0 - 60 vs. rolling 5 - 60 times

I must be an idiot?
I was reading Road and Track article with the Vette and Mustang GT500.
The 0 to 60 times were faster than the rolling 5 to 60, why?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I looked up some other articles with different cars, and they are all the same.
doesn't make sense to me.

 

Because 5-60 takes launch and traction issues out of the equation so it is a more pure indication of a car's torque and power. It is usually slower because wheelspin at launch can help keep revs up in a range where there is more power.

Also AFAIK, it is Car & Driver that uses this test, not aware of anyone else adopting it.

 

R&T give a break down of several accel #'s including 5-60, 0-30, etc.

 

I read an article somewhere (major car magazine) that stated that the S7 was actually faster than the 0-60 times would indicate. The reason is that the car redlines in 1st at 59MPH.

 

rolling start times will give a much better idea of how a car actually feels in the real world.

Dave

 

I believe that was R&T when they did the 0-100-0 a few months back.

 

From a standing start, you are also launching harder, so your rate of acceleration is higher. Additionally many cars can easily break traction in first gear from a rolling start and it is much easier to control wheelspin and optimise acceleration using the clutch, rather than just rolling ob the throttle.