving situations.

Does 0-60 matter in the real world? or is in gear acceleration info better for more realistic idea of how well the car will perform in moving traffic? Which would you prefer to look at when choosing a car?

30-70 is far better IMO, but the big power boys like 30-130.

I saw this question asked elsewhere and thought it was valid.

Is it time manufacturers stopped headlining 0-60 times and moved to something more representative of a car's real world performance attributes? Say 30-80. So instead of the headline, "New Fabia vRS, 1.4 TSI, 143mph, 0-60 in 7.3sec" we have " New Fabia vRS, 1.4TSI, 143mph, 30-80 in 6.8sec". I ask because I find myself ignoring the 0-60 times and instead go looking for the in gear acceleration numbers because I know those numbers better represent how fast a car will be in real driving situations.

Does 0-60 matter in the real world? or is in gear acceleration info better for more realistic idea of how well the car will perform in moving traffic? Which would you prefer to look at when choosing a car?

Depends if you are starting off from rest or rolling out of a derestriction zone.

With 0-60 it matters so much what the road temperature and dryness is.

It makes me laugh that the BMW 320 Efficient Dynamics is quicker the the Diesel VRS as it is rear wheel drive, for instance. Watching BTCC grid starts was always fun watching the BMWs get the jump on the front wheel drive cars although this seems to be less so now as the new turbo petrols have more mid range than the old non-turbo petrols and turbo diesels.

30-80 seems to be more regularly appear relavant. Round here some drivers love to pull out from behind before the destriction signs, end up on your rear quarter than one does the normal pedal to the metal when leaving the destrictions and they get p*ssed over or p*ssed off or usually both. Had one tw^t try this in an MX5 when I was in the TSI VRS, he even had the roof down which hardly helps performance.

Then I ask the question of something like a 911 Turbo like a few weeks ago and felt like I was standing still. Ice/Snow please be gone so I can get back on the bike, 0-60 in 3.7s etc. Slow compared to the ZZR1400 (£11,600 same as about the cheapest Oty.....

===========================================

MCN - It's official! The new Kawasaki ZZR1400 is the fastest accelerating bike we've ever tested and has kicked the legendary Suzuki Hayabusa in to touch. The big Kawasaki goes from standstill to 180mph in under 20 seconds (170 in less than 15s) and from 0-90 in under five - that's quicker than most decent sports cars can get to 60mph.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/videos/2012/February/feb0912-video-zzr1400-hayabusa-k1300s-flat-out/

========================================

Edited 12 February, 201214 yr by lol

Depends if you are starting off from rest or rolling out of a derestriction zone.

With 0-60 it matters so much what the road temperature and dryness is.

It makes me laugh that the BMW 320 Efficient Dynamics is quicker the the Diesel VRS as it is rear wheel drive, for instance. Watching BTCC grid starts was always fun watching the BMWs get the jump on the front wheel drive cars although this seems to be less so now as the new turbo petrols have more mid range than the old non-turbo petrols and turbo diesels.

30-80 seems to be more regularly appear relavant. Round here some drivers love to pull out from behind before the destriction signs, end up on your rear quarter than one does the normal pedal to the metal when leaving the destrictions and they get p*ssed over or p*ssed off or usually both. Had one tw^t try this in an MX5 when I was in the TSI VRS, he even had the roof down which hardly helps performance.

Then I ask the question of something like a 911 Turbo like a few weeks ago and felt like I was standing still. Ice/Snow please be gone so I can get back on the bike, 0-60 in 3.7s etc. Slow compared to the ZZR1400 (£11,600 same as about the cheapest Oty.....

===========================================

MCN - It's official! The new Kawasaki ZZR1400 is the fastest accelerating bike we've ever tested and has kicked the legendary Suzuki Hayabusa in to touch. The big Kawasaki goes from standstill to 180mph in under 20 seconds (170 in less than 15s) and from 0-90 in under five - that's quicker than most decent sports cars can get to 60mph.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/videos/2012/February/feb0912-video-zzr1400-hayabusa-k1300s-flat-out/

========================================

But does a 0-60 time matter to you when deciding what your next car will be?

All of it is just random numbers mate, 0 to whatever, 10000 horse torques, nobody really gives a monkeys when they are driving home from work sat in a queue of traffic do they surely? I honestly don't know why car manufacturers even bother to build sports models nowadays..

The only time that 0-60 really matters is when you are racing somebody in the traffic lights grand prix, I feel for this you need at least a v8 to be competitive

Doesn't really bother me. In the real world 30-60, 50-60, etc would be better to have as in reality how often do people actually do a 0-60?

Howver 0-60 is a standard across all manufacturers and so is a quick way to compare cars in a very basic way. All sorts of other things would be great to have but can't see all the makers doing it.

I think it only matters on sporty cars.

For anything else MPG is more important these days. And even that is massaged so mostly for show rather than attainable just like 0-60!

I think for any car, acceleration (no matter which variant) is more important than top speed. When it comes to acceleration I'd like to see all the facts in one place, rather than just one. Easier to make a judgement then. "Fabia Mongrel, 30 to 70 in 4 seconds with gearchange"

I think it only matters on sporty cars.

For anything else MPG is more important these days. And even that is massaged so mostly for show rather than attainable just like 0-60!

Ha- try achieving manufacturer's figures in manual cars- you won't have much of a clutch left!

The simple answer to the question posed is no, not really. Acceleration from 40 to 70 in one gear down from top is probably more important in the real world (unless you like gear changing for the sake of it). That's one reason why I buy diesels, low rev torque cuts down the number of gear changes neeeded.

As has been already stated fuel economy is probably more important these days, either because you are buying your own fuel or if it's a company car it affects your tax liability.

My priorities for a car (for driver training) are reliability, affordability (first cost and running costs), safety (and in my book that includes all round visibility as the highest priority) and comfort. Provided performance is adequate I don't worry about it unduly. Appearance is less of an issue and the badge is totally irrelevent.

I would accept that other people will have different priorities and that 'performance figures' may be important to them; you pays your money and makes your choice and if the rest of us don't like it, that's our problem.

Rob.

I suppose it all depends on what you want to know from the numbers. 0-60 has the advantage of giving you an idea of the acceleration you can expect and the traction to an extent. However, can you really use one number to define a car's performance. Personally I don't believe you can. Using something like 30 - 80 is going to give you a good idea of the overtaking capability but a narrower band described in best gear for acceleration would be more appropriate as that is more likely what you would use to overtake. 0-60 can expose the lack of traction in front drive cars. Focus RS is none too quick to 60 but nippy in the midrange for example. Now if you are overtaking, the RS will be quicker than its numbers suggest, but if you are trying to launch it into a limited gap at a roundabout without worrying the traffic coming around the junction, it is not so great.

Cannot see 40 - 70 in one gear down from top being much use either. My MR2 would be pretty sad in that increment in 5th, but it is a nippy car. The number would give no indication of the available performance that I can access if I select the correct gear for the job. I reckon around 5 - 7 seconds or more in 5th and under 2 seconds in 2nd. Come to think of it, the Fabia VRS and the Mini Cooper D would both be well out of sorts overtaking from 40 in 5th.

Increment tables for gear and speed give much more of an idea what to expect, with maybe 0-30 to define traction. When you get into bigger power stuff, the really telling numbers are those that happen when the air resistance in building up in the 100mph+ increments. Of course the best way to define the cars accelerative performance is with a dyno graph, a weight figure and a set of gear ratios, but Joe public would be baffled by that.

EDIT: Fuel economy is something else where the quoted figures give no indication of real world consumption. The way cars are rated needs to be revised to make the figures meaningful and achievable.

Chris

But does a 0-60 time matter to you when deciding what your next car will be?

Yes it is a factor.

I love the fact that my 1.8 TSI is quicker accelerating than the 2 litre Audi A3 (same as Quatro), Diesel Golfs, Leons, Octavia VRS Diesel.

Buy price, fuel consumption etc are also big factors of course but acceleration is important, more so than top speed which is academic at 140 mph or so.

Edited 13 February, 201214 yr by lol

As far as I'm concerned 0-60 times have turned into bragging rights and aren't that meaningful anymore. Take the Mk1 Fabia vRS for example. 0-60 was about 9 secs on the spec sheet but we all know it was quicker than this. You try explaining that to the moron down the pub who hangs off Top Gear's every word. This applies to pretty much all the Skodas in the range. They've always under played how well they go. Only figures I'm interested in in order are BHP, top speed, torque, 0-60 then mpg. Mid range is much more important imo but most people don't get this.

Give me good in-gear and through gears times every time. You can actually achieve them without destroying your tyres, clutch and sometimes diff or driveshafts!

0-60 is a quick comparison between cars, but then I will look at what power they produce and most importantly torque and at what RPM peak torque is produced at. Then I'll go and test drive it.

So, an NA petrol engine that hits peak torque at say 4500rpm and max power at 6000 is probably very peaky and needs thrashing to get its best performance. It won't be much good from lower revs and could feel "gutless".

My TSI for instance produces its max torque from 1500rpm and hangs onto it until 4000. You don't need to thrash it, it will pull from low revs, its very driveable and will feel more "gutsy" then the NA engine.

Its why diesels became so popular, they had "guts" to pull heavier cars around. They may be slower 0-60, but they were far better in normal driving.

The problem with "real world" stats is that they're rarely directly comparable because different cars have different strengths. The main purpose of the published stats is to get you into the showroom and behind the wheel for a drive, so they'll be hooking you in on the stats they think will sell the car.

One thing that is also often overlooked is that the peak power and torque figures relate to the engine output and not the wheel output - a good set of gear ratios can make or break a car.

Chris

I am not sure anyone would base a car purchase decision on 0-60 time alone, there are so many other factors to take into account. If all you wanted was fast 0-60 you would buy an Aerial Atom, Caterham 7 or some other go-kart style car. If you actually want some boot space and reasonable comfort on a long journey you take other factors into consideration.

In the real World you also have to take into account the effect a 0-60 time will have on an insurance premium.