Question of the Day: Does the 0 – 60 Stat Suck?
In today's Cayenne GTS review, we learn that the autobox-equipped porked-out Porker blasts from zero to sixty miles per hour in 6.1 seconds. So what? Aside from the fact that doing so costs about $4 worth of gas, sprinting from rest to five miles over the double nickel is not something you could or indeed should do on a regular basis. More specifically, TTAC does not condone racing for pinks or blowing someone off at a stoplight (as stoplights tend to indicate areas with speed limits well below 60mph). More importantly the sprint stat tells you nothing about general driving pleasure; such as the fact that the Cayenne GTS' befuddled gearbox makes the SUV lousy at smooth in-gear acceleration. While we're at it, what's the point of knowing a 730hp modded Merc's zero to sixty time? So, is it time automotive journalists ditched this shopworn performance metric? Is there a better way to measure a car's accelerative excellence and/or general desirability? Quarter mile? Just kidding.
Comments
Join the conversation
0-60 times for motorcycles are even more misleading than cars. From several sources my 600cc sportbike goes 0-60 somewhere in the 3's...(I've seen 3.2-3.6). a zx-14/hayabusa goes from 2.9-3.5. 0-100 in my bike is 8'ish. A hyabusa can do it in under 5. That is a significant difference!
I like C&D's 5-60 "street start" stat. I don't like ways that the 0-5 in the typical 0-60 test can be gamed.
Two stats I look for that are sometimes hard to find: 70 to 0 braking distance Road Holding / Skip Pad
0-200 km/h tells me everything I need to know about a car's power band. the slalom figure tells me everything I need to know about how the car handles. most people tend to focus on the utterly useless 0-60 and skidpad. and then, of course - there's the joy of driving. Drive a 115 hp Miata. Ignore the numbers - you'll have more fun than in almost any other car on the planet.