0-60 times

[Old 5 Oh]

Yeah, thanks
(T)he most hp isn't always the fastest, the lowest gearing isn't always the fastest and the lowest 0-60 or 60 foot isn't always fastest. It's still a combination of things.

True that!

Sponsored

 

[scottpe]

I was thinking mostly about 60 foot times:headbonk: but still, most of what I said holds true. Better 60 foot times and better 0-60 equals better quarter mile times.

Well stated. And this was my intended point before. I understand that a fast 0-60 time does not necessarily always mean a fast quarter mile time when considered on its own. But everything else being equal, a car that gets to 60 faster will also have a faster quarter mile time.

The new Mustang has gained some weight, and not much more HP/TQ relative to that weight gain. The transmissions are the same as before. The gearing is the same as before. The best hope we have, IMO, of this car performing markedly better than the S197 in the quarter mile is for it to launch better and accelerate faster in 1st gear. A lower 0-60 time would tell me it does. If it still comes in around the same 0-60 as before, I'm betting the quarter mile time is not going to be much different either.

Also, looking at the Mustangs, Camaro's and Challengers, the most hp isn't always the fastest, the lowest gearing isn't always the fastest and the lowest 0-60 or 60 foot isn't always fastest. It's still a combination of things.

Very true.

 

[OppoLock]

I think you are confusing 0-60 times with the common drag strip parameter of a "60 foot" time. Reducing the initial 60-foot time by 0.1 is usually worth about 0.2 to 0.3 in the 1/4 mile. And drag radials (along with good weight transfer, etc.) really help that initial start.

A 0-60 time can be dramatically affected by gear spacing. Some cars can get to 60 in second gear. They will have lower 0-60 times typically than if they needed a shift to third gear, but that may have no overall effect at the quarter mile since by then almost all cars (Mustangs, anyway) are in fourth gear. And you don't want to be geared so short you need to go to fifth before the end of the drag race.

In an earlier post, I said I think the new car will KILL the old car on 60-foot times thanks to better weight distribution (and hopefully better weight transfer.) If that's the case, the slight weight penalty won't be the deciding factor, and 1/4 mile times will be lower. Or so I hope.

Perfectly said.

0-60 can be heavily influenced by an additional shift to that point. That shift has little to no influence on the time that will be achieved in a 1/4 mile given all things being equal. Of course a faster 0-60mph will usually lead to a faster 1/4 mile time... why wouldn't it? A 60' time is something entirely different.

I doubt that cars like the GT500 would have 1st gear going to the 62mph mark if it wasn't for these standards. There's no point to it other than grabbing a big headline and creating a stronger perception of its speed on paper (and really, not that it needs that help...).

Case in point: when the outgoing generation WRX received a heavy mid-cycle facelift, it happened to hit the 60mph mark in (I think) the same time, give or take a tenth, sooner than its more powerful STi brother. All of a sudden you had these armchair racers proclaiming that the WRX was the better car or they simply used it to back some ridiculous acceleration opinion. The reality is that the STi happened to require one more additional shift to 60, slowing it by that much. It had more power and a better gearbox - better everything - but the 60mph run is the first thing that gets tossed around.

 

[GMAN6]

Well stated. And this was my intended point before. I understand that a fast 0-60 time does not necessarily always mean a fast quarter mile time when considered on its own. But everything else being equal, a car that gets to 60 faster will also have a faster quarter mile time.

The new Mustang has gained some weight, and not much more HP/TQ relative to that weight gain. The transmissions are the same as before. The gearing is the same as before. The best hope we have, IMO, of this car performing markedly better than the S197 in the quarter mile is for it to launch better and accelerate faster in 1st gear. A lower 0-60 time would tell me it does. If it still comes in around the same 0-60 as before, I'm betting the quarter mile time is not going to be much different either.



Very true.

The best hope we have, IMO, of this car performing markedly better than the S197 in the quarter mile is for it to launch better and accelerate faster in 1st gear. A lower 0-60 time would tell me it does. If it still comes in around the same 0-60 as before, I'm betting the quarter mile time is not going to be much different either.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, Thanks

 

[Rob WH]

C&D Guess

Sadly, they're probably very close.

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).

As we said, most... you may also prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate or strawberry...

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.

The whole price difference thing is what you're doing right here... the M costs nearly 20k more than the Mustang GT in max form excluding convertible. If you want to match the M, you may have to spend the same... more than Mustang. I'd just take the happy moment for the Ford keeping up before.

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.

Gearing will be a game changer here, as it's been forever. The Mustang may be geared specifically to haul right up to 60mph... then fall flat(it's happened in the past). If that's the case, not that it is with the 15 GT, 0-60 isn't really indicative of 1/4 mile times.

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.

Pretty much.

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

Eh... the 1/4 mile covers both in the Mustang GT.

So my choice in transmission must be dictated by how fast I want to get to 60?

No, but if you specifically want the quicker version, yes. There's only 1 quicker... automatic.

0 -60 times are important.

It's one of several factors affecting quarter mile times.

Not 0-60mph.

If I remember correctly, 1 tenth off 0-60 time equals 2 - 2.5 tenths in the quarter mile. Being it is similar power to weight ratio as the outgoing model, consider the 14 ran about 12.8 in the quarter. All other things being equal, If you decrease the 0-60 time from 4.4 to 4.1 the quarter mile time should decrease from 12.8 to 12.2.

You're thinking of 0-60 FEET... "short time." We're talking about 0-60MPH...

That said, until you get pretty quick, 1 tenth quicker in the short time tends to equal 2 on... "the long end."

Also, I would tell you to look at German car times. They almost always beat American cars with similar hp and weight. Usually it is because they have better 0-60 times. Look at the Corvette, it outperforms muscle cars with similar hp/weight ratios because it has wider tires in the rear giving it better grip which means better 0-60 times.

The Corvette (C7) has 460hp and weighs about 3300... not many cars come close to this p/wt ratio.

As for gearing, yes that can affect 0-60 times, but most modern muscle cars have more than enough power and gearing to spin the wheels so gearing isn't really the issue so much as being able to put that power down.

Gearing can cause or prevent wheel spin, however... specifically with decent tires involved. Putting down the power has plenty to do with gearing.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

The Corvette (C7) has 460hp and weighs about 3300... not many cars come close to this p/wt ratio.

2014 Corvette base curb weight is 3298 pounds and has 460 hp, for a 7.17 lb/hp ratio. That's pretty good, but there are definitely cars that are better. Like, say, the Hellcat Challenger: 4450 lb curb weight, 707 hp; 6.29 lb/hp.

I think the record for street-legal production cars is the Koenigsegg One:1, at 2888 lb curb weight with a 1341 hp engine, for a 2.15 lb/hp ratio.

 

[Fenderaddict2]

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!

Autos are the future of performance, I agree, a future with less driver interaction.

 

[Swoope]

this 0 to 60 should depress everyone. in a ~35k car with a tune.


[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]PsMwbwspLKk[/MEDIA]"]link[/ame]

beers

 

[Free Agent]

this 0 to 60 should depress everyone. in a ~35k car with a tune.


link

beers

Didn't think we were getting the GolfR here this generation. Europe only?

 

[Swoope]

Didn't think we were getting the GolfR here this generation. Europe only?

first qtr 15. this is the new gen mk7.

beers

 

[Wildcat]

The Golf R is awfully tempting. 290 hp, awd, available DSG trans.

I'm waiting to see the price.

 

[Swoope]

The Golf R is awfully tempting. 290 hp, awd, available DSG trans.

I'm waiting to see the price.

yea,

and the apr stage one tune is looking silly..

~36k is my best guess.. funny this might come down to tire availability.

beers

 

[tbonez3858]

The problem with driving the Golf R is that you are driving a VW. It will be in the shop more than its out (just like BMW)...That is obviously not a statement about performance but I actually have to use the car Im paying for to get to work...

To be honest I dont know a single repeat VW customer...or audi for that matter.

 

[bobbyh]

The problem with driving the Golf R is that you are driving a VW. It will be in the shop more than its out (just like BMW)...That is obviously not a statement about performance but I actually have to use the car Im paying for to get to work...

To be honest I dont know a single repeat VW customer...or audi for that matter.

I agree with that. My brother's GTi was in the shop more than out of it and everything that broke was $500+ every time. A German car out of warranty is for those with a lot of disposable income.

Now the Golf R400 looks like fun if it ever comes here; though I wouldn't buy one unless it was to lease for a couple years.

 

[opensesame]

Calculated 0-60 times have been posted at this article.

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

To sum it up:
V6:
0-60 5.4 sec
0-100 13 sec
1/4 mile 14

Ecoboost:
0-60 5.3 sec
0-100 12.9 sec
1/4 mile 13.8 sec

V8
0-60 4.3 sec
0-100 9.7 sec
1/4 mile 12.8 sec

Sponsored