What is the actual 0-60 on 2006 6mt Coupe?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 625
Likes: 5
From: Oakville
0-60 not important? Since when?
I bet if the g had a sub 5sec time, this thread would be 10 pages long by now.
To the OP, from what I know don't expect anything below 6. Especially if you have an older (higher mileage) car.
I bet if the g had a sub 5sec time, this thread would be 10 pages long by now.
To the OP, from what I know don't expect anything below 6. Especially if you have an older (higher mileage) car.
Originally Posted by partyman66
Nope.. I disagree with you completely and feel that 0-60 is more of an impractical thing(drag racing). 0-60 really isn't that important because, even though most people's acceleration in typical driving occurs at speeds of under 60 MPH, it isn't typically from a standstill... and a cars ability to launch quickly is the most vital aspect of 0-60 times.
I personally have almost no situations on the street where I ever need to go from a standstill to 60 MPH as fast as possible(unless you're a streetracer).... and most highway merging situations are more like 20/30 MPH to 65 MPH spurts... so it's more of a rolling start situation than 0-60 and negates the cars performance(or lack of) from a dig.
Think of all the times where you spin your tires hard while accelerating from a stop in normal everyday driving situations... those are the only times where your 0-60 probably matters. For me, that almost never happens... and I'd rather have a car that is better at rolling starts than from a dig if I didn't have the ability to have both in the same car.
I personally have almost no situations on the street where I ever need to go from a standstill to 60 MPH as fast as possible(unless you're a streetracer).... and most highway merging situations are more like 20/30 MPH to 65 MPH spurts... so it's more of a rolling start situation than 0-60 and negates the cars performance(or lack of) from a dig.
Think of all the times where you spin your tires hard while accelerating from a stop in normal everyday driving situations... those are the only times where your 0-60 probably matters. For me, that almost never happens... and I'd rather have a car that is better at rolling starts than from a dig if I didn't have the ability to have both in the same car.
one can extrapolate those times for 20/30MPH to 60 is what I'm saying.
You can extrapolate it better than quarter mile times that set speeds generally much higher than most spirited driving.
also, 0-60 times mean much more in small tracks than 0-100 times or quarter mile times. most "spirited driving" through hillsides or curvy roads includes tracks that are more comparable to a small track than a large one with big straights.
I don't think we really disagree as I think that 0-60 is the best current measurement to extrapolate what that data means to our driving experience.
Originally Posted by partyman66
I think you might have read that in the National Enquirer tabloid. 
0-100 MPH bone stock is more like 14-15 seconds because that's close to the trap speed that people hit in a quarter mile in our cars.... unless you meant 100 KPH instead of MPH(62 MPH).
0-100 MPH bone stock is more like 14-15 seconds because that's close to the trap speed that people hit in a quarter mile in our cars.... unless you meant 100 KPH instead of MPH(62 MPH).
-Sean
Originally Posted by GeeWillikers
I think it really depends on whether you like the smell of charred a$$. If you try successive 0-60 runs in a 6MT, that's likely what your clutch will smell like.
Originally Posted by anotherOAKg
0-60 not important? Since when?
I bet if the g had a sub 5sec time, this thread would be 10 pages long by now.
To the OP, from what I know don't expect anything below 6. Especially if you have an older (higher mileage) car.
I bet if the g had a sub 5sec time, this thread would be 10 pages long by now.
To the OP, from what I know don't expect anything below 6. Especially if you have an older (higher mileage) car.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 101
From: Southern Cali --> 818
Originally Posted by civic4982
I respectfully disagree.
0-60 has value for practical things such as highway acceleration. I think if anything most drivers will do their spirited driving in that range of 0-60 even while on an SCCA course or driving in twisty curvy roads.
0-60 still has a lot of value to car enthusiasts in my opinion.
0-60 has value for practical things such as highway acceleration. I think if anything most drivers will do their spirited driving in that range of 0-60 even while on an SCCA course or driving in twisty curvy roads.
0-60 still has a lot of value to car enthusiasts in my opinion.
I honestly could care less about 0-60's. It's nothing more than an overlooked number that magazines rave about; bench racers can't live without this simple calculation of "acceleration" (not directed at you).
Statistical figures that don't include the launch itself are a bit more accurate in terms of what the car is capable of.
The problem with this 0-60 figure is the fact that many people just don't know how to interpret its significance; they'll see a car like the GT-R do a 0-60 of 3.3 and automatically believe its a faster car (in the straight line) than a RWD, high powered manual car that achieved a slower 0-60 of 3.7.
Like I have always said, the only "60" number important to me is a 60-footer
(Drag racers will know what im talking about).
Originally Posted by partyman66
Nope.. I disagree with you completely and feel that 0-60 is more of an impractical thing(drag racing). 0-60 really isn't that important because, even though most people's acceleration in typical driving occurs at speeds of under 60 MPH, it isn't typically from a standstill... and a cars ability to launch quickly is the most vital aspect of 0-60 times.
I personally have almost no situations on the street where I ever need to go from a standstill to 60 MPH as fast as possible(unless you're a streetracer).... and most highway merging situations are more like 20/30 MPH to 65 MPH spurts... so it's more of a rolling start situation than 0-60 and negates the cars performance(or lack of) from a dig.
Think of all the times where you spin your tires hard while accelerating from a stop in normal everyday driving situations... those are the only times where your 0-60 probably matters. For me, that almost never happens... and I'd rather have a car that is better at rolling starts than from a dig if I didn't have the ability to have both in the same car.
I personally have almost no situations on the street where I ever need to go from a standstill to 60 MPH as fast as possible(unless you're a streetracer).... and most highway merging situations are more like 20/30 MPH to 65 MPH spurts... so it's more of a rolling start situation than 0-60 and negates the cars performance(or lack of) from a dig.
Think of all the times where you spin your tires hard while accelerating from a stop in normal everyday driving situations... those are the only times where your 0-60 probably matters. For me, that almost never happens... and I'd rather have a car that is better at rolling starts than from a dig if I didn't have the ability to have both in the same car.
.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 625
Likes: 5
From: Oakville
Originally Posted by Klubbheads
WRONG! Cars with higher mileage will generally produce more power if maintained properly. Usually peak power comes at 40-70k on the odo. After that is the way u took care of the car maintenance wise.
Originally Posted by Klubbheads
WRONG! Cars with higher mileage will generally produce more power if maintained properly. Usually peak power comes at 40-70k on the odo. After that is the way u took care of the car maintenance wise.
I've yet to ever hear such a thing. 40-70K claim seems like something that would hold little water.
Walking The Fine Line...
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 19,883
Likes: 128
From: The Lounge
Originally Posted by Klubbheads
that is if u don't know how to engage the clutch in proper and fast manner. If that was the case my constant 2.1-2.2 60ft times should have yield to my clutches failure about 2 years ago.
We live in the land of "why won't my clutch withstand consecutive 4000 RPM clutch drops?"
Walking The Fine Line...
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 19,883
Likes: 128
From: The Lounge
Originally Posted by civic4982
Link or other evidence?
I've yet to ever hear such a thing. 40-70K claim seems like something that would hold little water.
I've yet to ever hear such a thing. 40-70K claim seems like something that would hold little water.
They run them new, and then they run them at 40K. Almost without fail the numbers are better than their initial runs.
Break in of parts and seating of components has a lot to do with it. Young engines are "tight." Mature, or "broken in" engines make power more easily - the components are worn in and work together more efficiently. Tolerances loosen a bit = less friction.
It depends on what you do for the 40K miles, but in general, it's true.