Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If someone is really trying to compare cars for how they accelerate from a stoplight, they should not be reading published 0-60 times anyway. Those published times from magazines and such are often achieved through subjecting the car and driveline to abuse that the typical owner will never do on the street due to reliability and longevity issues.
For real world street use and an eye on not having a lot of pricey drivetrain repair bills, rolling start acceleration times may be a more beneficial. (Such as 5-60 rolling start times).
Ultimately, however, I think the average person buys more on feel.
For the occasion that I jump on the Merritt Parkway in CT and have to launch from a dead stop into traffic, yes 0-60 comes in handy. But for 99% of my driving I care more about say 10/20 to 70. I'm not stoplight racing but I am coming up on a highway entrance ramps from turning onto them already in motion or going through an intersection and then onto the ramp so there is a head start so to speak.
On that point, passing is more important as well. How quickly can my car take me from 30-50, or 60-80, even 70-80 to get around that tractor trailer or the slow guy on the 4 lane main road. I'll say that 200hp does not sound like a lot for me car but having it bundled with a 6 speed row your own and a turbo 4 motor makes a lot of difference when you want to downshift and zip around and out of the way of traffic.
It is worse in Pittsburgh where there are STOP SIGNS at the entrance ramps to the interstates and you don't have any acceleration lane.
It is worse in Pittsburgh where there are STOP SIGNS at the entrance ramps to the interstates and you don't have any acceleration lane.
Don't see TOO many around here, The one from Millvale to 28 north is the only one I can think of... some of the ramps getting onto interstate 70 down near Washington PA tho.... WTF.
Every review is about HP and no regards for torque. A 2013 Fusion will get take hits for 237HP , but wont mention 270lb of torque on the low end that is better than all the high HP cars it competes against. The general public does not spend 80-90% of their driving above 5000rpm, where most non turbo cars are making their bulk power and tourque.
I have a 2012 Impala LTZ and that is a great example of fast to 60, but unless your flooring it, it sure doesnt feel like 300hp because the torque peak is 5300rpm. My old G6 GXP with 50 less HP was a tad slower to 60 than my Impala but would beat it in anything else acceleration wise.
SAAN--
This. I'll take my old '99 Grand Prix over any "new" car that claims to have 300 HP with the help of a turbo. With the mods I've been doing to it, it's probably cranking about that amount. (They were 240hp/280tq stock.) Supercharged FTW, because you get more pickup that way. Even if I string out second gear in that car, it'll take me clear up to 95 MPH. Guess what... I don't even hit that very often.
Getting on the highway I'm using the 2,000-4,500 RPM band, not the 6,000+ range. I want the torque on the low end.
For that reason, Supercharged > Turbo for daily driving... all week long. Unfortunately, superchargers aren't known for fuel efficiency. Blame the gub'mint for making the car companies comply with CAFE standards.
This. I'll take my old '99 Grand Prix over any "new" car that claims to have 300 HP with the help of a turbo. With the mods I've been doing to it, it's probably cranking about that amount. (They were 240hp/280tq stock.) Supercharged FTW, because you get more pickup that way. Even if I string out second gear in that car, it'll take me clear up to 95 MPH. Guess what... I don't even hit that very often.
Getting on the highway I'm using the 2,000-4,500 RPM band, not the 6,000+ range. I want the torque on the low end.
For that reason, Supercharged > Turbo for daily driving... all week long. Unfortunately, superchargers aren't known for fuel efficiency. Blame the gub'mint for making the car companies comply with CAFE standards.
I prefer the turbocharger myself. Easier to make power and more efficient to boot. Not terribly difficult to build a 400hp setup with wheel torque above 300wtq and still make boost under 3k rpm.
You don't understand gearing. A tall gear is the worse choice for quick acceleration. It is especially poor getting the vehicle moving from a standstill as the engine is at a mechanical disadvantage. The other problem with tall gearing is that the engine spends very little time at the RPM that produces peak horsepower.
Short gears are best for quick acceleration. The disadvantage of them is frequent gear shifts.
Read the road tests of the 2013 Fusion. Forget the hp/tq ratings. It is slower than a Honda Accord, engine for engine. The 1.6L Ecoboost has less power and is slower than the Accord 4 cylinder. It also has poorer fuel economy. The 2.0L Ecoobost has less power and is slower than the 6 cyl Accord. Guess what? The Accord has better MPG.
I understand gearing.
My old G6 GXP was 252HP @6300 & 251 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 17/26mpg
My Impala is 302 HP@ 6500 & 264 lb-ft @5300 18/30MPG
0-60 is the exact same with both cars, but around town the G6 is way quicker the Impala because I dont have to floor it to wait for all the power to build up. Down side is a bunch of torque steer with the G6. The impala is not slow, but its bad when something with 50less HP can keep up with it because it is better geared too. I dont know why GM has the Impala 1st gearing going up to 45mph. But on the expressway @70mph, both cars got 32mpg even though the G6 was rated 4mpg less and in town they both suck and get 15-17mpg.
My 2000 Taurus with 200 HP @5650 & 200 lb-ft @4400 is 1 second slower to 60 than the Impala, but actually more responsive in passing on the expressway (45-70) because Ford geared the car perfectly.
My old G6 GXP was 252HP @6300 & 251 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 17/26mpg
My Impala is 302 HP@ 6500 & 264 lb-ft @5300 18/30MPG
0-60 is the exact same with both cars, but around town the G6 is way quicker the Impala because I dont have to floor it to wait for all the power to build up. Down side is a bunch of torque steer with the G6. The impala is not slow, but its bad when something with 50less HP can keep up with it because it is better geared too. I dont know why GM has the Impala 1st gearing going up to 45mph. But on the expressway @70mph, both cars got 32mpg even though the G6 was rated 4mpg less and in town they both suck and get 15-17mpg.
My 2000 Taurus with 200 HP @5650 & 200 lb-ft @4400 is 1 second slower to 60 than the Impala, but actually more responsive in passing on the expressway (45-70) because Ford geared the car perfectly.
Don't judge performance based on throttle position as modern ECU's don't necessarily open the throttle body based on percentage of pedal input (not a 1:1 relationship). You may be giving the pedal 30% but the ECU opens the throttle body 50% or 15%, etc. The Impala is likely a few hundred pounds heavier as well.
Hardly anyone buying a Fusion or Impala puts performance as a high priority in their purchasing decision. If they did, they'd buy a performance oriented car.
For cars that people actually pay a premium for based on performance, these attributes are WELL covered in reviews.
0-60 isn't overrated - it's a good indicator of how fact you can get up to highway speed from a stop. I'd have felt a lot more comfortable driving on rural highways in Mexico last week if the rental car had a bit more ability to get up to 100kph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texsn95
Got torque? My 347 stroker 95 Cobra, talk about a nice and flat torque curve
What about below 2500 RPM? BMW's latest N5x motors develop peak torque at 1400-5400 RPM, which pretty much eliminates the feel of turbo lag. It also makes driving a manual in slow rolling stop and go traffic a real chore.
My old G6 GXP was 252HP @6300 & 251 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 17/26mpg
My Impala is 302 HP@ 6500 & 264 lb-ft @5300 18/30MPG
0-60 is the exact same with both cars, but around town the G6 is way quicker the Impala because I dont have to floor it to wait for all the power to build up. Down side is a bunch of torque steer with the G6. The impala is not slow, but its bad when something with 50less HP can keep up with it because it is better geared too. I dont know why GM has the Impala 1st gearing going up to 45mph. But on the expressway @70mph, both cars got 32mpg even though the G6 was rated 4mpg less and in town they both suck and get 15-17mpg.
My 2000 Taurus with 200 HP @5650 & 200 lb-ft @4400 is 1 second slower to 60 than the Impala, but actually more responsive in passing on the expressway (45-70) because Ford geared the car perfectly.
Shorter gears will accelerate faster. Physics says so. If you are waiting for power to build up that would be even worse with taller gears. And maybe that delay is a transmission slow to downshift.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My 347 stroker 95 Cobra, talk about a nice and flat torque curve 
