Clear up some misconceptions about 0-60 times...
3rd Gear Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 632
From:
I live in So Cal and am on the freeway on ramps all the time.
Often there are two lanes that merge into one, then merge onto the freeway. Most of the time, one person is polite enough to allow the other to accelerate a bit faster. But to try to do 0-60 races with someone at the entrance of a freeway on ramp is asking for a huge accident.
For merging and normal on ramps, you are usually traveling 10-20 mph when you round the corner and onto the onramp, and if you feel like stomping on the gas then, 0-60 does not play a part, but "street start" does (though C & D's 5-60 time is still a bit off, as you are usually going a bit faster than creeping at 5 mph when you get on it.
10-60 or
10-70 would be a better indicator.
I understand what you guys are saying, but my point was, you see 0-60 times still at the forefront of advertising and marketing for a car, and still used in car mags to determine "which car is quicker".
And that's just not that relevant.
If getting in front of someone at a freeway on ramp is your guide you want to look at rest to distance, like 60 foot times.
Those tell you which car will be in able to get the jump on the other and merge in front
Often there are two lanes that merge into one, then merge onto the freeway. Most of the time, one person is polite enough to allow the other to accelerate a bit faster. But to try to do 0-60 races with someone at the entrance of a freeway on ramp is asking for a huge accident.
For merging and normal on ramps, you are usually traveling 10-20 mph when you round the corner and onto the onramp, and if you feel like stomping on the gas then, 0-60 does not play a part, but "street start" does (though C & D's 5-60 time is still a bit off, as you are usually going a bit faster than creeping at 5 mph when you get on it.
10-60 or
10-70 would be a better indicator.
I understand what you guys are saying, but my point was, you see 0-60 times still at the forefront of advertising and marketing for a car, and still used in car mags to determine "which car is quicker".
And that's just not that relevant.
If getting in front of someone at a freeway on ramp is your guide you want to look at rest to distance, like 60 foot times.
Those tell you which car will be in able to get the jump on the other and merge in front
Last edited by Driver72; Apr 30, 2010 at 05:21 PM.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 599
From: CA
You should.
My last two cars were 3600 lbs and stock were rated at 300 hp (though really in dyno tests me and many, many others did they were really 320-325 hp.
Stock they'd do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, without LSD's too.
I'm referring to the BMW 335i.
As reference of above cars, when I tuned my 335i's I was making less than 412 crank hp with tune only (345 rwhp, about 20-25 less than the 2011 Mustang GT). In same said 3600 lbs tune only 335i, I ran 0-60 in 4.4 seconds on several occasions on the stock street tires, and that was at 1300 feet in elevation.
With DR's it would drop to 4.2 seconds.
Yes I know, two different cars, but the Mustang V6 has similiar power (probably 10-15 hp less than the stock 335i does) but the V6 Mustang also weighs a bit less than the 3600 lbs 335i.
And the Mustang GT has more power than a tune only 335i, wider/sticker tires than the 335i does, and a really LSD, unlike the electronic one of the 335i. The Mustang GT weighs almost identical to the 335i too.
So power to weight in both cases suggests the stock Mustang V6 could do the 0-60 in 5.1 and the Mustang GT could do it in 4.3 seconds with the right drivers.
I'll say this the 4.3 seconds from the GT will be much harder to achieve though, clearly due to traction and getting the power down.
But I don't doubt those times are reasonable, accurate and fair one bit.
My last two cars were 3600 lbs and stock were rated at 300 hp (though really in dyno tests me and many, many others did they were really 320-325 hp.
Stock they'd do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, without LSD's too.
I'm referring to the BMW 335i.
As reference of above cars, when I tuned my 335i's I was making less than 412 crank hp with tune only (345 rwhp, about 20-25 less than the 2011 Mustang GT). In same said 3600 lbs tune only 335i, I ran 0-60 in 4.4 seconds on several occasions on the stock street tires, and that was at 1300 feet in elevation.
With DR's it would drop to 4.2 seconds.
Yes I know, two different cars, but the Mustang V6 has similiar power (probably 10-15 hp less than the stock 335i does) but the V6 Mustang also weighs a bit less than the 3600 lbs 335i.
And the Mustang GT has more power than a tune only 335i, wider/sticker tires than the 335i does, and a really LSD, unlike the electronic one of the 335i. The Mustang GT weighs almost identical to the 335i too.
So power to weight in both cases suggests the stock Mustang V6 could do the 0-60 in 5.1 and the Mustang GT could do it in 4.3 seconds with the right drivers.
I'll say this the 4.3 seconds from the GT will be much harder to achieve though, clearly due to traction and getting the power down.
But I don't doubt those times are reasonable, accurate and fair one bit.
For reference, what were the stock GT500's running? I am not sure.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,176
From: Decatur AL USA
I still doubt the GT will pull a 4.3 on stock tires. A BMW will hook a lot better. The Mustang doesn't tend to hook that hard on stock rubber, especially with the log axle. Not talking mods, on track, etc. Just talking stock 2011 GT. Hookin up and pulling a 4.3, probably not.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 33
From: SC
I still doubt the GT will pull a 4.3 on stock tires. A BMW will hook a lot better. The Mustang doesn't tend to hook that hard on stock rubber, especially with the log axle. Not talking mods, on track, etc. Just talking stock 2011 GT. Hookin up and pulling a 4.3, probably not.
For reference, what were the stock GT500's running? I am not sure.
For reference, what were the stock GT500's running? I am not sure.
Regarding the GT500...The newer ones that are 550hp and all aluminun run closer to 4.1 from what i hear.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
