One of the best-known metrics when it comes to cars is the magical 0-60 time. And for good reason! It’s a really visceral sort of metric, something you can feel in your gut far more than how many miles per gallon or electric battery range or even top speed. It’s the amount of time it takes to transform an inert couple tons of metal and rubber just sitting there, immobile, into a couple of tons of metal and rubber that are devouring a mile every single minute. It’s exciting! You stomp that pedal, and get shoved back in your seat, and everything whips out of the back of your mind except that base, visceral joy of speed. I love it. I love cars that accelerate quickly! And yet, at the same time, I’m noticing something about the current automotive landscape. Pretty much everything is quick as hell now, so much so that cars that go from paperweight to cheetah in, say, four or three, or even two-point-something seconds aren’t even that uncommon anymore. As a result, I think we’re in a bit of a collective delusionary period, and maybe it’s time to take a hard look at things and remind ourselves of something important: Crazy low 0-60 times, while fun, just aren’t that important, and the vast majority of drivers – as we always seem to come back to when it comes to what our cars are really capable of – never really even graze the limits of what their cars can do.
I was thinking about this because of a tweet I saw last week:
Tesla has no business making a car this slow.
At the Model 3 event Elon said:
"At Tesla, we don't make slow cars."0-60 in 6.6 seconds is SLOWER than the Prius Prime.
Actually and literally embarrassing.
Tesla shouldn't make a single vehicle that does 0-60 in over 5 sec. pic.twitter.com/yjNwrgRJr7
— Jeremy Judkins (@jeremyjudkins_) October 4, 2023
Now, I’m not sure of this person’s motives here, but 6.6 seconds from a dead stop to 60 mph isn’t slow. And, sure, the Prius Prime only needs 6.4 seconds to get to 60. But a 1974 Porsche 911 needed seven seconds flat to get from 0-60. And no one thought that car was slow. A Ferrari 308, like the one Magnum P.I. drove, that took 6.7 seconds to get to 60. And he managed to catch all those Hawaiian ne’er-do-wells, no problem.
This guy says that Tesla “shouldn’t make a single vehicle that does 0-60 in over 5 sec” which, just for reference, is pretty damn close to what a Shelby Cobra would do back in the day (4.8 or so seconds), and people raced those things. Sure, 5 seconds to 60 is fun, no question, but the idea that a carmaker that makes mainstream, general-use cars that hardly anyone takes to the track needs to never make a vehicle that takes longer than 5 seconds to get to 60 is just, well, stupid.
Look, fun is fun! I get it! But here’s the thing: in the real world, on real streets, people don’t accelerate that fast! Unless there’s something really horrific happening right behind them, like if a pack of sasquatches caught on fire and ended up on a runaway hovercraft careening down the highway. Beyond that, people are – and I mean no offense to any people that may be reading this – are generally too chickenshit to really stomp that go pedal so hard they go from 0-60 in, like, 5 seconds. They just don’t!
People will hit the gas to get going and feel that burst of intoxicating speed, but the vast majority of drivers will very soon let up, because on public roads, they’re pretty good at not being idiots.
I know there’s an argument that you need to have a car that’s sufficiently quick so it can merge onto highways safely, and I think that set of cars comfortably contains, let’s see, oh yeah, every single car you can buy today. And, really, pretty much anything on the road that can hit highway speeds. I know this because I drive a car every day that is likely one of the most marginal ones, taking a hilarious 16 or so seconds to hit 60, thanks to those 52 moseying horses under the hood. That’s likely too slow for almost everybody, and I get that, but I also know that even that glacial pace is not unsafe for merging. I know because I do it all the time, just fine.
Though you know what? If I try to think objectively about getting 1600 pounds of mass to move at a mile-a-minute, a span of 16 seconds to make that happen really doesn’t seem like much at all. We take the power of cars for granted, I think.
Really, anything that can get to 60 in about 10 seconds will probably be completely fine for most drivers. I went ahead and said seven seconds in the headline because, well, why not? You should have a little fun.
Maybe that guy in the tweet was joking? That’s certainly possible. But even so, it’s still an interesting thing to think about. In this era of all-torque-from-a-standstill electric motors, fast 0-60 times are no longer the exotic, barely-attainable things they once were. Race-car-adjacent 0-60 times aren’t rare any more, and as a result our perceptions have become skewed.
So, all I’m saying here is that while I get moving very quickly is an absolute blast, we all may be going off the rails here. Getting to 60 in six, seven, even eight seconds is plenty. And, remember, getting these 0-60 times isn’t easy! To get these times, carmakers and test drivers do multiple runs in ideal conditions, and sometimes those numbers are not exactly what you think, because they’re often measured with what’s known as rollout.
That means that the cars aren’t being tested for a true zero to 60 time; instead, the cars start moving and get to go about a foot before timing even starts. That’s not really 0-60 at all, is it? Here’s a video talking about this with someone who once shook our own David Tracy’s hand without even looking at him or acknowledging he was even there:
Take away this rollout, um, advantage, and some cars that claim incredibly low 0-60 times can’t really do what they claim.
Point is, it’s all kind of bullshit, and chances are great that whatever you’re driving has a 0-60 time that’s just fine. If you want to drag race, then that’s a whole other thing! But, for everyone else? Seven or under is fine.
Out of the two vehicles I’ve owned, my current one is the “fastest”: 0-60 is in the high 8’s. And I’ve done some real dumb things with it. Do I need something faster? Not really. Do I want something that’s like 2 seconds quicker in that metric? Definitely, though I’ll probably get speeding tickets.
I’m thinking that 0-60 is not important at all in daily driving. I’m more interested in the ability to match speed on an urban highway with short on-ramps during rush hour. Can I get from 0-40 in 200 feet?
My first “fast” car was an ’85 mustang GT that did 0-60 in 6.6 – that’s been my benchmark ever since. My current 2021 Mazda6 sport (n/a 2.5) does it in 7.8 – admittedly off the pace but is still quick enough for the real world. I’m a bit too respectable (read:old) for stoplight-to-stoplight these days anyway.
I must be old and slow. My Corolla Hatchback 6spd is rated at 7.3sec in the 0-60. And I’m fine with that.
Same for my Civic Hatchback. 0-60 in 7.1 seconds from the 1.5 turbo (Integra/Si engine) and 6MT, and it averages almost 40 MPG (39). Slow car fast is better than fast car slow.
Fast off the line for me leaves me feeling like, well now what? I’ve had a couple of real drag zippy cars, including a 2020 Challenger Super Stock. It’s a really neat trick to slam out of a traffic light, but it’s not nearly as satisfying or usable as real precision handling. I have a Mk8 GTI and it gives more frequent grins for its nimbleness than the Challenger did with its tire melting. Maybe the not the loudest laughs, but more satisfying ones.
Near enough to agree. I’ve nominally set my limit at under 6 seconds, mostly because I plan to keep my cars for a long time and it IS fun (okay, the ability to get a little ahead of traffic etc can be genuinely useful, but mostly going back to our ‘slower’ car really does feel mildly frustrating). But for the right car (rear wheel drive mid-size wagons, ideally with extra jockey seats) I’ve considered stretching to 6.something. Sacrifices, I know.
finally something I can agree with you! now if only you’d wrecking yard the chang li we can be friends
85 to 55 time is what’s really important…
I’m not going to try to prove you wrong, because you’re right
Seven-ish is my limit. Anything less doesn’t feel safe when merging or getting away from tailgating assholes in stripey Dodge Chargers. I’ve driven my MiL’s newer 4-cyl Accord and the lack of punch freaks me out.
I think anything that does zero to a hundred (kilometres per hour of course) in ten seconds is plenty fast enough, if you drive to get somewhere and not to have fun.
Driving in my 1964 Citroen 2CV, me and my (from factory once) 18bhp don’t have to worry about reaching 60mph at all.
Don’t pick on the insecure Tesla guy, his self confidence will come down like a house of cards. Let him have the acceleration at least.
My son was out trying this very cool Ziln Savage Cub, which didn’t have much in acceleration, top speed or range, but was the most fun in a long time anyway: https://www.instagram.com/p/CyGetzFImdR/
Some quick Googling tells me my three functional cars are all in the low eight second range. I consider that entirely adequate.
My non-functional ones would be in the mid-ten second range if they worked. Those could stand to be faster. Also working.
IMO the only metrics that actually matter are $$/mile, MPG, emissions, cargo capacity, safety and NVH.
Not only do I think you’re right, Torch, but I think you’re on to something. Maybe we should stop looking at car performance (well, for non-performance cars) as relative to other cars on the road and instead measure them against fixed standards for everyday driving.
What’s the minimum threshold 0-60 time for 80% of us and our driving? Quarter-mile time? Stopping distance at highway speeds? It would be interesting to see what people on the site can agree on.
Anything that can do 0-60 mph in under 20 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of roughly the same, is perfectly adequate for road use everywhere in the world. The vast majority of automobile operators won’t use their machines beyond these specs most of the time. Stopping distnces of under 200 feet from 60 to 0 are decent enough, and most cars available today exceed this spec.
If 0-60 is 20 seconds, there ain’t a chance in hell the quarter mile time is 20 seconds.
Doing a 20 second 0-60 run means you’ll have traveled roughly 880ft. Assuming that you can manage the same acceleration rate (haha!) it would take you roughly 24.5 seconds to do a quarter mile.
Depends on the torque curve of the vehicle. I knew EV conversions that could do 0-30 mph in 3 seconds, but took 20 seconds to reach 60 mph. But your point stands, as a 20 sec 1/4 mile for a car that slow would still be a stretch. I intended it as a rough figure.
Let’s make it 15 seconds to 60 and I am on board.
I’ve driven a broad range of cars, many of which are in the 300-500 hp range. The most fun cars I’ve ever driven were a MazdaSpeed 3, BMW Z3 2.8, and a 1988 Nissan Sentra on its last legs. Joy comes from character and relationship. 0-60 provides only a brief and diminishing thrill
Amen to that
I drive classic Minis in an erm….”spirited” manner. I always pull away from a light faster than any of the cars around me, and I have all of about 60 hp (yes, in a very light tin can of a car, but still….) so I’m not sure the 0-60 times really are that important. Yes, modern cars can do it, but most all modern car drivers just don’t. Maybe too busy texting?
I once rented a V6 Charger. That thing gained speed at “Oh shit, where’s the cop?” rate of acceleration. My father’s Avalon was probably the same, but he was in the car with me so I was taking it easy.
Agreed. Put another way, shorter is better, but not too short.
I daily a 2019 Golf with the 1.4 L/8-speed auto combination, and it’s rated at around 7.6-ish seconds to go from zero to 60 mph according to Car and Driver. Tossing in any fuel better than 87 octane wakes it up a bit in my experience since the turbo can actually build up some boost, and when merging onto a highway I can comfortably hang with traffic with no trouble at all. The light engine makes it handle well in the twisties for an economy car, and as nice as a GTI would be I have honestly not been wanting for power in this car!
I like the V8 in my van. But plenty of tradesmen do just fine with the V6 and 20,000 lbs of things in the back. They may not like it, but they’re fine.
My Mini (3cyl) is anemic compared to the Civic 1.5T – but because it has better gearing, is nearly as quick and much more pleasurable to drive.
My old Fleetwood was considered slow @ 10-11 seconds but it was not much faster at full throttle than it was at 1/4 throttle.
People like to complain about cars being expensive. They can complain about back up cameras and that the car is still too slow and still uses too much fuel.
People like to complain.
You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t negate the want for something more fun.
7 seconds to 60 isn’t exciting in anything sized like a modern vehicle.
Get a motorcycle. Problem solved.
Don’t buy a modern vehicle. Problem solved.
I agree mostly, and I drive a fairly slow car myself. But the issue is that people want to keep up with others in traffic, and nowadays all the cars on the road accelerate so fast that I am always getting overtaken and cut-off at traffic lights – which I can deal with but I suspect for most people it’s not good enough in a new car. when every car is a 6 second car, anything less than that becomes the new slow.
Nailed it.
“But the issue is that people want to keep up with others in traffic”
And that insecurity is how we justified the poisoning of our world with lead:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/worst-inventor-ethyl-advertisement.jpg
Ah touché – Not so different from these over-powered electric supercars with massive batteries everyone needs nowadays is it!
The massive batteries are for range, not acceleration.
Besides done right those massive batteries are also a fuck ton of emergency power.
They’re for range most people don’t actually need and consume a disgusting amount of natural resources while increasing the amount of tire particulates into our environment and making ithers less safe in crashes bc of the crazy high weight of the EV
By that logic nobody needs an ICE car with more than 60-100 miles on a tank either. Even less so given the abundance of gas stations, lack of tank wear and quick fillups
So why do ICE cars have 15-25 gallon tanks?
My car has a 10 gallon tank. I would be fine with it being smaller. I still fill up about once a month.
Gas tanks are one of the many, many things about cars that are too large.
But a full gas tank still weighs a lot less than these huge batteries.
My car has a 10 gallon tank. I would be fine with it being smaller. I still fill up about once a month.
Great for you, not so great for folks that drive a lot more than you do. Those who drive more may not want to have to fill up every few days.
Speaking of which…
Gas tanks are one of the many, many things about cars that are too large.
The rule of thumb I learned is that you lose 1/2 mpg for every 100 lbs of extra weight.
A gallon of gas weighs 6.1 lbs. That means an extra 5-7 gallons of a typical car over your 10 gallon tank adds ~30-43 lbs. Are you really going to quibble over a hit of 1/5 mpg or less? You may as well scream at people for using their A/C and not sweating it out instead. Besides much of the time their tank is going to be only part full and no heavier than yours. A larger tank can be a good thing, especially when that extra buffer means those folks won’t need to waste more gas on more side trips to the station.
Do us all a favor and yell at people for wasting gas by driving on underinflated tires instead. That is an actual problem.
But a full gas tank still weighs a lot less than these huge batteries.
No doubt. But so what if the electricity is clean enough to balance out the lifetime emissions of the car faster than its FF powered counterpart?
Most American electricity is not clean.
Underinflated tires are a real problem.
Range for cars, both gas and ev, should be shorter. Your minimal inconvenience does not warrant additional harm to the environment. Drive less. Ride a bike. Walk. Transit.
I do whenever possible. I have a fleet of vintage light touring and repurposed mountain bikes for local errands and weekend fun. I can get about 35 lbs of cargo on those before the handling gets too squirrelly. I use those for errands up to 7 miles or so, weather and time permitting.
For those times I need to use my car I combine trips as much as I can, carpool when I can, stick to the speed limit or less and keep a log of fuel consumption as an indicator of my car’s condition. I take my carbon footprint seriously.
Even so I’m not on board with this silliness. You need to pick your battles better.
err yeah, but that power for acceleration doesn’t come for free. We need large batteries to balance decent acceleration with range. it’s all linked you see.
I think that’s more a factor of how quickly and efficiently the battery can supply that power, not so much about how much power it can hold.
An EV with more motor(s) would be expected to use more power under the same driving conditions just due to extra friction and weight but not THAT much more. For example a T3 long range with dual motor AWD uses 26 kWh/100 mi vs the single motor’s 25 kWh/100mi* for a drop of 0-60 from a glacial 5.8s to a less glacial 4.3s.
*(The drop is in city performance. Highway rating is the same)
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=45013&id=45012&id=45011
That was more about efficiency. Raising compression ratios does both. Of course, they didn’t have to use lead to improve the fuel.
As the ad shows “efficency” wasn’t how lead was sold to the public. Playing on insecurity was.
Only the headline through the eyes of the kid, but the text is far more about selling it for restoring power in worn engines through increased knock resistance and valve sealing, so they’re selling its benefits in keeping an older vehicle running like when it was new rather than selling increased performance. This fits with the time as people back then were more concerned with keeping something operating properly for longer. The ad is more like selling a tuneup for a car that’s running poorly than selling it as a performance tune.
TOmato, TomAto, pOtato, potAto.
It’s still about increasing (lost) performance and playing on the insecurity of people wanting to keep up with others in traffic. Chances are if your car is slower due to wear so are most of the others you are sharing the road with.
Most people aren’t gunning in all out from a stop light though
I agree; both my current car and last one were listed at around 7 seconds (I’ll have to take the specs’ words for it), and neither have felt sluggish in any situation. For me, raw acceleration isn’t where the fun is. However, 0-60 is a very easily relatable metric, so I can understand why it’s so prominently featured.
Having spent most of the last… well lots of years driving mostly VW Vans of some sort, I have to agree 100%!
My ’56 Bus had twenty-five ponies under the.. what ever you call that. It went highway speeds, as long as 55 was a highway speed (Oregon say 35 or better is enough). Acceleration was, as a friend put it, “like giant hand [i]not pushing you back into the seat”.
Having finally graduated–gradually–to an ’85 Wasserboxer, producing a terrifying 90 hp (rated), I can state that the acceleration is about like a “giant hand not pushing you back in the seat”. But it would do 75 on a good day. Maybe a motorcycle engine in a 5.700 lb GVW rig isn’t ideal for most, but it worked for me.
Call a VW Van of any vintage–up to the early ’90s, that is–soulless means you have no soul.
I’m currently driving a ’93 Toyota Corolla Sedan, and that thing really accelerates like a… well, better than a Van. It merges onto highways jut fine with a 0-60 time of eventually, but corners like a raped… uh, like a ’93 Corolla.
Where I work is next to a VW van refurbishment business, and I am routinely caught behind the employees driving home trying to get into traffic. Because they have to wait for a large enough gap to pull out it’s a bit irritating, all the way up until they take off, and I hear that good old engine make that distinctive VW sound. Can’t get mad at a vehicle that is doing all it can to move.
That’s not me.
The VW DO 4 has pretty amazing low-range torque, meaning it can get up to road speeds pretty well. It’s that bit from 35 up that takes a while.
In the old ’56. you could literally drop the clutch, then give it the gas. Between the torque and the reduction-gear tunnel-axles, it was hard to stall. That was after an engine swap to a 1600 DP built to optimize low-range torque. Even the Wasserboxers are pretty good in this respect, and get up to real speed somewhat faster.
Besides, as noted above, there always seems to be someone else in front of me holding up traffic.