0-60 time is the gold standard in automotive performance. It's the first thing an enthusiast looks at when presented with a car's stats, and typically trumps all others. Top speed is all but completely irrelevant in most cases, while the quarter mile is only valued in drag-racing circles. Attempts have been made to substitute something more all-encompassing, like the 0-100-0 acceleration/braking test, but it hasn't replaced the old 0-60. Lap times around a given course might be more useful for comparison, but unless every manufacturer tested on the same track, that falls to pieces. At the end of the day, 0-60 is where it's at, but as Forbes points out, it's not the most reliable or useful performance indicator.
In most cases, it takes ideal conditions – including a professional driver – to hit sixty in the time specified. As a result, some manufacturers quote conservative figures so as not to disappoint customers who can't manage the quoted time. Further confusing the situation, some automakers prefer to quote acceleration time in kilometers, but while the 0-100 km/h (62mph) standard might be very close to the mark, in acceleration times every millisecond counts.
It may be the gold standard, but even gold has its imperfections.
[Source: Forbes Autos]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Aetius @ Jul 23rd 2007 10:27PM
And thats the speedometer from my Mazda3 :-)
Ken @ Jul 23rd 2007 10:27PM
I am not going to lie, when a car magazine has a test, the first thing I look at is the 0-60, be it and Enzo or a diesel Jetta.
smartmlp @ Jul 23rd 2007 10:37PM
This list is obviously not complete, they list the Lamborghini Gallardo as one of the fastest cars but I dont see the Murciélago even on the list, and that car is much faster then the Gallardo.
iQuack @ Jul 23rd 2007 10:57PM
0 to 60 mph is a good indicator to see the differences in acceleration among competing cars. It's also interesting to observe how performance has improved over the decades.
The popular V8 cars with A/T in the 1950s and 60s were considered fast if they went from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds. That would be pokey acceleration today.
In my opinion, anything under 11 seconds is fast enough--heavy traffic usually prohibits going nearly that fast anyway, and rapid acceleration just for the heck of it wastes expensive gasoline.
Some people insist that very fast cars are safer, so they buy a V8 or a V6 when a 4 cylinder would be more than adequate for them.
I think the safety reason for a faster car is bogus: people with fast cars take greater risks that get them into trouble more than a fast car might "save" somebody by using blazing acceleration to avert a crash.
If you know the limits of your car and drive it intelligently, you don't need power to extricate yourself from stupidity.
I have a more than adequately powered '04 Honda Accord 4 cylinder which goes from 0 to 60 in 9 seconds. That's a tenth of a second FASTER than the '72, V8 Buick Skylark I once owed, and that Buick was plenty fast in its day, and would be more than adequate in power now.
I'd like to know how many people who ACTUALLY BOUGHT V6 Accords and/or Camrys, etc. didn't even bother to test-drive a 4 cylinder version because they ASSUMED it would be too slow.
I'd bet there are many people who haven't driven a 4 cylinder car in years and don't know how smooth, strong, and fast the best of those 4s are now.
Mondo @ Jul 24th 2007 11:51AM
I test drove the 4 v. 6 cylinder 2003 accords. Hated the 4 cylinder. Talk about pokey. In LA I would get run over by a semi or a bentley coupe while trying to speed up onto an onramp in a 4 cylinder car (I've seen it happen). No thanks. I don't like accords but the V6 is livable and gets better gas mileage than my Maxima.
Bart @ Jul 23rd 2007 11:13PM
The list is incomplete and terribly inaccurate. But it's Forbes, what do we expect. Why does Autoblog even continue posting this crap.
Derek Kreindler @ Jul 23rd 2007 11:29PM
It's cool to throw around figures and get in bench racing pissing contests, but I like the tried and true measurement using the best honed device ever: the seat of my pants. Untill I become a professional driver, "it feels fast" is good enough for me.
akatsuki @ Jul 23rd 2007 11:32PM
They should just post bet lap times around Nurburgring. It is not as if they don't test every single "sporty" car there anyway.
chris @ Jul 24th 2007 4:21AM
But comparing the Nurburgring lap times of a certain car driven by an average manufacturer tester could be well over a minute slower to the times a Nurburgring veteran could get in that same car in perfect conditions (which are pretty rare from what I tell). And unlike 0-60mph or 0-100km/h it can't be easily tested by consumers or the media, it could simply be a totally bs number that has nothing to do with the car you can buy, like the 7.42 Z06 time and 7.55 R33 GT-R times done in stripped out pre-production cars.
I personally have no problem with 100km/h times since cars where that (or 1/4 mile or 400m time) is a reasonably important statistic aren't really the kind of cars I'm interested in. My own car is probably "only" around 8 seconds or so based purely on my own experiences, and that's totally fine due to it's super fun RWD handling and perfect 5-speed manual.
Cody Peterson @ Jul 23rd 2007 11:51PM
For daily driving, like someone said above, you don't need a 4 second / 5 second / 6 second car... I live in California, and the only time I need acceleration is getting on an on ramp... and thats usually about 0-30mph cause of the traffic getting on freeways these days... by the time I get going to say 65, I might have had that 19 second 69' bug or that old mercedes diesel cause it pretty much takes that amount of time (or longer) to get going... in fact, I miss my old 190e that was probably and 11 or 12 0-60 car, but that thing cruised on the highway unlike my compact that I have now which seems to jar with every crack in our lovely cali freeway system... I kinda miss my 12 second car :-(
Tbird @ Jul 24th 2007 12:00AM
right now i drive a nissan quest and let me tell ya'll, i don't really care if it's a minivan, it feels fast. it probably does 0-60 in roughly 9 seconds but it feels much faster thanks to its 240hp 350z derived v6. i agree with the above comments, as long as it feels fast and is fun to drive, it doesn't really matter how fast the car truly is. unless somebody is planning to go to the track with their car, anything that goes 0-60 in under 9 seconds is plenty adequate.
tonyb @ Jul 24th 2007 12:45AM
"350z derived V6"
someone has penis envy, my oh my.
you drive a minivan. not a 'race car inspired' minivan. just a minivan.
and a nissan at that.
anyway, as to the actual article; this brings to mind Ford's ad (which was quite good) w/ the father and son playing with a Mustang GT in an empty parking lot doing burnouts.
they said it did 0-60 in 4.7s.
yeah. freaking. right.
chris @ Jul 24th 2007 4:25AM
tonyb, how is what he said incorrect? He never said anything about a race car, he said a 350Z derived engine which is the VQ that he has in his car. Same as someone who has an Audi S8 saying he has a Lamborghini-derived engine in his car, even though one is a sports car and the other is a giant limo.
John R @ Jul 24th 2007 7:30AM
@tonyb
"and a nissan at that" As if that is an insult.
Nissan makes great performance cars, for nearly 35+ years.
Skyline (G35, G37)
Skyline GT-R
Fairlady Z
Silvia
Fuga (M45)
Sentra SE-R (the one from the 90s, today's SE-R is...okay)
Maxima (before they made it look like a bar of soap, but even today's Maxima is still plenty quick)
Altima SE-R was nice and today's Altima with the VQ is pretty quick, 270bhp.
Save comments like that for the playerhater's ball.
htn @ Jul 24th 2007 12:07AM
You have to get the Accord V6 to get more robust suspension, brakes and stability control. Enough reason for the V6. In fact the only reason I got the V6 (which by the way is a dream) was for the enhanced suspension, braking and SC which were not available on the 4 cylinder models. Otherwise I agree with you the 4 banger is plenty of power for an accord.
Tool @ Jul 24th 2007 2:08AM
Anyone who has had to get on the freeway quickly from a dead stop at the meters that are prevalent in a lot of metro areas would probably see the 0-60 as a very important measure.
Altairian1 @ Jul 24th 2007 7:00AM
AltairNano powered Lightning GTS is it.
Check it out for yourself.
EvPal
James Sonne @ Jul 24th 2007 9:45AM
I drive a RSX, which I can coax a flat 7 seconds out of to sixty. Faster than most, but more importantly it feels fast and nimble, even when I drive it at 30mph. It's a fun car. I also have a Saab 9-3 2.0t, which does 60 in about 9.5 seconds, and because of its loose rear suspension, it actually feels faster accelerating because it throws you back in the seat. Satisfying when passing on the interstate. But of course not quite as nimble.
People regularly buy cars sight unseen, sans testdrive, from dealers or off of ebay, especially if it's a just released car that they have to put a down payment on, based purely on the specs. That's the difference between wanting a status and simply wanting a fun car.
I'm currently considering the Subaru Legacy GT versus the MazdaSpeed 6. The Legacy is faster, but I have a feeling that Mazda may have the fun factor down. We'll just have to wait and see.
brandegee @ Jul 24th 2007 12:28PM
I also have a Saab 9-3 (205hp SE), and easily grab 60 in 7.5 or better on regular gas, despite a balky shifter. Do you have an autostick or something?
The Saab may feel faster because of the torque response when the turbo spools up. Take a diesel, for instance...when magazines test them back-to-back with the gas version, they almost always say it feels faster, even when it isn't. That's the torque talking.
The RSX (I assume it's the 200hp version) doesn't have nearly the same torque range, which means more shifting. But I bet it has much better road manners than a softly sprung Saab. And it definitely has a better gearbox.
Matthew @ Jul 24th 2007 1:10PM
IMO, 40-70 is much more important than 0-60, and the Saab is one of the best at that.