Zero to Sixty - WTF?

[Por_sha911]

Car companies and the subservient car mags (especially Excellence) are looking for something to sell more vehicles. Faster is an easy number to quote even if it means nothing to the average Joe. I could care less if the new P car has a top speed of 200 mph. I'll never need it and I don't wear post 1000 photos and brag all day about what I own or where I went. A few years back I wrote Excellence Magazine but for some reason , they didn't publish it in the reader response section.

I have been a long time Porsche fan ever since I sold the marque in 1988. It spurred me to buy a 1987 Carrera in 2003 which I still own today. The car isn't all that special but it is treated as the honored guest in my garage. Much has changed over the years but I am not writing to pine for the "good old days". Time moves on and progress should be embraced. That said, Greg Huddock's editorial in your August (#238) issue has helped me to realize that I believe that Greg (as most automotive journalists) has lost perspective.

"Back in the day" when we were trained on how to properly offer a Porsche for sale. It was important to show how Porsche's racing heritage was in the DNA of every car we offered. Whether I owned a 928S4, a 911 Turbo, or a 924, my Porsche was a thoroughbred of the highest caliber. Every Porsche was a machine to be proud of. Did some cars have better stats than others? Yes but, regardless of the badge on the back or the price on the sticker, the name on the front meant you owned a vehicle to be revered and appreciated.

In contrast, it seems to me that today's automotive journalists have to find the ultimate everything in an attempt to out do each other to sell articles and magazines. Should we appreciate the ultimate road going automobile? Absolutely. Should it be the end all? Not in my opinion. We have lost our way. We forgot that there are far more enthusiasts who don't have six figure cars. The Porsche community is not just a handful of elitists with money to burn. If Mr. Van Overbeek wants to buy cars and thrash them that's fine. The majority of us can't do that. Lately, I find myself skipping the rest of an article when the stats get so out of whack that I have trouble relating to them. Should you write about and marvel how the 2017 911 (991.2) has a faster 0-60 than the GT3 RS? You can if you want but I have almost no interest in it since I am not going to need to be going 0-60 in 2.9 (or 3.1) seconds on a public road or autocross track.

So what am I asking? Sing to the audience in front of you and not to yourselves. Porsche doesn't need a new division to help determine which latest greatest vehicle has the best bragging rights. Porsche needs to help the "common" auto enthusiast to appreciate the wonderful history of its bloodline infused into all its cars. Every person who's car has a Porsche crest on the front should hold their head up high knowing they are linked to the heritage of great racing machines and great road going cars. Figure out ways to get back to promoting the proven formula of connecting to the guy or gal who will want to buy a Porsche buy and park in his or her driveway. Otherwise, I worry that there won't be enough people buying Excellence magazine to keep it going.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by pksystems

Because top speed is useless on public roads.

Yes, especially in a pickup truck.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Car companies and the subservient car mags (especially Excellence) are looking for something to sell more vehicles. .

Actually I think Porsche wants to make more money. Their cars are priced to reflect exclusivity and yet sell enough cars to be profitable.
A Porsche for the common man would be a 912, a 914, or the 924 - these days it might be a gussied up VW SUV.

[brp914]

Originally Posted by speeder

I just noticed the bikes in your signature, the Aprilia definitely qualifies as a pocket rocket. Love that bike.

Aprilia looks great, sounds great, but no match for yamaha R1, even tho it sounds like a vespa.

[Rodsrsr]

zero to 60 in 1.1 seconds. This is just getting silly.

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/rocket-powered-flying-tesla-roadster-health

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

zero to 60 in 1.1 seconds. This is just getting silly.

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/rocket-powered-flying-tesla-roadster-health

Love it.
Hope it delivers.
Really exciting promises there.

[David]

Originally Posted by brp914

Maybe get a liter bike and be done with it. Even if you can get a cage with a comfy seat as fast as a bike, there's no comparison to wrapping yourself around a rocket engine and holding on for dear mercy.

I’ve done plenty of that and used to be a Ducati mechanic (I noticed your sig) before going back to school for engineering. The last liter bike I rode was over 10 years ago so I’m sure they’re even crazier now especially with all the electronics, but I wouldn’t take someone for a ride on one like I can with the 930. The 930 can’t put down crazy 0-60 times with the old 4 speed but it pulls as hard as a sub 3 second car.

I agee with Chris Harris in saying the 0-60 times like Tesla and many super cars are doing now is just a party trick. It’s not something you’ll do very often, it’ll scare your passengers and probably any other driver within crash distance.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

zero to 60 in 1.1 seconds. This is just getting silly.

Very very very unlikely. I call BS. That car cannot do it in 1.1 seconds.

Look for the asterisk. It will be there somewhere.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

Very very very unlikely. I call BS. That car cannot do it in 1.1 seconds.

Look for the asterisk. It will be there somewhere.

The * is with optional manaevuring thruster(s).

Which is pretty darn cool.

[Tidybuoy]

Originally Posted by OK-944

In the meantime...I'll continue to be happily/nimbly carving up the twisties in my humble 944!

I loved my '88 944. It was a little under powered but was a great little car.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

The * is with optional manaevuring thruster(s).

Which is pretty darn cool.

The asterisk is for a rolling start. Lots of cars use it.

The car can't accelerate faster than it can decelerate. Zero to 60 is greater than 60 to zero.

[Rodsrsr]

Which begs the question. What's the lowest 0-60 time possible?

[pavulon]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

Which begs the question. What's the lowest 0-60 time possible?

Top fuel is in the 0.5 second range but eventually aortas start coming apart.

[Otter74]

0-60 has been a performance benchmark for generations, but I value midrange passing power (say, 30-50 and 50-70 times) more. It's a more useful metric and the kind of performance that you can more realistically enjoy in normal driving.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by pavulon

Top fuel is in the 0.5 second range but eventually aortas start coming apart.

The soft fleshy bit in the middle is the limitation even with current technology. My neighbor’s old McLaren MP4-12C could accelerate and brake hard enough that I felt the strain on my body, and it’s now slow by modern super car standards.

Really modern 0-60 times are just bench racing to sell cars. Most modern super cars are faster than you can ever use in real life. Even my E63 has way more performance than could ever be used on public roads. But it’s still fun to try!

[Nostril Cheese]

Aorta crushing performance....

I think that would sell a few cars..

[1990C4S]

This is a very good explanation of the games that are played in the 0-60 game without rocket thrust, just tire friction.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

The soft fleshy bit in the middle is the limitation even with current technology. My neighbor’s old McLaren MP4-12C could accelerate and brake hard enough that I felt the strain on my body, and it’s now slow by modern super car standards.

Really modern 0-60 times are just bench racing to sell cars. Most modern super cars are faster than you can ever use in real life. Even my E63 has way more performance than could ever be used on public roads. But it’s still fun to try!

My old '88 targa w/217hp from the factory was fun and accelerated briskly. I was happy with it's performance. My new boxster (the first boxster/cayman to break 300hp) with 303hp is, I'm sure faster than the old 911, and has a higher top speed (170 or 171, I think). Although the boxster, even with it's 265 35 19 tires doesn't hook up as well as the 911 with it's 225 50 16. There have been times in the ownership of both when I thought "if only I could round the power up to " I'm sure 300hp would have been a blast in the 911 and 400 would be a blast in the Boxster. But most of the time, what each had was plenty. I'm able to accelerate away/past/around most things that I want to get past. I'm not talking about racing, just getting away from an erratic driver or slow driver or whatever. And only having 300hp probably keeps me out of some trouble here and there whether due to wet/slick roads or whatever.

I still wouldn't pass up something more powerful if it presented itself and was something that i wanted. A 911 of some flavor with 400-500hp would, I'm sure, bet a ton of fun. Just because you've got it, doesn't mean you have to use it every time the light turns green. Fortunately, my foot and butt and brain have control and (most of the time) are reasonable.

Originally Posted by Nostril Cheese

Aorta crushing performance....

I think that would sell a few cars..

That might even be better than "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday."

My guess is that <24 hours after the statement was made there would be multiple lawsuits. There'd be one for "my husband died, your car must have crushed his aorta" and then there'd be a class action for "I've driven your car a bunch of times and my aorta has never been crushed."

[masraum]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

This is a very good explanation of the games that are played in the 0-60 game without rocket thrust, just tire friction.

I enjoy his videos. Sometimes he talks too much and I consider fast forwarding a bit. But hey, cars and nerdy math, what's not to love.

[thor66]

Originally Posted by OK-944

So what's the huge deal about zero to 60 times? Seems to be the primary criteria these days...for both gas and electric cars. Like, cutting two tenths off of 2.6 seconds is a big enough deal to add 75K to a price point? I just don't get this!

On a related note...and pardon my complete lack of knowledge here - but for the electrics...why can't somewhat less powerful motors be used - get those zero to sixty times back out to around six or so seconds. Heck, get a manual (or auto) tranny back in there too! Stands to reason that this would increase range quite a bit, and/or facilitate quicker charging. Make sense?

In the meantime...I'll continue to be happily/nimbly carving up the twisties in my humble 944!

We Americans have not escaped from the dominance of Woodward Avenue, despite the pioneers traveling across the continent and reaching Mulholland Drive.