Why even bother showing 0-60mph times anymore?

[Lawrenzo]

Our Vipers, along with most of the newer sports cars are doing that sprint in close to 4 seconds, so why even bother. The appropriate benchmark should be 0-100 or 125mph. That way we can see how they really get up and go

 

[joe117]

I think the idea of the 0-60 as a benchmark was that it was a legal speed.
The difference in 0-60 times for various supercars is small and a poor way of comparing these cars.

I agree that 0-100 would be a better measure.

 

[STUGOTS]

I think the idea of the 0-60 as a benchmark was that it was a legal speed.
The difference in 0-60 times for various supercars is small and a poor way of comparing these cars.

I agree that 0-100 would be a better measure.

agreed

 

[DrumrBoy]

0-60 is also more influenced by the driver and the conditions than is 0-100 or 0-125 (...so its a lesser measure of the machinery).

 

[ViperRay]

AAHHHH...tradition.

Don't forget, cars were doing it in 5-6 secs. back in the day.

If I don't see a 0-60 in under 4 secs. now I turn the page.

The quarter mile is still valid though.

 

[01sapphireGTS]

It's funny that when the most cars that could potentially turn a quick 0-60MPH were being produced, they came equipped from the factory with Biasply or Polyply tires. Thus eliminating any chance for a quick time.

Then the Ferraris and other supercars of the 80's were hitting the 5 sec benchmark, and we as a car community thought it was quick. It was just a function of efficiently using the "little" torque the car produced. ( That should ruffle some feathers )

Our cars have both categories conquored. Torque, traction, and suspension. But SSunBurn is right, almost everything is very near the 4 range or even sub 4. Let's stretch our legs some ! ( Although those specs are almost always given ).

[ Also back in "the day", 0-60 didn't give all of those big blocks a chance to adequately experience fuel starvation with their 5/16" and under fuel lines ! ]