60 – 100 Mph

The reason is first that not all magazines test their cars the same way. Second, if you would like to understand how a car accelerates then you want to understand how the powerband works in the sports car you own/drive vs the cars you face. In addition you will see that some mags are standing starts and some aren't. Some of the methods the mags get their 0-60 or 0-100 times you and I would never ever do to our cars. So how valid are the times then?

Autocar is good at showing the in gear times to speed across the transmission. So you can see how it compares to other sports cars.

 

Which is why this thread uses only ONE magazine -- for consistency.

I guess I just don't understand what you're talking about. Both the 0-60 and 0-100 numbers are achieved in the lowest gear possible, at full throttle

Completely valid, as long as they are all done the same way (as they are in Road and Track). And for some reason you are omitting the fact that as long as the 60-100 time makes no use of a standing start. Furthermore, Road and Track takes the 0-60 and 0-100 from the same run. They run to 100 mph and publish how long it took to get to 60, and how long it took to get to 100.

Autocar is a joke. See above.

 

Clearly, I would take all you down in my 240Z 60-100 (150). Ah, 430 hp at just over 2,000 lbs.

http://members.cardomain.com/snapshot1
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Busdriver & Damcgee,

So are the two of you trying to tell me that in your opinion R&T is the best car magazine on the mkt? You are correct I did not pay attention to the fact that you only wanted to discuss performance numbers from R&T. Sorry.

Is your intention to only discuss a 60-100 time as the ultimate? If so then my apologies.

I thought may be you wanted to discuss how it feels and how your car or favorite cars compare to others. The all out acceleration from a standstill which includes the 60-100 comparison does not happen that often unless you and someone else decide to race from a stand still. Most of the challenges in performance cars compared to another performance car you have chosen to compete with or a car decides to compete with you has very little to do with how your car accelerates from 60-100 when that number is derived from a stand still compared to the other person car accelerates from 60-100 when that number is based on a standstill test. Most of the time I run into people wanting to race against me while we are moving. I look at how my car is geared and what the accerelation is in different gears and how that compares to other cars. When do I need to shift compared to someone else. Where is my advantage compared to their's. Not mind you that I advocate street racing. But I still just like to know.

Regards,

 

That just doesn't make sense to me...maybe i'm a bit simple, but i'd imagine there's only ONE way for a car to go 60-100 in the shortest amount of time. Whether you start at 0 or 50, surely, can't change that, can it?

 

Oh really. Here is a situation for you. You are driving down the Highway at 75mhp. A car pulls next to you and starts to race you. You are in sixth gear. What do you do? What gear do you shift down to? How does the other car accelerates compared to your's? Where are you better than the other car? I enjoy learning how my car accelerates in different gears at different speeds. And I also like to see how other cars accelerate in gears, when you would have to shift, etc.

Better?

 

Aircon,

"Whether you start at 0 or 50, surely, can't change that, can it?

Answer, Yes it can. First a car accelerates differently depending what gear you are in. 60-100 starting in second is different than 60-100 in third. So it depends when a car catches up with you and where you are in your driving. Yes?

 

4 U iD BrinG oUt Da heaVY mEtAl...
550hp 2250 lbs.

 

I agree R&T is by far the best, even though they suck at testing the NSX . C&D is just crazy with there numbers. Anyone also notice that evertime eighter test the corvettes they always get faster and faster eveytime??? Hmmmm, looks like GM's either sending "special" cars for test's or they carry alot of cloat in the adverising department. And I know they've added hp every other year or so, but it's not that signifigant. And I'm sick of hearing that the Ferrari (or any other car) is better, faster, nicer, handle better, rides better, ect., "but for they money" or "bang for your buck" the vettes better. I just want to know which cars better!!!!!! I don;t give a sh^t about the cost, that only matters when u decide what you can offord, not what's the best choice.

 

I think the magazine that does the 30-50, 50-80 or 60-100 or 120 whatever test in top gear is doing the best test.

This is an old test that goes way back in time and gives you a very good idea of the pulling power and tracability of the car being tested.

Many cars only perform if the engine is in it's powerband ... but to make it lug from down low shows how flexible the car is and how usable the power is.

It would be very, very difficult to do a rolling 60 - 100 test and allow gear changes, ie. you are sitting at 60 mph and somebody then yells GO!

Pete

 

Oh bloody hell. CLEARLY if i want to know how fast a car goes from 60-100 it's going to be through the gears...I mean that has to obvious to anyone....so NO....it will accelerate as fast as it can accelerate through the gears by using the gears (not leaving it in 6th). IT's not a driving test, which is what you're tying to make it "what gear do i change down to" indeed! Hey..here's an idea...let's see what car does the best 0-60 time starting in 2nd!

There is only one way to get the best 60-100 time with any given car, and that's how the test should be carried out, and what, I thought, is what we were talking about. I think it's a great test, and much more realistic than a standing start. Only a "butcher" does hard standing starts with his car, as far as i'm concerned.

 

Yep...also a great test, I think..for every day drivablitily...but that doesn't show the optimal time that a car is capable of, which i thought was the point of this discussion...maybe it isn't.

 

I just think there are too many variables and the only way really to do this is to do the 0-60 and then 0-100 and minus one from the other.

I guess both are interesting values, ie. top gear and then open slatter test.

Pete

 

I prefer to use 'rolling' 5-60mph numbers, for a sense of real world, non-clutch-destroying driving.

 

Aircon,

Yes, I agree with you, the best time is through the gears. But what I am trying to say is the way R&T does the test most OWNERS would not do to their car but may be once. So how valid is R&T's time? To me not much. I want a time that I can achieve 9 out of 10 times with out abusing my car.

The best test I have seen is the test the Japanese Best Motoring does. One it is video so you get to see it and second you get to see the shifting points and how one car can catch and pass another. Also they do the standing 1/4 mile. I find it far more important than most of what the US mags do in their tests.

All I was trying to say is there are better test done than R&T's.

Thanks

 

I propose this test:

Standing start: 0 - 100mph - 0.
Flying start 1: 30 - 70 Mph
Flying start 2: 60 - 120 Mph
Flying start 3: 100 - 150 Mph
Stop test 1 : 150 Mph - 60 Mph
Stop test 2 : 80 Mph - 30 Mph

 

F40: 4.2 (R&T Specials, '91)
F40: 3.7 (!! R&T Ferrari special, '89)
Both were Euro-spec F40's, with the quicker F40 having shorter overall gearing than the other one.

550 Maranello: 5.8
F355 Spider: 7.4
F50: 4.4
All of these were done in Italy for their 1/97 issue.


The Autocar 360 has raised eyebrows elsewhere before. That particular car was quicker in 100-150 than a Porsche 996 GT2 by .3 second.


FWIW, R&T mentioned in an old article about how they test cars that they don't wring out the absolute best times at the car's mechanical expense. They test them in a way that would be reasonably reproduced by their readers.

 

Well, there really isnt any other way to get a max acceleration test than the way R&T does it. Anything less becomes to subjective, like, what is abuse to you may not be abuse to me, or vice versa. Hard acceleration is hard on a car anyway, so you could say its all abusive to some degree.
But a 60-100 test would, or should be equal to the difference of 0-100, as you would want the best gear at 60 regardless.

Are you thinking you would have some other gear available at 60-100 that you couldnt use coming up from 0? If I was going to try a rolling start from 60 to test max acceleration, I am going for the lowest gear possible and will shift at highest revs for max performance, same as if I were passing through 60 coming from a dead stop

 

my car does 60-100 in 4.4 seconds according to the video i just looked at

(30 frames per second) 4 seconds + 12 frames (12/30=.4)

and i thought my car felt slow, i am gonna go find an f-50 to race

 

dont knwo how accurate this one is but i have the Gallardo between 4.7-5.0 seconds i can't read the speedo as cleraly as mine

 

having driven the viper, gallardo and murci, i can tell you the murci is a monster 60-100, faster than the viper and the gallardo...it has 80-90more hp than the other two cars,also 60-100 mph implies you are going a steady 60 and suddenly must go to 100, it is different if you are already accelerating..

 

But suppose you have a car that requires shifting to third at 65MPH. For best 0-60 and best 0-100 times, you indeed shift at 65 mph. However, for best 60-100 time you would start the test in third gear, as the time needed for shifting 2nd to 3rd is longer than the little better 60-65 acceleration in 2nd gear. In this case the 60-100 time would be less than 0-100 time minus 0-60 time.

 

Well, maybe, but then, maybe not. That is just a matter of opinion and has no bearing on R&T results. Deducing the "potential" 60-100 times from thier other results still would be fairly accurate, especially seeing no one else in the world tested like R&T did. And it still shows the potential differences of all the cars. And, to quote your quote above: For best 0-60 and best 0-100 times, you indeed shift at 65 mph. If it were not so, you would shift at 60, yes?

 

I guess my point is that what looks ideal in a test is not so when applied to real life. It is true if you need to shift somewhere in the 60s mph then it moght be more better to be in a slightly higher gear. So what I was trying to say before is that in really world it is different. But then I realize I was changing the post which was not my intention. So I will say from a stand still yes 0-60 subtracted from the 0-100 time is a good measure so long as the mag does not abuse the car to get their time.

Thank you.