0-60 times

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Then again, 0-60 is really a rare concern for pony car drivers anyway. We tend to care about drag racing or road track results... plus skid pad, stopping and so forth. 0-30 and up is cool and all, but most of us don't brag about 60mph. Instead, it's the 1/4mile.

My car will never see a drag strip, a road course, or a skid pad. It will, however, see plenty of red lights, so 0-60 times are important to me, since that's the only time the throttle will ever hit the floor (and likely the only time the tach will ever see the far side of 3000).

Sponsored

 

[w3rkn]

Don't see the point, if you want a drag car, rip the backseat out..

 

[SVTFreak]

Don't see the point, if you want a drag car, rip the backseat out..

Heck no. I'll throw a supercharger on it and embarrass much more expensive cars with the baby seat in the back (single dad of a 3 year old little girl who loves to "go fasser daddy!")

 

[ilkhan]

GT 4.2-4.5s.
EB 5.0s

 

[Gman11Gt]

Meh, this really doesn't matter a whole lot. What does matter is that it better get some good traction out of the hole and avoid wheel hop. Everything else will fall into place if that happens. I care more about the experience, sound, and looks. I feel that if it is at least breath taking or fast enough, it will be a fine car indeed.

The 5.0 should be a low 4 second car, that's respectable. With a blower and a couple changes, you can beat up on a hellcat or at least make it a fair fight.

 

[scottpe]

Why should a 35K car be expected to match a 65K car? Throw a whipple on the GT and maybe its 'fair' -- but really not a good comparison. GT is between 235/435 performance but below M3/M4. The GT350 will be interesting.

When did I say I expected the Mustang to match it? My point was, the M3 and GT were very closely matched in acceleration in the previous gen. If the Mustang now gives up nearly half a second in 0-60 acceleration, that's very substantial. You can do the whole price difference justification, and it is valid, but it doesn't change the fact that the Mustang will have fallen way behind in that performance matchup, which is not good news to many Mustang fans. To me that means I'll have to spend a lot more money to compete.

And to anyone suggesting that 0-60 times are not important, I disagree. Getting to 60 quickly usually has implications toward quarter mile performance as well. The new bimmer puts up very strong numbers there too, not coincidentally.

Anyway, we will see what happens.

 

[HanShadow]

When did I say I expected the Mustang to match it? My point was, the M3 and GT were very closely matched in acceleration in the previous gen. If the Mustang now gives up nearly half a second in 0-60 acceleration, that's very substantial. You can do the whole price difference justification, and it is valid, but it doesn't change the fact that the Mustang will have fallen way behind in that performance matchup, which is not good news to many Mustang fans. To me that means I'll have to spend a lot more money to compete.

And to anyone suggesting that 0-60 times are not important, I disagree. Getting to 60 quickly usually has implications toward quarter mile performance as well. The new bimmer puts up very strong numbers there too, not coincidentally.

Anyway, we will see what happens.

I will bet a dollar that the 15 GT beats the 15 M3 (non-GTS) on the track. For half the price. The 11 GT almost beat the 11 M3 with a live axle...

 

[OppoLock]

And to anyone suggesting that 0-60 times are not important, I disagree. Getting to 60 quickly usually has implications toward quarter mile performance as well. The new bimmer puts up very strong numbers there too, not coincidentally.

Anyway, we will see what happens.

I just don't think they're a reliable indication of acceleration in most performance vehicles. For example, a car with AWD and short gearing (especially in a quick shifting automated box) tends to have blistering 0-60 times, but that same car might be slower during in gear acceleration or pretty much anywhere else where a launch from a dig isn't concerned. It's a good example of making the most of its torque and traction, whereas a 1/4 mi time with trap will give you a much better representation. Hell, even 5-60 seems more relatable to the real world.

 

[L8APEX]

I would be more interested in 0-100MPH. 0-60 is so 1990s

 

[Brent302]

I would be more interested in 0-100MPH. 0-60 is so 1990s

Saying 1990 is sooo 2000 and late

 

[Old 5 Oh]

Check this out on the Car & Driver site. They seem to agree the new car may be a little faster than the old car.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/whatll-it-do-heres-how-quick-we-think-the-2015-ford-mustang-will-be/

Their conclusion:

"To put a finer point on things, we believe that the EcoBoost Mustang will make good use of its low-end turbocharged power to better get out of the gate than the V-6–powered base model, and it should maintain that gap through the quarter-mile. The new GT is a little different story. Ford used the epic Boss 302 as the GT’s performance bogey, and that car hooked up basically as ideally as possible. Even though the Boss was lighter and boasted 444 ponies to the new GT’s 435, we’re expecting the GT to hurtle itself through space with similar alacrity. Now all that’s left for us to do is to strap our test gear to the new Mustangs and gather real numbers—stay tuned, because those testing sessions are fast approaching."

 

[tbonez3858]

I'm not going to say 0-60 is the best indicator of acceleration/speed performance but to say its archaic or irrelevant is just silly. Almost any car review conduct in the last 20 years uses it as benchmark including non-performance cars. It's the benchmark for which all manufacturers measure common daily driving acceleration....A very small percentage of the population even understands what relevance a quarter of a mile has. An even smaller percentage know why a quarter mile is actual the given distance of a race.

 

[aspensilver]

When did I say I expected the Mustang to match it? My point was, the M3 and GT were very closely matched in acceleration in the previous gen. If the Mustang now gives up nearly half a second in 0-60 acceleration, that's very substantial. You can do the whole price difference justification, and it is valid, but it doesn't change the fact that the Mustang will have fallen way behind in that performance matchup, which is not good news to many Mustang fans. To me that means I'll have to spend a lot more money to compete.

And to anyone suggesting that 0-60 times are not important, I disagree. Getting to 60 quickly usually has implications toward quarter mile performance as well. The new bimmer puts up very strong numbers there too, not coincidentally.

Anyway, we will see what happens.

I just said comparison, not match -- but it sounds like you want to not just match but beat!

Honestly I think the last generation E90 M3 being matched by the S197 Mustang is more of a negative indictment of BMW's effort than praise of Ford's. I think BMW's new M3/M4 is re-upping their game to where it should have been.

Also the bimmer is taking advantage of advanced automatic transmissions which the Mustang is severely outdated on. You still have dorks on the Mustang forum calling auto's "hairdressers" transmissions and such when they are the future of performance.

Check this out on the Car & Driver site. They seem to agree the new car may be a little faster than the old car.

Of course it will be. It would be a marketing disaster for Ford if it wasn't!

 

[marks]

I just said comparison, not match -- but it sounds like you want to not just match but beat!

Honestly I think the last generation E90 M3 being matched by the S197 Mustang is more of a negative indictment of BMW's effort than praise of Ford's. I think BMW's new M3/M4 is re-upping their game to where it should have been.

Also the bimmer is taking advantage of advanced automatic transmissions which the Mustang is severely outdated on. You still have dorks on the Mustang forum calling auto's "hairdressers" transmissions and such when they are the future of performance.




Of course it will be. It would be a marketing disaster for Ford if it wasn't!

Yes and the future of cars is for them to be driverless, as the biggest obstacle for car manufacturers is the human behind the wheel! I understand its personal preference but some prefer to drive cars rather than be driven. Anyway lets stick to the topic rather than another manual v auto debate.

 

[Mark's M]

I'm not going to say 0-60 is the best indicator of acceleration/speed performance but to say its archaic or irrelevant is just silly. Almost any car review conduct in the last 20 years uses it as benchmark including non-performance cars. It's the benchmark for which all manufacturers measure common daily driving acceleration....A very small percentage of the population even understands what relevance a quarter of a mile has. An even smaller percentage know why a quarter mile is actual the given distance of a race.

Well said

Sponsored