Acceleration times - Fiction and Truth

I say 0-60 times should be tested using JATO's. I mean I want to know how fast can that car POSSIBLY accelerate don't I?

0-60 times are rarely posted in the US btw, only BMW does it AFAIK, no one else.
 
narf said:
Indeed. You could even say the magazine is as bad as the manufacturer, one making sure the numbers are very low while the other is making sure the numbers are very high. Both for the same basic reason.
Click to expand...

Only that is not the case. The magazine uses identical conditions for all cars. You cannot say it uses "unfair" conditions, as long as they are the same ones for all cars.

It's the carmakers that don't offer reliable numbers, they are the ones who make it all uncomparable. AMS is just trying to find a common denominator. I simply do not understand, why you want to blame them for not using F1-qualifying conditions but rather boring standard everyday road conditions. We're not talking motorsports here after all.

I mean, it's all okay if you don't care and think comparableness is overrated anyway and arbitrariness is the real thing.

But for those (like me) who actually want to be able to compare numbers on a neutral level, there has to be found a kind of norm. That norm can be one driver with empty tank or two drivers with full tank. Doesn't matter. The important thing is: If the carmakers are unwilling or unable to deliver such a norm, you have to make your own one. That's what AMS has been doing for decades.

Of course you can say that's for marketing purposes to gain more readers but you could also say, that making own measurements and not simply copying the carmakers' numbers is actually valuable customer advice.

I don't want to sound like a pedantic but as an example you can tell by that list above, that while sharing the same 0-100 numbers in the data sheets, in everyday road conditions a BMW 320i accelerates slower, than a Volvo S60 2.0T. That could break a BMW driver's heart and therefore alone is a valuable information :p

The one thing I agree with you on, though, is the question if all that data is a relevant information at all.
 
Last edited:
The magazine's numbers are fine for comparing one car against another. But it doesn't make sense to compare them to the manufacturer times, for all the reasons stated above. At a glance, the article makes out that the manufacturer times are universally too low, which may or may not be the case.

The initial statement:
"Leading German car magazine "Auto, Motor & Sport" asked the question, how close to reality and honest the carmakers are about the acceleration figures of their cars from 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph for our imperial friends)."

Now I don't speak German so I don't know whether to credit you or the magazine for that. Is BMW dishonest because their car accelerates slower than advertised, when you add a passenger? That is exactly what the article implies. The conclusion "there should be a standard for acceleration testing" is a sound one. But it's not the one a causal reader sees.

EDIT: Fair point on the full tank of fuel, removed that part, but I really don't think the passenger belongs in a test like this. Why not load up the trunk while you're at it? Logically, a published acceleration statistic would assume realistically ideal conditions. Cheating by adding grippy tires or emptying the tank is another matter.
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
Only that is not the case. The magazine uses identical conditions for all cars. You cannot say it uses "unfair" conditions, as long as they are the same ones for all cars.
Click to expand...

Loading up the cars with two tons of lead each is fair too? Still yields numbers below the cars' capabilities.

About the Volvo vs BMW - the BMW is much lighter, hence the additional weight has more of an impact than for the Volvo. If you add another passenger each the difference between the two will grow.
 
Last edited:
thevictor390 said:
The magazine's numbers are fine for comparing one car against another. But it doesn't make sense to compare them to the manufacturer times, for all the reasons stated above. At a glance, the article makes out that the manufacturer times are universally too low, which may or may not be the case.

The initial statement:
"Leading German car magazine "Auto, Motor & Sport" asked the question, how close to reality and honest the carmakers are about the acceleration figures of their cars from 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph for our imperial friends)."

Now I don't speak German so I don't know whether to credit you or the magazine for that. Is BMW dishonest because their car accelerates slower than advertised, when you add a passenger? That is exactly what the article implies. The conclusion "there should be a standard for acceleration testing" is a sound one. But it's not the one a causal reader sees.

EDIT: Fair point on the full tank of fuel, removed that part, but I really don't think the passenger belongs in a test like this. Why not load up the trunk while you're at it? Logically, a published acceleration statistic would assume realistically ideal conditions. Cheating by adding grippy tires or emptying the tank is another matter.
Click to expand...

Again: That list represents only the "Top 50" cars with the highest difference. Since they obviously tested more than 50 cars in recent years, it's logical to assume, that there are lots of cars, that showed a much smaller difference.

narf said:
Loading up the cars with two tons of lead each is fair too? Still yields numbers below the cars' capabilities.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know, where two tons of lead were mentioned. Let's keep the discussion sober please.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
4.7s to 60 isn't fast?
Click to expand...
Not from a Porsche, Mustang GT does it in 4.8 also according to US specs page the fastest Boxter does it in 4.9 and base model is 5.6, the base model Boxter is 18K more than the GT. Yes it's slow.
Loading up the cars with two tons of lead each is fair too? Still yields numbers below the cars' capabilities.
Click to expand...
Just for the sake of argument, can you explain to me how 2 tons of extra weight would make the car perform below their capability? They would perform within their capabilities given the current conditions. At current weather (92F) my car is slower than at 60F all things being equal so would you say it performs below its capabilities?

By the same token I could take a car and rig it with RC and only put 1 gallon of fuel in the tank and do a 0-60 dash then claim that that's the car's capability for acceleration. It would not be untrue, the car CAN accelerate that fast given same conditions but not really practical.

Like thevictor390 said, this is a good way to compare cars against each other.
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
I'd like to know, where two tons of lead were mentioned. Let's keep the discussion sober please.
Click to expand...

You said this: "The magazine uses identical conditions for all cars. You cannot say it uses "unfair" conditions, as long as they are the same ones for all cars."

Loading up each car with the same weight, ie two tons of lead, is identical for each car - by your reasoning that's fair. However, an Elise will collapse while a larger car might still drive. That's not fair, even though the conditions were the same.
My point? Adding the same number of kg to each car has different effects for each car, hence cannot be "fair".


prizrak said:
Not from a Porsche, Mustang GT does it in 4.8 also according to US specs page the fastest Boxter does it in 4.9 and base model is 5.6, the base model Boxter is 18K more than the GT. Yes it's slow.
Click to expand...

The fastest Cockster is the Cockster R at 4.7s to 60: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-r/

The bog-standard 911 Carrera 4 does 4.8s to 60, that's my baseline of Porschisch fast. The Cockster being faster means it is fast.
 
Last edited:
So what you wanna says is, that testing it with 2 persons on board and a full tank is a completely unrealistic scenario in reality?
 
MacGuffin said:
So what you wanna says is, that testing it with 2 persons on board and a full tank is a completely unrealistic scenario in reality?
Click to expand...

It's not unrealistic in reality. It just is not appropriate for determining the fastest acceleration figures.
 
narf said:
It's not unrealistic in reality. It just is not appropriate for determining the fastest acceleration figures.
Click to expand...

Basically, my long-winded post boils down to this. The next logical step is to compare the times against the manufacturer times, but since those almost certainly didn't include the extra weight (and with good reason), there will be varying degrees of deviation, no matter how "honest" the manufacturer tried to be.

Surely, you don't think there is a single manufacturer that would publish an acceleration time calculated with additional passengers?

If they did the tests, published the times, and noted the effects, that would be one thing. Useful information. But they emphasized the difference between these newly recorded times and the published ones.
 
:nod: They deliberately chose wildly varying test conditions.

I would have loved a test that said "Let's see what each car in showroom condition can achieve". That would be almost-empty tank, one nonfat driver, no luggage or passengers. If the manufacturer time is off that by a lot then the manufacturer has cheated.
 
The fastest Cockster is the Cockster R at 4.7s to 60: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-r/
Click to expand...
Dude.... That's a Cayman (Gayman if you prefer) not a Cockster (Boxter)
They deliberately chose wildly varying test conditions.
Click to expand...
But why are they widely varying? They are exactly the same for all the tested vehicles and are well within spec of those vehicles's load ratings. This falls under real world performance testing.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
:jeremy: Boxter Coupe = Cockster

Click to expand...

LOL, I usually hear people call Boxter Cockster because its the cheapest and slowest of all Porsches generally bought by cocks who juts get one cuz its a Porsche.
 
Gayenne?

Also, seven point one seconds to sixty miles per hour. See how long it took to read that? Not very Porschisch.
Hell, you can buy a ginormous Skoda Superb estate that is half a second faster to 62 instead of 60.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top