Is this true ? : Zero-to-sixty actually doesn't matter so much ?
 

http://jalopnik.com/porsche-918-prov...***-1558177494

While googling, I found out a pretty interesting (somewhat already outdated though) article saying that the zero-to-sixty is actually not so much important as people usually consider so often.

I have no idea for technical things. I am just an ordinary daily driver who sometimes enjoy my own spirited driving - especially accelerated merging into freeway (exactly as mentioned in that article).

Recently I see so many 'cars' even the daily sedans like Camry, Altima, Accord have all pretty good zero-to-sixty records. It seems like the fact that a car can make zero-to-sixty within 6~7 secs does not look so impressive anymore.

But after I had read that article, I just got to wonder whether the 'real' on-road performance of a car can really be different from the often emphasized zero-to-sixty or not.

* In that article, a Porsche was mentioned. But I don't want to look down to Porsche at all. I believe all cars have their good and bad. I hope it would not make any unnecessary trouble here.

;)


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I think its nice to know what your car can do in a 0-60. But when have you ever launched your car hard on a public street? I personally wouldnt and never will(on a public road) and I think thats what this article is getting at... Most people wont be willing to launch their car hard enough to achieve the 0-60 time that is tested in these magazines. I would be willing to bet that 80% of people dont launch their car that hard on the street.

I've never tried the hard launch, either.

But the fact (in that article) that the five-to-sixty took longer than its zero-to-sixty is pretty interesting to me.

Then now I cannot easily compare each car's real performance simply with their 0-60s. (of course for someone it might be just a common sense though..)

:eek:

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Not my Z, but I launch my SRT Grand Cherokee often enough on the street. A nice cool morning, flat pavement. By the time anyone notices a big white SUV being silly, it's over. 4 seconds.

Like every aspect of measuring and testing capabilities of a car, 0-60 acceleration measurement tests only that aspect which is dominated by engine output and available traction. This test measures certain limits that aren't necessarily used in everyday driving and even on some forms of competition. This isn't the only one that could be considered "less important". Take lateral acceleration, for example, does an average driver venture out to see half of the lateral acceleration in the car being driven?

Bottom line, this article was written to invoke responses and to make the readers think deeper into something that's, otherwise, just another test of a car.

Most of us will never use 80% of the available performance of the Z but it's still nice to know it's there and only natural to want more. Don't get too caught up in statistics. If you care that much there are always expensive ways to add power but chances are that won't make you any happier than a simple track day would.

It's worse with the motorcycle crowd. Guys get all bent out of shape over magazine shootouts where their bike lapped 0.06 seconds slower than another one when both were in stock trim going 170+ mph in the hands of professional racers on a closed circuit... What does that mean in terms of the actual real-world enjoyment you or I would experience riding these machines? Less than nothing. Could a normal person, even if turned loose on a private track, discern the minute differences in performance between the machines? Not bloody likely.

Buy whatever turns you on and enjoy the hell out of it. I didn't buy my Z because it's faster than a 5.0 Mustang; I bought it because it's better looking and more fun (for me) to drive. Similarly, I didn't buy my Ducati 848 because it could take a GSXR750 on a track; I bought it because it's more than quick enough for me, feels amazing to ride, sounds badass, looks like a million bucks, and isn't parked on every corner.

Put it this way: There are modded Civics that can blow the piss out of our Z-cars in the 1/4. But which would you rather own?:icon14:

Unless you plan on drag racing a stock setup, 0-60 times don't mean a whole lot. IMNSHO, comparing sub-6-second 0-60s (looks like the 370Z comes in at about 5 sec) is a lot like comparing IQs over about 140 - it's more about how you use it.

Never launched my car for 0-60 maximum performance on or off the track. I didn't buy a Z to drag race. However, I do experience during normal driving that when the Toyota, Honda, Fiat, etc. cars with 6~7 sec 0-60 time do mash the pedal for maximum performance from stop lights when they hear my car (exhaust) do a normal take off. Their out to prove something I guess but half the time when they are behind me they end up in my @$$ slamming on their brakes when I do a normal shift from 1-2a doing light to moderate acceleration.

IMO the more useful daily driver statistic would be passing acceleration like 45-70mph or 65-80mph.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...69cfe3dc2c.jpg

Can the cars (especially ordinary sedans) with zero-to-sixty of 5~8 secs also run fast in real on-road situation?

I got surprised when I saw a record that a trim of Camry could make up its own 0-60 just within 6 secs ..

As someone once said, "Today's midsize sedans are faster than 70s & 80s sports cars" !!

:eek:

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

i reference 0-60 and 60-0 times to get an idea if the car is a performance oriented car or not. it's a simple way to gauge

hell, my old honda fit 5MT was faster dan the 240z

0-60 I'd kinda important in the way Kenchan said it is. I wouldn't buy a sports car that takes over 6 seconds to reach highway speed. That's ridiculous... but it's not the most important factor. I say steering feel, transmission gearing and seating position take precedence in judging a sports car.

That's how I don't understand how so-called enthusiasts aren't outraged by electric steering.

I've had the luxury of driving the 335xi, is350, s4, and a c300. uhh yea... they may be fairly quick to accelerate but they feel like a tipping boat on a corner.

accelerating and stopping power are one thing. driver engagement is what matters to me in a sports car.

hardest launch I do is at 2.5k rpm which is probably why I get crushed by gti's and civics all day playing stop-light racer. then again they back off when I take spirited corners on the on-ramps hmm....

The 370 when it first came out in 09 was clocked at 4.6 secs to 60. Am I correct? because that's pretty darn fast. It was a Car & Driver issue where they used a blue sport model 6-speed. Then, as the years went by, the magazines clocked it in the low 5 sec range. Was it the drivers who sucked, or was the Z regressing, or both?

It was a 7 speed auto with Sport and it was 4.7 and 13.2 in the qtr at 107. No other mag saw those times...ever again. It was being compared to a DB9 IIRC.