0-60 times
#1
10-20-2011, 06:49 AM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: whereabouts unknown
Posts: 2,266
Rep Power: 118 
0-60 times
I've always been perplexed by the great variance in 0-60 times published by different sources. More specifically, I've been perplexed by the 0-60 times cited in some U.S. magazines, which seem to be significantly better than those cited by the manufacturers and other sources. Some have speculated that the manufacturers sandbag the numbers, but this never made any sense to me. Clearly, manufacturers would post the best 0-60 numbers they could in an effort to sell more cars.
Anyway, I was reading an article that discussed how Car & Driver tested the 2012 Audi TTRS and found it to go from 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, which was 0.3 seconds faster than other sources posted. The article noted in parentheses, however, that C&D uses "rollout" in their 0-60 testing. Many of you may already know about this practice, but it was new to me so I did a search. Below is what I found in thread from another forum (forums.anandtech.com). Seems to explain a lot:
Edmunds does NOT use rollout, but GM does...
Because NHRA and dragstrips are basically non-existant outside the US...ONLY US BASED MAGAZINES AND MANUFACTURERS TEST WITH ROLLOUT.
This means that British, German, or Japanese magazines will clock times that are 0.3 seconds slower than US magazines for the same car as they time true 0-60 and true quarter mile times. They use no rollout.
That partially explains why German cars often perform much better in US magazine testing than the manufacturer specifications have you believe. People often wonder why German companies publish so conservative acceleration times, especially in 0-60 mph. The lack of rollout is one major reason.
Cliffs Notes:
-Most US car magazines don't really test 0-60 mph times...they only give you 3-60 mph. It's sort of cheating.
-You cannot directly compare magazine times with different measurement practices. Edmunds and Automobile don’t have slower drivers than C&D; they use other measurement practices.
-Only the US uses rollout
Also, some magazine "test cars" aren't exactly as bone stock as you'd like. I've personally been in catless, semi tuned magazine test cars by major car companies. They all do it, don't fool yourself.
Anyway, I was reading an article that discussed how Car & Driver tested the 2012 Audi TTRS and found it to go from 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, which was 0.3 seconds faster than other sources posted. The article noted in parentheses, however, that C&D uses "rollout" in their 0-60 testing. Many of you may already know about this practice, but it was new to me so I did a search. Below is what I found in thread from another forum (forums.anandtech.com). Seems to explain a lot:
This topic comes up from time to time. Working in the Auto industry, I see some of this first hand and am in a position to elaborate on the subject.
We sometimes see rather large discrepancies between acceleration test times when comparing different magazines or magazines to manufacturer given figures.
Why is that?
Most of the time, it's a difference in the measurement practices. The biggest factor comes down to a phenomena called "rollout".
Rollout defined: The concept relates directly to NHRA dragstrips and the measurement methods used in quarter mile racing. For the unfamiliar, this is how it works. When you pull into the staging area or starting line, there are two light beams which are aimed perpendicular to the track. The first light beam is the "pre-staging" light. It has no real function except for telling you when you're getting close to the starting line. The 2nd light beam, called the "stage" beam, is the actual starting line. Ignoring staging strategies (shallow stage, deep stage, etc), we'll say the car pulls up to the staging line until the beam is just barely broken by the front tires...as this red Civic shows below (the black wheel).
When the light turns green, the driver hits the gas. However, the clock doesn't know that the car is moving until the front tire moves far away from the light beam to allow it to fully shine across the track. This is demonstrated by the grayed out tire in the photo. In reality, the car moves a distance of about 12" and 0.3 seconds for free...the clock hasn't started yet. Once the clock starts, the car is already moving 3 mph. Here Car and Driver discusses the importance of rollout.
That brings us back to modern day test measurements. Car magazines and car manufactures don't test on dragstrips very often. They use sophisticated computerized GPS or "5th wheel" type measurement systems. A commonly used system comes from a system called a Racelogic VBOX.
How does this all tie together? Well, this fancy measurement system eliminated the need to have an optical start/stop line like a dragstrip does. However, magazines want to publish times that relate to what the average Joe can accomplish if he takes his car to the local NHRA dragstrip...so all the major US car magazines still test with a 12" simulated rollout. This also makes acceleration times look faster on paper, which of course sells too.
Car & Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend all use this simulated 12" rollout. That means when you read any acceleration time in those magazines, it's not a true 0-60, 0-100, or 0-150 mph time. It's actually measuring 3 mph to 60, or 3 mph to 100, or 3 mph to 150 mph. The car starts from a stand still, but the clock doesn't begin to run until the car has moved 12", gained 3 mph, and traveled for 0.3 seconds.
GM and Ford also use rollout when claiming their factory times.
Road & Track admits to using rollout.
Here Car and Driver states how they use rollout.
We sometimes see rather large discrepancies between acceleration test times when comparing different magazines or magazines to manufacturer given figures.
Why is that?
Most of the time, it's a difference in the measurement practices. The biggest factor comes down to a phenomena called "rollout".
Rollout defined: The concept relates directly to NHRA dragstrips and the measurement methods used in quarter mile racing. For the unfamiliar, this is how it works. When you pull into the staging area or starting line, there are two light beams which are aimed perpendicular to the track. The first light beam is the "pre-staging" light. It has no real function except for telling you when you're getting close to the starting line. The 2nd light beam, called the "stage" beam, is the actual starting line. Ignoring staging strategies (shallow stage, deep stage, etc), we'll say the car pulls up to the staging line until the beam is just barely broken by the front tires...as this red Civic shows below (the black wheel).
When the light turns green, the driver hits the gas. However, the clock doesn't know that the car is moving until the front tire moves far away from the light beam to allow it to fully shine across the track. This is demonstrated by the grayed out tire in the photo. In reality, the car moves a distance of about 12" and 0.3 seconds for free...the clock hasn't started yet. Once the clock starts, the car is already moving 3 mph. Here Car and Driver discusses the importance of rollout.
That brings us back to modern day test measurements. Car magazines and car manufactures don't test on dragstrips very often. They use sophisticated computerized GPS or "5th wheel" type measurement systems. A commonly used system comes from a system called a Racelogic VBOX.
How does this all tie together? Well, this fancy measurement system eliminated the need to have an optical start/stop line like a dragstrip does. However, magazines want to publish times that relate to what the average Joe can accomplish if he takes his car to the local NHRA dragstrip...so all the major US car magazines still test with a 12" simulated rollout. This also makes acceleration times look faster on paper, which of course sells too.
Car & Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend all use this simulated 12" rollout. That means when you read any acceleration time in those magazines, it's not a true 0-60, 0-100, or 0-150 mph time. It's actually measuring 3 mph to 60, or 3 mph to 100, or 3 mph to 150 mph. The car starts from a stand still, but the clock doesn't begin to run until the car has moved 12", gained 3 mph, and traveled for 0.3 seconds.
GM and Ford also use rollout when claiming their factory times.
Road & Track admits to using rollout.
Here Car and Driver states how they use rollout.
Quote:
“Before you take out your car to try to equal our times, remember that our results are adjusted for weather conditions [see “Correcting for Weather,” page 152]. We also average the best runs in two directions to cancel out the effects of wind, and we use a 3-mph rollout. And of course there is car-to-car variability.”
Motortrend calls rollout "US Traditional" as they use it too.
Automobile mag does NOT use rollout.
Edmunds does NOT use rollout, but GM does...
Because NHRA and dragstrips are basically non-existant outside the US...ONLY US BASED MAGAZINES AND MANUFACTURERS TEST WITH ROLLOUT.
This means that British, German, or Japanese magazines will clock times that are 0.3 seconds slower than US magazines for the same car as they time true 0-60 and true quarter mile times. They use no rollout.
That partially explains why German cars often perform much better in US magazine testing than the manufacturer specifications have you believe. People often wonder why German companies publish so conservative acceleration times, especially in 0-60 mph. The lack of rollout is one major reason.
Cliffs Notes:
-Most US car magazines don't really test 0-60 mph times...they only give you 3-60 mph. It's sort of cheating.
-You cannot directly compare magazine times with different measurement practices. Edmunds and Automobile don’t have slower drivers than C&D; they use other measurement practices.
-Only the US uses rollout
Also, some magazine "test cars" aren't exactly as bone stock as you'd like. I've personally been in catless, semi tuned magazine test cars by major car companies. They all do it, don't fool yourself.
#3
10-20-2011, 09:01 AM
I had no idea, Racer_X. Thanks for educating me. FWIW, I know that certain manufacturers "cheat" with their 0-60 times. For example, the Esprit has a secret overboost mode, that allows you to get higher turbo boost pressure for about twelve seconds. That way, it can be used to get acceleration times without running at high boost all the time and running the risk of blowing up the engine. Of course, I guess that's no more "cheating" than it is to have Launch Control on other cars.
#5
10-20-2011, 09:58 AM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: whereabouts unknown
Posts: 2,266
Rep Power: 118 I had no idea, Racer_X. Thanks for educating me. FWIW, I know that certain manufacturers "cheat" with their 0-60 times. For example, the Esprit has a secret overboost mode, that allows you to get higher turbo boost pressure for about twelve seconds. That way, it can be used to get acceleration times without running at high boost all the time and running the risk of blowing up the engine. Of course, I guess that's no more "cheating" than it is to have Launch Control on other cars.
I agree that launch control is sort of BS, but at least the launch control times are genuine in terms of the car actually moving from 0 to 60 in the stated time. Cutting off 0.3 seconds from the actual time because of "tradition" is just bogus.
#6
10-20-2011, 10:21 AM
The actual test results on stock TTRS have shown roughly 4.2 0-60 times. 3.6 is def not accurate. Yes most magazines do post much quicker times. I don't think it's as much cheating as it is just purely insane torture testing. They will do 10 runs in a row dumping the clutch at absurd values to the point of breaking someting, then they just give it back to the manufacturer. A real owner would never subject their cars to that level of abuse.
With that said .... The 0-60 test has lost it's significance in the past few years ... Nobody really cares anymore in the real world. Even the 1/4 mile has lost it's significance. The new benchmark for the exotics has become the standing TX mile, and high speed rolling starts. Nobody races from streetlight to streetlight anymore, this isn't the 1980s or 1990s anymore.
All my buddies down here have 700-1400 HP. The performance envelope has become so extreme that even my bicolore is considered slow as hell compared to all these underground tt cars and etc.
Ironically enough all these new cars that do 0-60s in the twos have killed the 0-60 metric by making it borderline absurd. Same is true of top speed since the bugatti came around. The real fun is 30-80, 50-100, 80-160. Etc etc
With that said .... The 0-60 test has lost it's significance in the past few years ... Nobody really cares anymore in the real world. Even the 1/4 mile has lost it's significance. The new benchmark for the exotics has become the standing TX mile, and high speed rolling starts. Nobody races from streetlight to streetlight anymore, this isn't the 1980s or 1990s anymore.
All my buddies down here have 700-1400 HP. The performance envelope has become so extreme that even my bicolore is considered slow as hell compared to all these underground tt cars and etc.
Ironically enough all these new cars that do 0-60s in the twos have killed the 0-60 metric by making it borderline absurd. Same is true of top speed since the bugatti came around. The real fun is 30-80, 50-100, 80-160. Etc etc
#7
10-20-2011, 10:28 AM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: whereabouts unknown
Posts: 2,266
Rep Power: 118
No one cares? Really? I agree that 0-60 times are of little real-world value, but 0-60 and top speed remain the focus when performance is discussed. And I would say that sports car manufacturers consider 0-60 times critical from a marketing standpoint.
Trending Topics
#8
10-20-2011, 10:34 AM
I agree with some of the above regarding 0-60 times. I can't bring myself to do racing starts in any of my cars, except the racecar and only when racing!
It is kind of an irrelevant stat. I've always liked the moving intervals better I think it gives you a much more realistic impression of real-world performance.
It is kind of an irrelevant stat. I've always liked the moving intervals better I think it gives you a much more realistic impression of real-world performance.
#9
10-20-2011, 11:44 AM
I agree. Although manufacturers and car rags still love to drop those performance times for bragging rights, if you look on Youtube these days, the majority of real world car-to-car performance videos seem to be 15 to 35mph rolling start races instead of streetlight drag races. Definitely better for your tranny than dumping the clutch. 
#10
10-20-2011, 12:25 PM
0-60 times are the quick and dirty performance measure because most of us can perform it in near our homes. Perhaps not well, but we can still do it. I have timed myself in a number of different cars especially after modifying them and I can never repeat the best run. In fact, I have been all over the board. So it just goes to show you how variable and meaningless it is as a stat. What's amazing, is how manufacturers are engineering things like launch control in to their cars to juice the times. It's also amazing that publications are tricking the tests as well. I remember a test that had the 4.7L V8 0-60 in less time than the V12 but they only did it once and then the trans on the car went. I like lap times much better. I want the car to perform well for more that the first 3-4 seconds. I have a friend who's younger brother has a "fast & the furious" style Subaru that will run 9 second 1/4 miles and a 0-60 around 3. He set up a race with me for fun and the kid fried his clutch during the first run. So really, the whole notion of the "jump off the line"stat is kind of a misnomer.
#11
10-20-2011, 02:01 PM
yeah, I've been saying this in threads for ages. I found this out about a 12 ago when I was in grade 9 (I know I'm dating myself here) and got a copy of road and track from an uncle. I was living in Thailand at the time so didn't have access to those magazines...I read the entire thing over and over for several months and noted that in the data panel, the fine print stated that the starts were performed with a rollout. Ever since then, I've figured the standing starts from all american car magazines are skewed. I don't actually buy any car magazines other than british. And only EVO at that. If you notice the EVO acceleration times match exactly what the manufacturer claims. What's silly is that magazines like C&D still express surprise when a car they test accelerates 0-60 faster than claimed. You think they'd have clued in on why. And I agree that 0-60 launches are so abusive on cars (other than low-rpm, rwd, torque monsters like a z06) that it's become an arbitrary measure. Don't even get me started on launch control....
#12
10-21-2011, 05:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 599
Rep Power: 41
My favorite measure for street use is passing from 50 to ~100. For this I select 3rd gear before I reach the passing lane and I'm ready to "go for it". I never have to shift out of 3rd. 0-60 is not a biggie for me.
#14
10-25-2011, 03:03 PM
The 3.6 that they got for the TT RS was on a Euro-spec car with dual-clutch transmission and launch control, neither of which are available in the US.
