What 0-60 acceleration would you accept for good fuel economy?

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I wonder if the consumer is really driving this whole 0-60 thing, or if it's those idiot car magazines' obsession with track times for street cars.

I'm going with the latter. V6 powered Camrys and Accords can do 0-60 in about 6 seconds flat. That puts a regular family car within spitting distance of my Firebird. Why would such a car need that much power? Are people really demanding muscle car-like acceleration from their grocery getters?

[Big Dave]

For many people, minimum acceptable acceleration depends on the size of the vehicle. The issue is not so much real safety but the perceived safety. Being in a small slow vehicle makes people feel helpless and vulnerable.

A motorcycle depends on acceleration to control his position in traffic. A truck is bigger so needs positional control rather less.

My take:
Motorcycles: 3-6 seconds 0-60
Subcompact: 10-12 seconds
Big sedans: 12-14 seconds
One-ton pickups: 14-17 seconds

Over 17 seconds 0-60 you better be a Class 7 truck.

[extragoode]

I think the point about acceleration making up for poor driving skills is very plausible. The thing is MINIMUM 0-60 is like the HP rating of the engine, you rarely ever use it! Sure Bajoos CAN do 0-60 and in 10, but I'm betting that he doesn't while he's getting 70mpg. I rarely even accelerate to 60 but when I do normally, I probably take well over 20 seconds. This is a nut behind the wheel situation.
Also, another reason I love my manual. I can pull red lines when I need to shift up at 1000 the rest of the time. There's no reason a 1.6L turbo car can't do both economy and mad acceleration, just not concurrently. All it would take is right gearing, aero, and skills, but all but a very few are lacking it some part of that equation. I'm probably lacking in the skills and am definitely lacking in the other two.

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by Formula413

I'm going with the latter. V6 powered Camrys and Accords can do 0-60 in about 6 seconds flat. That puts a regular family car within spitting distance of my Firebird. Why would such a car need that much power? Are people really demanding muscle car-like acceleration from their grocery getters?

The people who buy the V6 sedans do want more performance. The majority of Accords and Camrys out there are 4 cyls, but if I'm an automaker and some folks are telling me they want more power I'll give it to them. And I'll charge them for the priviledge. That's the name of the game - to make money. Since gas has been relatively cheap since the late '80s there has been an ongoing horsepower war at all levels of engine development. My '83 Mustang GT's V8 made 175 HP. The V6 in my '99 Honda minivan makes 205 HP, and gets better mileage doing it. Automakers have poured billions into HP development, and now are shifting to better fuel economy. More than ever they are looking outside of the ICE box because they have to in order to remain viable in the next few years. It's all just good business.

[BlackDeuceCoupe]

My ride does 0-60 mph in 6.5-6.7 sec - and gets 40+ mpg.

That's perfectly acceptable for a DD, IMHO!

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

What in our society has changed so much over the years that we now apparently demand that plain jane family sedans and "economy" cars be able to accelerate at rates that would out run sports cars from the 80's and 90's?

Americans love a winner, and hate a loser!

My take is... when ppl own a fast car, it makes them *feel* like a winner...

Personally, that's why I L-O-V-E owning an ECO car that kicks booty!

Really takes the wind out of their imaginary sails...

[whokilledthejams]

The base-model (non-turbo) Subaru Impreza I had prior to the box would do 0-60 in ~8 seconds. My girlfriend's Intrepid will do that in 9 or so. That's way faster than anyone actually drives in normal traffic. The xB can manage that feat in about 10 seconds, and when I really stomp on the loud pedal, it's more than fast enough for any situation outside of a drag strip.

Most people, at least where I live, could drive an old Mercedes 240D (0-60 in 22 seconds on a good day), and not accelerate any slower than they normally do. You know it's a bad situation when I'm hypermiling an xB, and complaining about other people driving too slow. Really, very few people I encounter on my normal commute accelerate any faster than I do. I don't understand why an 8-second car is considered "slow." It's absurd.

My brother, who drives a 300hp F150, and previously had a 160hp Scion tC, has driven and ridden in my xB, and realizes that it's as fast as it needs to be. It just takes a bit more effort than a more powerful car, in some situations.

Most of the time, my usual driving habits are in no way disruptive to traffic, and here I am getting relatively good fuel economy.

[bhazard]

The festiva does 0-60 in about 10.2 seconds. Not bad for what it is at all.

Of course me being the car guy is always temped to swap to a 1.6 (~80hp) or 1.6 turbo (~130hp).


However I have never had a problem keeping with traffic or merging on a freeway or anything. The lil 1.3 has plenty of pep.

[MetroMPG]

Well, going by the results so far, EM members don't make up the target market that GM execs are thinking about when they comment on needing to build "fast" cars to stay competitive. As if this was a surprise...

[cfg83]

MetroMPG -

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Well, going by the results so far, EM members don't make up the target market that GM execs are thinking about when they comment on needing to build "fast" cars to stay competitive. As if this was a surprise...

I put 10-15, but mostly in the context of having to accelerate to get onto LA freeways, and what I am used to.

I think many of us also don't like to buy new cars, which doesn't help.

CarloSW2

[Bicycle Bob]

I've got one of the slowest cars available, but it still outruns the moving van I came here in. I just can't see why cars are obligated to be any faster than heavy trucks.