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

I keep reading in various places that one of the big reasons we can't have efficient economy cars in North America any longer is because "we" have come to demand the power (and gearing) to give us faster acceleration.

I'm seeing this from both sides, eg. from the "automotive press" (who position themselves as champions of the vehicle-buying public): Car and Driver lists poor performance as one reason to lambaste used economy cars of the 90's as poor choices for people wanting to save fuel.

And from industry: I recently read a GM executive cite 0-60 mph acceleration times as a reason they can't build the thrifty econoboxes they used to. "Slower cars aren't competitive in the market." The added mass of safety engineering being the second reason given. (Sorry, I can't find the link at the moment.)

I personally don't give a rat's @$& about 0-60 acceleration.

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

I said 10-15, because sometimes I need to accelerate up a hill!

There are occasions that 0-60 in 13-14 seconds is dangerous, but people with 13-14 second cars tend to know this and not get themselves into those situations to begin with.

My Honda Accord (when new, anyway) hit 0-60 in about 10 seconds flat. That feels on the "sporty end" to me, but the average economy is still okay (35.5 on my last three fillups.) My '99 Metro 1.3L 5-speed only ever had a problem on snowy hills with chains. (It actually didn't have enough horsepower to make it up in first gear.)

The 'sweet spot' is probably a mild hybrid option. Make your no-frills econobox for $10k, and then offer a mild hybrid (i.e. belt-driven electric motor boost with regen, kinda like the Honda IMA) for a couple $k more. Wouldn't hurt economy much if at all, and could be done on the cheap.

As to the C&D article, they do have a point on the 89-92 Metro they're basing the article on. Small cars of that vintage have no side impact protection, older "neckbreaker" SRS airbags (or, God forbid, automatic belts), less advanced injection systems (or carburetors)... I love my '90 Accord, but I know that I'm at a substantial disadvantage in a head-on or t-bone vs. a 94-up Accord.

However, I see no problem whatsoever with, say, a 94-up Metro. They met the 1997 side-impact requirements three years early, have newer-generation airbags and generally hold up much better in a crash. I also have no problem with the earlier Metros if you're not going to be doing a lot of heavy freeway driving.

Having spent a good part of my teen years riding in my cousin's '69 VW Bus, I learned to appreciate decent acceleration. Getting on the highway or pulling out on a busy road was truly a nerve-wracking experience. It's a religious experience to be going 45 mph, looking out the back window, and only seeing chrome grill and the word PETERBUILT. Back then flipping people off wasn't as prevalent as it is now, but my cousin got far more than his share for causing the rolling roadblocks on back roads.

I voted for 10-15 seconds, but the closer to 10 the better.

But you could say the same thing about those 0-60 in 3-5 seconds situations, and the drivers of the 6-8 second cars tend to know this and not get into trouble! :)

You do raise a valid point, though. More power can compensate for poor driving skills and/or poor judgment in some situations (e.g. passing, merging).

As a reminder: the 1st gen diesel smart (which was sold in Canada) had a 0-60 time of about 19 seconds.

I'm not sure what the acceleration rate of the new gas model is, but I'm betting it's still well above 10 seconds, and the cars are selling OK.

And to put my comments in context, the ForkenSwift goes 0-30 mph in about 20-25 seconds flat out. :P

My car with the 103hp DX engine, does 0-60 in 10 sec and I'm getting decent mileage, so the argument that a high-mpg non-hybrid car can't have decent acceleration is bogus.

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.

Having had Microbusses AND Rabbit diesels and lived to tell about it, I too don't give a rat's *** about 0-60. Saying that x acceleration is necessary for "safety" is bunk.

Various magazine articles put the US smart 0-60 between 12.6 and 13.0 seconds.

Gee metrompg, I thought your car was quicker than that.

Good point of course, basjoos. We can have our cake and eat it too via good aero. But I will guarantee the same exec who said "slow cars aren't competitive" will cite "consumer acceptance" as a reason they can't/won't build aero vehicles.

GM gave that exact reason to university students participating in GM's "Challenge X" hybrid building competition as to why they could not aeromod the competition vehicles.

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?

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.

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.

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.

On Voting...
 

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

That's perfectly acceptable for a DD, IMHO! ;)

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... :cool:

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.

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.

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...

MetroMPG -

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

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.

My yaris can easily get 40MPG and it has more than enough power to get me into trouble if I'm not paying attention.

Yeah, that's exactly my impression. I drive a Honda Insight (70+ mpg), and had a CRX (40+ mpg) before that. With both of them, after a light turned I'd generally be 50 yards or so down the road before most other cars began to move - and without using more than about half throttle.

I think the Insight is rated at a bit over 10 sec for 0-60, and that's fine with me.

I have never figured out the 0-60 phenomona. someone important enough to torture us all in the industry has had thier backwards way a looong freakin time now. My first car: a dodge coronet with a police package. for many cars and trucks afterwards, all v8s. One did 10.4 quarters street casually.I honestly could give a crap less about 10 seconds to 60.

The 90hp sube still has one of the smallest engines on the road for the work it does. I voted 10-15 to 60, but I am certainly off a bit. up to 10 seconds for a few highway onramps is quite ok.Quick enough to have to hold on to loose items on the dash, not just jumping first gears :)

I looked that up a couple of days ago. The 3-door has A/C, tilt wheel, ABS and side air bags, is rated at 37 mpg, and invoices for $11,000? I think I know what my next car will be! How do you like it?

Ive never really timed my acceleration. But even before I started ecodriving, my friend always told me I drove like a grandma and thats why my cars last so long. Back when I thought I was driving pretty spirited. I also drove a lot slower than most anybody Ive ridden with.

I've thought about this a lot...

I do a lot of street racing, so called. Most races are over at 80-ish mph (about 10 seconds in my car) not 60 mph. 60 mph means nothing, so what's the point?

Here's how it goes: Come off the light @ 8000 rpm - shift into 2nd when you hit the limiter - shift into 3rd when you hit the limiter again - 10 seconds and 80 mph later, race over - throw it into neutral and coast back to the speed limit.

Here's you basic Honda CiViC B16 Race n' Glide - nothing special... ;)

First demonstration is 80-ish, when most races are over.

Second demonstration is 120-ish -- stupidity on a 2-lane road, IMHO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Ebjz7AHBw

That said, I think a much better measure would be...

How fast will your car go in 10 seconds? NOT...

How long does it take your car to get to 60 mph?

a) i hope you're not posting video evidence of yourself street racing
b) street racing is stupid, please take it to the track and stop risking your life and others. Where I race I have an ambulance waiting for me. Sure I think i'm good at what i do, but you never know when you might pop a coolant line and roll 5 times.
c) 0-60 is important not for street racing but because 60 is a reasonable estimate of highway driving speed. It is a "typical" speed limit for a highway (100km/h here in Canada)... now why you'd be starting form 0 to get on the highway i don't know. I like the 60-70 times better because they indicate real-world ability to pass somebody and I want that to be pretty short.


In response to Basjoos's comment regarding your reasonable acceleration rate and your outstanding highway rating, I really must assume that your highway rating is NOT taken from EPA standard testing, but from years of experience as an eco-driver. You would definately find more typical numbers if you handed over your car to EPA.

I am not... The driver is barefoot - I drive in socks! :cool:

That's just your typical Honda CiViC with a B16 engine, doing a basic pulse n' glide!

My B16 swap (and everyone else's) looks and sounds exactly like this...

The first demonstration of speed is 0-80ish. At this point, the challenger is usually several car lengths behind you, with NO chance of catching you until 140-150, sooo...

The second demonstration is basically 60-120 mph, e.g. dangerous showboating!

My point is 0-60 means absolutely nothing!!!

I dunno, maybe it did in 1957 or something, but...

These days, when a dung pile 40+ mpg ECO car can beat 99% of anything you run against it - what relevance does 0-60 times have?!?!?

I voted for 10-15 seconds, because I would like to have the option of using decent acceleration if I decide I really do need it. (Or want to use it, rarely, just for jollies.)

My usual 0-60 time is "No". ;) I very rarely drive 60 MPH, and generally take a loooooong time to get there if I do. I'll generally try 50 MPH or 55 MPH on the freeway, and only decide to try 60 if I think I'll be causing problems at a lower speed.

-soD

The original EPA highway for my car was 47mpg, but my car is so modified from its stock configuration that I don't think that number would apply anymore. Even when I drive it normally (non-hypermiling or eco-driving), I'm still getting mpg's in the 60's on the highway and around 50mpg in town. I have to work pretty hard to keep it below 45mpg, give it any amount of highway cruising and it pops right back up. And with all of the aeromodding, I would have to be traveling at over 90mph to knock the highway mpg's below 50.

Dude, who are you racing? :turtle: You'd be getting walked hard in my neck of the woods...

14 seconds was the first thing that popped into my head, but I rarely drive that fast. I would gladly drive a car that got 100mpg and did 0-60 in 20sec.

Is it just me or did the 10-15 seconds bracket make a big jump after BDC started posting street racing videos? :D

What does THAT tell you ;)

i voted 10-15 as my car is already in that bracket at 0-60 in 13 seconds, i wouldn't like any slower really.

I'm more surprised by the number of people who have voted for 20+ seconds.

I would have guessed we'd have seen a pretty bell curve between the 4 choices, but it's not turning out that way.

Let's not forget that sometimes the ability to accelerate provides a safety factor. Last night on my drive home I was following a Wal-mart semi and we reached a long uphill. He started to slow down so I pulled around to pass him. As I got up the the rear wheels of the tractor we started to get close to a lowboy semi hauling a huge dozer going up the hill at about 40 mph. Mr. Wal-mart puts on his blinker and immediately starts to drift into my lane. With guardrail on my left my only choice was to boot it and finish the pass. Thank God Wanda was up to the task. A little extra oomph in reserve is never a bad thing.

Most of the time it is the cause of the accident :D

i don't usually need to accelerate fast but the other day i was hopping on the highway, and i got stuck behind a van as i was getting on, they were going 15 right with the merger, you better bet that i used my full engine power. (to get up to 50 mph in a 65)

I think that they should make a thing like honda's ima hybrid thing, so you can have a little bit extra power if you need it.

Fortunately all cars decelerate well enough to get out of that situation.

My point is: Do you think that a car that takes 20 seconds to reach 60 mph could have accelerated out of that situation?

I don't.