Conference terri::cars_uk

>>    My question is will this 2.5 seconds be very noticeable in average
>>    driving conditions, 
    
    Yes, but not always so relevant.
    
>>    is the 50-70 mph figure a better one to look at, as
>>    a guide to how well the car will overtake, accelerate on the motorway
    
    Definitely yes, this is much more relevant.
    
    
>>    Renault 5 Turbo 0-60 7.5 secs
    
      Lancia Delta Integrale 8v, with chip-change, 0-60 approx 5.6 seconds !
    
      Very noticeable difference when compared with GTi-type figures ;-)
      ('on paper', and more importantly 'on the road')
    
      50-70, 60-80, 70-90 etc. figures about 5 seconds if I recall correctly...
    
    J.R.

    
    A good example is Suzuki Swift GTI, that takes about 8 secs from
    0-60, but if you continue acceleration from 60 upwards, come some
    cars that left behind at start, reach and pass this light car that
    has not much torgue.
    
    
    Hannu

    
    It seems that the 0-60 speed is now getting less and less important.
    The major car manufacturers are now concentrating on advertising the
    50-70 times (recent Peugeot 205 magazine adverts), and are getting a
    good telling-off for advertising cars on the basis of their 0-60 time
    or their top speed.
    
    For normal driving, I would have thought that the in-gear acceleration
    times were much more useful as an indication of a cars ability.
    
    When was the last time you accelerated from 0-60 as fast as you could
    for a good reason? (he said, trying to think of anything which could be
    a good reason!)
    
    Steve.
    

    The 0-60 figure is very important ......when it comes to blowing away
    GTI's and Pug's at the traffic lights.
    
    
    
                           KR
    
    

Well sort of depends when it comes to 'Trev' (looking real impressive next to 
'Shaz' in his Escort RS Turbo with more plastic stick_on body kit that you can
 throw a stick at, it's quite a giggle to terminate him at lights, roundabouts 
 and corners in the r5GTT especially when he is trying to real impressive. 
 Apart from that within the odd couple seconds it doesn't make a slightest bit 
 of difference.

Pulling up next to a sherman tank complete with fuzzy dice hanging from the 
turret ?

    I somewhat agree with your statement.
    
    In my MX3 V6 off the line acceleration is nothing spectacular but from
    about 80 kmh onwards watch out!  Once the tach hits 4000rpm its all
    afterburners from that point on.
    
    Most cars can do fairly well off the line if you're handy with the
    clutch and a speedy shifter, yes, the driver has a lot to do with the
    0-60 rating.
    
    Some magazines do publish various acceleration rates other than 0-60
    and they should be a major consideration also.  Who wants a car that
    goes like a bat out of hell from 0-60 but overtakes like a snail.
    
    Also some cars may be very fast *but* what kind of fast is it.  What I
    mean by this is I once took out a Plymouth Lazer for a test drive and
    yes it was fast but it was also very unstable, the car felt like it was
    drifting all over the road.
    
    Robin

.7 >but from
    about 80 kmh onwards watch out!

Looks like that statement applies to the Plymouth and your Mazda.

Me, I prefer an engine that can respond reasonably under 4000rpm.

Revving a Mazda MX3 or Honda CRX to 8,000 rpm might be necessary,
and possibly interesting, but it is also tiring to keep having to
change gear. Still thats what you seem to get with multi-valve
engines.

Mark.

    
    I used (as most know) to own a Renault 5 GT Turbo and I thought that 
    that was a quick car (especially in mid range acceleration), but when
    I drove a 16v Integrale I revised my opinion slightly.
    
    However, the point is both these cars are very quick on the road
    because of the nature of their engines. Let's face it, anything with 
    a 4 valve per cylinder engine is going to need thrashing to get turbo-
    like performance out of it and in real terms an 8 valve engined car of 
    the same capacity is likely to be easier to drive _nearly_ as fast, due
    to its better spread of power.
    
    0-60 _is_ usually a good guide to a car's overall performance, but it
    should be seen in conjunction with the car's other acceleration
    figures. A big car may have a disappointing 0-60 due to the amount of 
    effort required in getting it's weight moving, but once on the move the
    mid-range acceleration may be good.
    
    So, check all the figures and, if possible, get a test drive.
    
    Mark 

    
    The 0-60 time shows the ability of a car to sprint, and its
    traction off the line. As such its an unrealistic guide to
    performance - a change to third gear could add almost half a
    second.
    
    A far better guide to performance is the 30-70 figure quoted in
    Autocar/Motor, or the 0-100 mph figure. A quick car will reach
    100mph in less than 20 seconds, a very quick car may achieve
    less than 15.                                          
                                                           
    William.

re -1

William.

>    A far better guide to performance is the 30-70 figure quoted in
>    Autocar/Motor, or the 0-100 mph figure. A quick car will reach
>    100mph in less than 20 seconds, a very quick car may achieve
>    less than 15.     

I fail to see why 0-100 mph is a better guide to performance for ALL car types.
Yes I agree that 0-60 times are influenced by max revs and gearing which
determine whether a third gear change is necessary. However, not all cars can 
do a ton. Your statement may be true for the majority of noters in this conference
where speed and performance is the prime goal. 

	Dave

    
    Re .10
    
    Err, I hardly think that half a second is a big deal either.
    
    If I saw two cars with a tested difference of � a second I'd ignore it,
    because different tests and/or different cars can produce wider
    differences than that even given that the driver can change as quickly.
    
    When comparing a car with a 0-60 of 10 seconds to one with a 0-60 of
    7.5, I think that one can make the assumption that the second car is 
    _likely_ to be the quicker all round, but it certainly pays to consider
    the other factors and other performance ranges (50-70 in top is
    interesting, but in all cases the test used to obtain the figures is 
    an extreme ABuse of the car).
    
    Mark

    
    Of course there's the  theory that if a car is designed for 150 mph,
    it will be safer at 70 mph than a car which is designd for a maximum
    of 70 mph.
    
    I'd rather stop quickly from 70 in a car with ventilated disks and plenty 
    of tyre grip than in a 2CV! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    Of course 0-100 isn't relevant to normal road driving, but it is
    a better benchmark for measuring a performance car than 0-60,
    simply because gear changes and off-the-line traction have less
    of a bearing on the result.
    
    50-70 in fifth may be a good measure of a cars grunt, but I
    personally don't place much store by it - I wouldn't use fifth
    gear if I wanted to get from 50-70 in a hurry... 
    
    William.

    � 50-70 in fifth may be a good measure of a cars grunt, but I
    � personally don't place much store by it - I wouldn't use fifth
    � gear if I wanted to get from 50-70 in a hurry... 
    
    Yep, this is true. The trouble with these test figures is you're damned
    if you take "in top" (which no-one would really use to accelerate fast)
    and you're damned if you take "best gear", because they maltreat the
    clutch and engine (where possible) to such an extent that your car
    would only last about six months before a major rebuild! :^)
    
    The obvious answer is to get as many figures as you can (0-10,20,30,40,
    50, etc and the intermediates in all gears) and then go out and test
    drive the cars that appeal. The real problem is that the cost of buying
    so many back-issues of full road tests is high, but when it comes down
    to it you (well I do) usually discount a large number of cars before
    you get to worrying about  whether one is faster from 40-50 mph than
    another in 2nd gear!
    
    Mark

    The title of .16 should have read :-
    
  -< If you don't think 0-100 is relevant, you've never driven on the M3! >-
    
    Mark

    
    Has anyone seriously, not bought car X because car Y has better 0 to 60 ?
    It is surely much more relevant to see/feel if the car is comfortable
    for you rather than how fast it could go. I would suggest most people
    couldn't even come within spitting distance of the claimed figures
    anyway , and just because  SC or some other publication says your car
    is quicker than another wont stop you being beaten away from the lights
    by some nut in a 2cv whos desperate to race.
    
     
    Garry ( who prefers a slow smooth pull away rather than a quick jerky
    one. )
    
    

    
    I think you're getting old Garry! :^)
    
    I doubt anyone would decide not to buy a car they were otherwise happy
    with just because it had (on paper) a slower performance than a car
    they liked less, but when I bought my Calibra I decided against the 8
    valve model because of the slower (overall) acceleration figures
    despite the fact that I had driven (and felt happy with) an 8 valve.
    
    In the end I reckoned that, over time, I may come to regret not having 
    the extra power that the 16 valve had over the 8. In general use, that
    may well not be true, but as I was spending what I felt was a lot of 
    money I weighed it up and felt that it wasn't worth the possible
    dissapointment that only experience _may_ bring.
    
    I don't know if that means I have "not bought car X because car Y has 
    better 0 to 60", but that's why I choose one car over another _seemingly_ 
    suitable one.
    
    Mark

    Hi, i've been reading this topic with some amusement, I agree with most
    of the latter comments. I have two points to make;
    1. My last decent car was a Quattro (THE Quattro rather than any of the
    'lesser' versions by Audi or others who pinched the name). The 0-60
    times were variously quoted as 5.9, 6.1, 7.5 depending upon which
    magazine you were reading. I never put a stop watch on it, but indeed
    if you abused the gears, clutch etc it was mighty quick and hardly a
    yelp from the tyres at any time. 
    
    The point is, it was also bloody uncomfortable to do this, and a smooth
    getaway 'off the turbo' was usually preferable to the 'boy racer'
    version! Mid range speed was beyond reproach, overtaking a hopeful
    Granada on the M3, starting at 100 mph, inadvertantly (!) allowing full
    turbo boost, meant a terminal indicated speed of 150! definitely
    licence removing qualities, and the eventual reason for selling it.
    
    2. I now drive a 2CV (say ANYTHING you like about it, I don't care, it
    cost me less than the last bill for the Quattro!). BUT you fast boys
    need to understand something about 2CVs; they take so long to get up to
    any decent pace, that they have to be driven with great strategy so you
    don't lose momentum. Which means you may find that a 2CV will get the
    jump on you at lights, due to the fact it had left the braking very
    late. Have pity, and DONT spoil the guy's run!
    
    One thing you can guarantee however, 0 - 60 takes oh, I don't really
    know.......
    
    NR

�     cost me less than the last bill for the Quattro!). BUT you fast boys
�     need to understand something about 2CVs; they take so long to get up to
�     any decent pace, that they have to be driven with great strategy so you
�     don't lose momentum. Which means you may find that a 2CV will get the
    
    I can sympathise with this. My wife has a Fiat Uno 45S (Slow, I think!)
    and although with a tail wind on the flat it will reach an indicated 90
    mph, it will loose speed rapidly going up anything approaching a hill
    and if the speed is lost you've really lost it. I reckon everyone
    should be obliged to drive a _really_ slow car once in a while (as
    opposed to just slow like the Calibra) as it really makes you think
    about overtaking rather than just assuming that you can make it through
    anything that looks like a gap. Funny thing is, if I drive it to work,
    it usually doesn't take any longer than the days I drive the Calibra.
    
    Mark

>    should be obliged to drive a _really_ slow car once in a while (as
>    opposed to just slow like the Calibra) as it really makes you think
>    about overtaking rather than just assuming that you can make it through

What's this Mark? regretting your move to a Calibra?

Mark.

    
    Not at all, but it doesn't _quite_ shift like a turbo, but the Calibra
    turbo 4WD isn't out yet! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    Re: .21
    
    Mark,
    
    Your last sentence said it all. Fiat Uno or 16 valve Calibra but the
    drive to work was almost the same length. If I assume that the Calibra
    was the slightly quicker (rash I know) then maybe it was due to the
    extra seconds gained from the standing starts, I doubt it.
    
    Perhaps you could tell us which was the more comfortable of the two and
    which of the two better prepared you for the day's work.
    
    Chris
    

    
    This is hard work!!!!! Third time lucky?
    
    � -< Cruising ability is near the top of my list >-
    
    The Calibra's good at this. Low wind noise, comfortable, fast (110-120
    MPH most of the way to Austria). We arrived fresher than a day spent at
    Gatwick would have left us, that's for sure! :^)
    
    � was the slightly quicker (rash I know) then maybe it was due to the
    � extra seconds gained from the standing starts, I doubt it.
    
    I tend to accelerate away from standstill faster in the FIAT as it's 
    less prone to wheelspin (especially in the wet - 135s!) and I can't
    rely on overtaking people on all the straights! The main difference is
    due to going 10 mph faster on the 5 mile stretch of M3.
    
    � Perhaps you could tell us which was the more comfortable of the two and
    � which of the two better prepared you for the day's work.
    
    Well the Calibra's more comfortable, but nothing can prepare me for a
    day at this place!!! :^)
    
    Mark

I'm doing the rounds of looking for a new car, my biggest problem is no
manufacturer seems to quote the same figures.

Some quote 0-60, some 0-62, other 50-70, others don't. What we need is
STANDARDS!

:^)

    I think the 50-70mph is more important a figure than the 0-60mph, for
    instance take a Volvo 760 TurboDiesel, the 0-60mph figure is not very
    good at 12.5 seconds but when the car gets moving the overtaking
    ability from 50-70mph is pretty good at 4.7 seconds.
    
    In the real world the 50-70mph figure is the better judge of how a car
    is going to perform in a normal day to day situation.  Most drivers on
    the road would rather have the ability to overtake safly and without
    fuss rather than take part in a traffic light grand prix.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    When I got my latest car, I just looked in the Mags for the fastest and
    quickest accelerator that wasn't a ridiculous price. And I got it!

    
    So how come you got fat boulevard cruiser that costs loadsa dosh
    instead of something like a Caterham 7 or some such which is
    faster/quicker and costs less ?
     

Ahhh Gi'day...�

			A pommie car, you're joking.