0-60

Both my Subaru Forester and Chevy Volt are 0-60 9 sec vehicles. The Volt varies slightly depending on whether you’re on full electric or gas / electric combo. Still, it’s roughly 9 secs. Not exactly like getting shot out of a cannon.
 
Bill Jennings said:
16 seconds is dreadfully slow........just sayin'.
Click to expand...
I think his Subaru is similar in vintage to my previous one. Acceleration was not its strong point. The newer Forester is marginally better.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That said, it's good to hear that they've improved their braking. I'll stick to my Ram and Mercedes. And then figure out what to buy to satisfy the itch for something completely ridiculous. Viper comes to mind.
Click to expand...


Viper.jpg
To go with the MU-2. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Clark1961 said:
I note that trolling is against the ROC and have reported the referenced post. I fully expect you to ban hammer yourself forthwith.
Click to expand...

I have banhammered myself appropriately and have banned myself for an appropriate period of less than 3 months.
 
2016 Denali. ~5.8
2003 Suburban ~too scary for that car
 
3.6 for the stock C6
 
What launch technique did you use?
 
upload_2018-4-3_17-27-27.png
Because the text can be hard to read
The Citroen 2CV, faster than a Ferrari, travelling flat out at 71 mph the Citroen 2CV will easily overtake a Ferrari Mondial travelling at 65 mph
 
06' charger daytona edition: 5.5s
99' stock ram 2500 cummins: about 12s if I remember correctly
83' f100: it gets there when it gets there :D
 
A friend of mine had a '72 or '73 Pinto that would go through the quarter mile in 19.5 seconds. I think it failed to achieve 60MPH....
 
Haven’t timed the Vette, but all “tests” show less than 4.0.
 
FastEddieB said:
Had to Google it for our 2011 Ford Flex with EcoBoost, but from Car and Driver...

"Well, we can say that for a 4800-pound family vehicle in which you can get a second-row refrigerator—how’s that for a niche?—the twin-turbo Flex is seriously quick. With the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 sending 355 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque through the standard six-speed automatic and all-wheel-drive system, our SEL tester hustled to 60 mph in six seconds flat, covered the quarter-mile in 14.6 at 96 mph, and reached a governed top speed of 123 mph. That’s nearly two seconds quicker to 60 mph and through the quarter than the last Flex we tested with all-wheel drive and the base V-6. Turbo lag is virtually nil, shifts are smooth albeit a little slow, and the exhaust note sounds about the same as that of the naturally aspirated version, so you get a big bump in speed without the boy-racer behavior you might expect from forced induction. The EcoBoost engine still swills regular unleaded, too."
Click to expand...

Is that with, or without the fridge? ;)
 
Grum.Man said:
I was about to say almost all GM products made in the past 4 or 5 years stop best in class or close to it.
Click to expand...

I'll second that. Huge difference between the brakes on Mrs. GRG55s 2003 Sierra and my 2010. I think the brakes are the worst aspect of that older truck right from when it was new.

But at least it's not a Ford, where the front discs are warped in 5000 miles and at least 3 of 4 calipers are seized at 10.
 
I once rented a Chrysler K car back in the mid-80s. At Mammoth, where the elevation was about 8,500 feet. I think the car had 101 horsepower and did 0-60 in 14 seconds... at sea level. At elevation, I think I had 0-50 in about 35 seconds. Don’t even ask about 60 mph. A tractor trailer hauling fuel on a highway easily out-accelerated me (while I was on a downhill on ramp) and continued to out accelerate me on the highway as I laid down a continuous trail of black smoke.

Now-a-days, I’m rolling in a 328d (diesel) that gets me to 60 in about 7 seconds, and have a nicely modified Mustang that will hustle me along a lot faster than that.
 
The car, 4.5 s (twin turbo V8).

The bike was about the same (and it was much simpler, too, with only two cylinders, normally aspirated and air cooled). But alas I sold it.
 
2017 Ford F-150 3.5L V6 Ecoboost w/ 10 speed transmission: 5.7 seconds.

12-13 seconds if you hook 7,000 lbs up to the back.

It’s not short on power and can shift faster than I can think.
 
All I know is that my 12 year old turbo Subaru will do 0-60 quicker than Denverpilot's 18 year old Subaru will. Beyond that, I've never checked, but I'd guess it is in the 4 second range.
 
Numbers on the interweb vary a bit, but seem to average around 4.1 for 2013 Audi TTRS with APR stage one. It's faster than I can shift.
 
rtk11 said:
Now-a-days, I’m rolling in a 328d (diesel) that gets me to 60 in about 7 seconds, and have a nicely modified Mustang that will hustle me along a lot faster than that.
Click to expand...

The little diesels are appealing to me. I've always liked diesels and wish that Mercedes would bring some more of their diesel options over (we're Mercedes fans). Would buy one if it could be had reasonably.

jesse said:
2017 Ford F-150 3.5L V6 Ecoboost w/ 10 speed transmission: 5.7 seconds.

12-13 seconds if you hook 7,000 lbs up to the back.

It’s not short on power and can shift faster than I can think.
Click to expand...

The billion-speed automatics they're putting out these days are very good for acceleration times and also for mileage.

But damn it, I want to row my own gears and I want a clutch.
 
Do turbo cars do better at high altitude than at sea level? Less wind resistance from the thinner air plus engine power normalized to sea level output?
 
asicer said:
Do turbo cars do better at high altitude than at sea level? Less wind resistance from the thinner air plus engine power normalized to sea level output?
Click to expand...

No. The wind resistance isn't enough to matter at those elevations and those speeds. The turbos will have more lag (less air means less mass airflow to spool up the turbo). Also, most turbo cars I don't believe are set to absolute manifold pressure for boost, rather just to a certain PSI of boost above ambient. At least, for the old systems. Newer vehicles (like my Ram) probably boost to absolute.
 
Stickman said:
You are right I dyslexiced that it should be 6.2 seconds not 2.6.
Click to expand...

Ok. I was going to comment on that...

I’m not much of straight line guy but all of my cars are somewhere in the 4s
Aston Martin Vantage, 911 Carrera 4S and Macan GTS
 
Ted DuPuis said:
No. The wind resistance isn't enough to matter at those elevations and those speeds. The turbos will have more lag (less air means less mass airflow to spool up the turbo). Also, most turbo cars I don't believe are set to absolute manifold pressure for boost, rather just to a certain PSI of boost above ambient. At least, for the old systems. Newer vehicles (like my Ram) probably boost to absolute.
Click to expand...
They still do better than an NA-counterpart at altitude. Boost is boost. You may not be getting 15psi boost pressure, but you'll still be getting something decent out of it. The NA will just be sucking wind.
 
SoonerAviator said:
They still do better than an NA-counterpart at altitude. Boost is boost. You may not be getting 15psi boost pressure, but you'll still be getting something decent out of it. The NA will just be sucking wind.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the turbo cars will do significantly better at altitude than their N/A counterparts. However they won't do better at altitude than they will at sea level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top