0-60

denverpilot

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,469
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
DenverPilot
I timed the 0-60 in the 18 year old Subaru.

16 seconds. LOL. Smokin!

What’s yours?
 
denverpilot said:
I timed the 0-60 in the 18 year old Subaru.

16 seconds. LOL. Smokin!

What’s yours?
Click to expand...

My car and the wife's car are very similar at about 7 seconds. The bike is good for 2.8 seconds.

16 seconds is dreadfully slow........just sayin'.
 
Volvo S60 -2.4T is right at 6 seconds.

I like to get out on the interstate and blow it out every now and then.
 
Bill Jennings said:
My car and the wife's car are very similar at about 7 seconds. The bike is good for 2.8 seconds.

16 seconds is dreadfully slow........just sayin'.
Click to expand...

LOL. I knew you’d post!

My 2000 Subaru known as “Box of Dirt” self-identifies as an AMG Mercedes.

18 year old four bangers at altitude with full time AWD are dogs. LOL.
 
060.jpg
 
The '07 GXP 5.3L - runs around 5.5 seconds. Not too bad for an overweight sedan.
'07 GMC 5.3L - 3.73LS - low 8's.
'08 F-150 Screw 5.4L - 3.55LS- mid 8's.
 
Last edited:
The 0-60 on my race bike was just too damn fast, and I could do it all in first gear. The 0-100 was me count on hippopotamus two hippopotamus. Before I go the the second "mus", I'd be in triple digits. I miss that bike.
 
I've never been hugely into drag racing, and thus 0-60 isn't a number that is truly all that interesting to me. According to the interwebz:

2003 Mercedes E55 AMG: 5 seconds
2009 Mercedes GL550: 5.8 seconds
2017 Ram 3500 Cummins: ~8.5 seconds

The E55 is getting long-tube headers put on it now and so that should, theoretically, make the 0-60 a bit faster. But it has 219k on it, so maybe that makes it slower.

The 8.5 0-60 time on the Ram I'm guessing is with an automatic, and I imagine my personal time would be more in the 10-12 second range because I'm not going to drive it like a racecar.

I'm more interested in a few other times:

30-80 acceleration - basically accelerating onto the highway
Top gear roll-on from 55 or so, accelerating on the highway

I like fast and all, but I'm more interested in the visceral aspects. And I like torque, not a big revs fan. Also like throttle response, which is why some aspects of the Cummins turbo lag are annoying to me (and will be resolved once the warranty is up). That's part of why a Viper is appealing to me - infinite torque, naturally aspirated so good throttle response, etc. I always enjoyed V-twin motorcycles (my RC51 was my favorite sportbike) because they had good vibrations, and made all the power I needed in the 4,500-6,500 RPM range. The Harleys, yeah, I could stand to have a bit more power.
 
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."
 
Ryanb said:
I’d be curious to know what kind of fuel consumption you’d see when testing that metric. :)
Click to expand...

I've thought about that some. It's hard to gauge exact fuel consumption when using higher power settings like that since you're not there for very long.

At 85 MPH cruise it's doing around 6 GPH (14 MPG). So figure maximum is maybe 15-20 GPH? IOW, about the same as ground idle as one engine on the MU-2. ;)
 
Big thing with a lot of these newer vehicles is the extra gears in the transmissions. Note the E55 is 0-60 in 5 seconds and the GL550 is 0-60 in 5.8, despite being significantly heavier and about 80 HP less. But the GL550 has a 7-speed automatic. Top gear is geared pretty similarly between the two, so you've got a lower first gear (get going quicker) and closer ratios that keep the engine closer to its peak power. The E55 has a 5-speed auto.
 
1997 Exploder 0-60? about 3 days + or -
2012 Camaro - less
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
The 0-60 on my race bike was just too damn fast, and I could do it all in first gear. The 0-100 was me count on hippopotamus two hippopotamus. Before I go the the second "mus", I'd be in triple digits. I miss that bike.
Click to expand...

I owned a BMW S1000RR for a while, it is the sickest vehicle I've ever personally driven or ridden. Totally sick fast. Not that I could duplicate these numbers, but a test rider for Cycleworld did 0-180 in Nate's 16 seconds. That's fookin' fast!

https://www.cycleworld.com/2015/08/...-shootout-results-specifications-video-photos
 
My 1958 2 legged limp-along coupe is not quite to 60 yet ... but looks like it will take exactly 60 ... years... in about 6 weeks...
 
Clark1961 said:
1997 Expoder 0-60? about 3 days + or -
2012 Camaro - less
Click to expand...

I thought Camaros were limited to a top speed of 30 since GM can't build a braking system capable of stopping anything going 60 in less than the state of Montana?

GM Braking Division said:
We Never Stop
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I thought Camaros were limited to a top speed of 30 since GM can't build a braking system capable of stopping anything going 60 in less than the state of Montana?
Click to expand...
I didn't say how much less than the previously listed 3 days. :)

As for stopping the Camaro...well the book numbers are rather eye opening...and based on some testing I think they are pretty close...I really avoid having tailgaters on my rear bumper without plenty of room in front of me even in heavy traffic.
 
Clark1961 said:
As for stopping the Camaro...well the book numbers are rather eye opening.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right. "eye opening" is exactly how I would describe the braking capabilities of any GM product I've ever operated.
 
Clark1961 said:
I didn't say how much less than the previously listed 3 days. :)

As for stopping the Camaro...well the book numbers are rather eye opening...and based on some testing I think they are pretty close...I really avoid having tailgaters on my rear bumper without plenty of room in front of me even in heavy traffic.
Click to expand...

I have never been so unimpressed with brakes on any vehicle as with GM vehicles. Came close to needing new pants (and/or a coffin) a few times. The Fords and Rams have done much better.

Of course beyond that it's mostly European cars which have had very good braking overall.
 
Bill Jennings said:
One cannot judge a modern Camaro based on past stereotypes. The new ones are truly remarkable high performance vehicles. The Camaro came in 2nd place in Car and Driver's annual Lightning Lap at VIR last year, besting a whole slew of expensive cars. I'm by no means a GM fanboy, and in fact am more of a Ford person, but credit where credit's due.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2017-every-lap-time-and-full-data-feature
Click to expand...

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.
 
jesse said:
Sounds about right. "eye opening" is exactly how I would describe the braking capabilities of any GM product I've ever operated.
Click to expand...
I had one of the 1/2 ton Chevy pick-ups with the 350 diesel in it for a crew truck back in the early 80s. I was towing a small power swivel trailer, maybe 3,000 pounds total along a country road and came up on a tee. Damn near put the pick-up in the ditch because of the trailer weight that I wasn't used to having. No extra braking capability built into that one fer sure.

The Camaro on the other hand wil stop on the proverbial dime. It's as dangerous as a bike in traffic when it comes to stopping ability.
 
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...

The '07 GXP came stock with drilled/slotted Brembos on all 4 corners. It actually comes to a halt pretty quickly. The '07 GMC . . . not so much. :)
 
2006 Mini Cooper S convertible with 6 speed manual. According to the web 0-60 in 6.5. Not bad for 168HP. And it really puts a smile on my face when I drive it.

Now, I compare that to apparently needing a new oil pan due to a slight crack: $970. Ouch.
 
I drive a '06 Tundra V6, so I don't know, and don't care, at least in that. Now if I still had my Honda S2000 I'd go see what it could do, and it wouldn't be 16 seconds! :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I thought Camaros were limited to a top speed of 30 since GM can't build a braking system capable of stopping anything going 60 in less than the state of Montana?
Click to expand...
The 5th gen SS's came with 4 piston brembos. 14" front, 14.4" rear.

The ZL1 had 6 pots
 
ktup-flyer said:
No idea what my 0-60 is, but low 12's in the 1/4. 2011 Camaro SS
Click to expand...
Should be a hair under 6 seconds for the automatic. Two hairs under for the manual if you can do your part.
 
Bill Jennings said:
One cannot judge a modern Camaro based on past stereotypes. The new ones are truly remarkable high performance vehicles. The Camaro came in 2nd place in Car and Driver's annual Lightning Lap at VIR last year, besting a whole slew of expensive cars. I'm by no means a GM fanboy, and in fact am more of a Ford person, but credit where credit's due.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2017-every-lap-time-and-full-data-feature
Click to expand...

I was mostly trolling Clark based off the rotten experience I've had with GM braking over the years. I also don't follow many new cars, especially GMs as I don't find any of them to have aesthetics I like and would consider purchasing, so I don't have any knowledge of the modern vehicles.

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.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I was mostly trolling Clark based off the rotten experience I've had with GM braking over the years. I also don't follow many new cars, especially GMs as I don't find any of them to have aesthetics I like and would consider purchasing, so I don't have any knowledge of the modern vehicles.

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...
I note that trolling is against the ROC and have reported the referenced post. I fully expect you to ban hammer yourself forthwith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top