I've noticed alot of people use 0-60 times as a reference to "which car is actually faster" so here is something I found while surfing the web. I don't know if its true or not but sounds legit.

Let me set up a little scenario to illustrate how silly 0-60 times are
particularly when comparing two cars with different shift points.

Two cars.. CarA and CarB have identical acceleration in 1st, 2nd and 3rd
gears, but they're geared slightly differently.
CarA has to shift to 3rd gear at 59mph.
CarB has to shift to 3rd gear at 61mph.
Ok, they race..
Both bolt off the line and run door to door and 5.5 seconds later they're
both going 59mph.
CarA is now forced to shift, which takes .5 seconds
CarB continues to accelerate and reaches 60mph .1 seconds later.
CarA now continues to accelerate and also reaches 60mph .1 seconds later.
Total 0-60 times for each car.
CarA 5.5 + .5 + .1 = 6.1 seconds.
CarB 5.5 + .1 = 5.6 seconds.
Wow.. .5 seconds difference in 0-60 times.. CarA got totally trounced.. right?
Wrong. We've all raced door to door. What does a shift really cost in
distance? About a half a car length, sometimes less.
CarB got to 60mph a half second quicker, but it only gained 5 or 6 feet
of distances while CarA was shifting.

Ok.. let's continue the race.
.1 seconds after CarB reaches 60mph, it gets to 61mph, and
has to shift.. taking .5 seconds.
CarA continues to accelerate taking .1 seconds to get to 61mph itself.
Both cars are now going 61mph. What's the total time so far.
CarA 5.5 + .5 + .1 + .1 = 6.2 seconds
CarB 5.5 + .1 + .1 + .5 = 6.2 seconds.
Oh.. and while CarB was shifting, CarA made up the half a car length
it lost before. They're now running door to door again.

This is why 0-60 times are silly. It's a totally arbitrary time to speed
contest and each shift hurts the time badly, but means virtually nothing
in the real world. If the race is to 50mph they're even. If it's to 70mph
they're even.

Auto manufacturers have been building cars with overly *long* 1st and
2nd gears for many years simply for the purpose of pumping up
their 0-60 times, while actually sacrificing some real world
pull, they could have had if they'd chosen gear ratios
more suited to the powerband of the engine (so that you
don't fall out of the power after every shift).

 

The G35 has relatively good 0-60mph acceleration time but, in Canada, our magazines use 0-100 K/h (0-62mph). The 2nd gear shift point of the 03-04 G being 60mph (before cutoff), the 0-100 K/h sucks compared to some other cars that can sustain higher shift point. Real life acceleration is not affected by this (it is just numbers). Eg: G35 6MT 0-100K/h = 6.8Sec / RX8 0 - 100K/h = 6.7Sec. The G has shifted into 3rd while the RX8 needs to shift @ 102 K/h... Based on this, many canadian will say that RX8 acceleration is better than the G; which we all know it is not the case. RX8 has many qualities, but acceleration is not one of them.

 

Based on this logic, doesn't this say that the 05 is faster 0-60 then the 03-04? The 05 has a higher redline (shiftpoint, right?) so it can go longer without shifting then the 03-04? Of course, we all know the 03-04 and 05-06 are pretty much the same (ok, let's not start which is better). I'm guessing this is why cars with higher redlines are quoted with better 0-60 times.

 

That is why most exotics have 0-60 times of less than 4 seconds: they are still in first at 60!

I watched a Diablo VT run a small road course and use 2nd only once every lap...most cars had shifted to at least 3rd if not 4th LOL!

 

0-60 doesn't really mean anything. I'd rather look at 1/4 mile time as a reference of how good the acceleration is. Most manufacturers gear their cars so that the cars stay in 2nd until reaching at least 60mph, so they could acheive better 0-60 times.

 

Is this the broken record thread or what?

 

I understand... but my 0-60ft on the 1/4 mile still is very horrible...

 

don't you have that bust big toe? that might be the problem guy. wait till it heals.

 

Even if thats true,

the car that has to shift

Is slower

But that is why you look at 0-100 times as well

 

Yup - my friend in college had a Testarossa and when he really wanted to go he wouldnt go out of first until he hit 65 or 70. You could see the other cars drop back every time they shifted.

 

What year Testerossa had a 1st gear that went up to 70 ? I never knew they had such huge first gears.

 

It was an 86, European model not the one sold in the US (there were a few differences, it had been imported). Cant remember exaclty at what speed he shifted, but I know it was around or just over 60 and he wasnt in the red just yet.

If this is not normal for the car, the original owner (Suntrust CEO) may have made some changes but I thought it was stock.

 

That logic is flawed. The car is still increasing its speed during the shift due to momentum, it is just the rate of speed increase that declines. A .5 second shift does not add .5 seconds to the 0-60 time.

That being said, I don't even look at 0-60 times anymore. They just are not meaningful. 1/4 mile times are much more informative as they have both the ET and trap speed, and cover a broader range of speeds. Plus 0-60 times are too dependant on traction.

 

also a very valid point

 

I beg to differ, the milisecond that the engine is disconnected form the drive wheels, the car is coasting and if anything, decreasing speed. Otherwise you could keep disconnecting the engine from drive wheels and the "momentum" would keep increasing the cars speed. Kind of like perpetual motion. The only thing the momentum does is keep the car moving against all the diffferent avenues of friction. Look at plots of acceleration done with ACCURATE accelerometers, the plots go flat or just slightly below flat the milisecond second the clutch disconnects the engine from driveline.


And yes, the manufactures do geear for 0-60 times, although many also take into consideration the europern 0-100Km/Hr (62MPH) and do gear as close as possible for both.