One of the best-known metrics when it comes to cars is the magical 0-60 time. And for good reason! It’s a really visceral sort of metric, something you can feel in your gut far more than how many miles per gallon or electric battery range or even top speed. It’s the amount of time it takes to transform an inert couple tons of metal and rubber just sitting there, immobile, into a couple of tons of metal and rubber that are devouring a mile every single minute. It’s exciting! You stomp that pedal, and get shoved back in your seat, and everything whips out of the back of your mind except that base, visceral joy of speed. I love it. I love cars that accelerate quickly! And yet, at the same time, I’m noticing something about the current automotive landscape. Pretty much everything is quick as hell now, so much so that cars that go from paperweight to cheetah in, say, four or three, or even two-point-something seconds aren’t even that uncommon anymore. As a result, I think we’re in a bit of a collective delusionary period, and maybe it’s time to take a hard look at things and remind ourselves of something important: Crazy low 0-60 times, while fun, just aren’t that important, and the vast majority of drivers – as we always seem to come back to when it comes to what our cars are really capable of – never really even graze the limits of what their cars can do.
I was thinking about this because of a tweet I saw last week:
Tesla has no business making a car this slow.
At the Model 3 event Elon said:
"At Tesla, we don't make slow cars."0-60 in 6.6 seconds is SLOWER than the Prius Prime.
Actually and literally embarrassing.
Tesla shouldn't make a single vehicle that does 0-60 in over 5 sec. pic.twitter.com/yjNwrgRJr7
— ???? Scaremy Pumpkins ???? (@jeremyjudkins_) October 4, 2023
Now, I’m not sure of this person’s motives here, but 6.6 seconds from a dead stop to 60 mph isn’t slow. And, sure, the Prius Prime only needs 6.4 seconds to get to 60. But a 1974 Porsche 911 needed seven seconds flat to get from 0-60. And no one thought that car was slow. A Ferrari 308, like the one Magnum P.I. drove, that took 6.7 seconds to get to 60. And he managed to catch all those Hawaiian ne’er-do-wells, no problem.
This guy says that Tesla “shouldn’t make a single vehicle that does 0-60 in over 5 sec” which, just for reference, is pretty damn close to what a Shelby Cobra would do back in the day (4.8 or so seconds), and people raced those things. Sure, 5 seconds to 60 is fun, no question, but the idea that a carmaker that makes mainstream, general-use cars that hardly anyone takes to the track needs to never make a vehicle that takes longer than 5 seconds to get to 60 is just, well, stupid.
Look, fun is fun! I get it! But here’s the thing: in the real world, on real streets, people don’t accelerate that fast! Unless there’s something really horrific happening right behind them, like if a pack of sasquatches caught on fire and ended up on a runaway hovercraft careening down the highway. Beyond that, people are – and I mean no offense to any people that may be reading this – are generally too chickenshit to really stomp that go pedal so hard they go from 0-60 in, like, 5 seconds. They just don’t!
People will hit the gas to get going and feel that burst of intoxicating speed, but the vast majority of drivers will very soon let up, because on public roads, they’re pretty good at not being idiots.
I know there’s an argument that you need to have a car that’s sufficiently quick so it can merge onto highways safely, and I think that set of cars comfortably contains, let’s see, oh yeah, every single car you can buy today. And, really, pretty much anything on the road that can hit highway speeds. I know this because I drive a car every day that is likely one of the most marginal ones, taking a hilarious 16 or so seconds to hit 60, thanks to those 52 moseying horses under the hood. That’s likely too slow for almost everybody, and I get that, but I also know that even that glacial pace is not unsafe for merging. I know because I do it all the time, just fine.
Though you know what? If I try to think objectively about getting 1600 pounds of mass to move at a mile-a-minute, a span of 16 seconds to make that happen really doesn’t seem like much at all. We take the power of cars for granted, I think.
Really, anything that can get to 60 in about 10 seconds will probably be completely fine for most drivers. I went ahead and said seven seconds in the headline because, well, why not? You should have a little fun.
Maybe that guy in the tweet was joking? That’s certainly possible. But even so, it’s still an interesting thing to think about. In this era of all-torque-from-a-standstill electric motors, fast 0-60 times are no longer the exotic, barely-attainable things they once were. Race-car-adjacent 0-60 times aren’t rare any more, and as a result our perceptions have become skewed.
So, all I’m saying here is that while I get moving very quickly is an absolute blast, we all may be going off the rails here. Getting to 60 in six, seven, even eight seconds is plenty. And, remember, getting these 0-60 times isn’t easy! To get these times, carmakers and test drivers do multiple runs in ideal conditions, and sometimes those numbers are not exactly what you think, because they’re often measured with what’s known as rollout.
That means that the cars aren’t being tested for a true zero to 60 time; instead, the cars start moving and get to go about a foot before timing even starts. That’s not really 0-60 at all, is it? Here’s a video talking about this with someone who once shook our own David Tracy’s hand without even looking at him or acknowledging he was even there:
Take away this rollout, um, advantage, and some cars that claim incredibly low 0-60 times can’t really do what they claim.
Point is, it’s all kind of bullshit, and chances are great that whatever you’re driving has a 0-60 time that’s just fine. If you want to drag race, then that’s a whole other thing! But, for everyone else? Seven or under is fine.
I drive a third-generation Prius. In a city, with short highway merges and aggressive drivers. I do just fine.
“Back in the day” anecdotes are mostly irrelevant, so this is solely for your amusement. Just before I read this article, I was going through a box of vintage Road & Track magazines and found a test of the 1977 BMW 630CSi coupe.
This was the top BMW in the US at the time, selling for more than US $24,000, which is about $122,000 in today’s dollars.
The 4-speed manual version did 0-60 in 9.7 seconds. Also, per R&T, “the engine returned 18.0 mpg…quite a respectable figure for a car with…enough performance to propel it to a speed of 60 mph in less than 10 sec.”
It is a bit like the infamous Bill Gates quote that 640k of memory is enough for everyone. The drop in acceleration time is largely due to technology / electrification.. sooner or later everyone will get used to it and it becomes a nothing burger
Eh, no, not a good comparison. If I drop in a couple extra sticks of RAM and turn on overclocking on my PC, I’m not going to lose control on the information superhighway and eradicate a family minding their own business in their… minivan-PC?
If you suck at playing CS:GO, you get pwned and heckled like a n00b. If you suck at driving, you’re a danger to yourself and others.
And I don’t know if you’ve been on the road much lately, but people REALLY suck at driving.
My 09 Scion has a tiny 4 banger. But it is geared something crazy in the auto trans.
I can do burnouts at will leaving a stop light.
No idea of the 0 to 60 time though.
At my age that’s fine, no need to accelerate faster than one can think. /s
(Even though back in the 70s I drove some very strong cars)
As I’ve been able to upgrade my rides, I won’t settle for less than 27mpg. hw. combined with sub 7 sec. 0-60mph. for my daily. Also found awd nice to have. For an occasional use fun car, none of that matters, just looking for a deal that speaks to me.
Fuel efficiency and performance can actually reinforce each other. The problem is that cars are built backwards from what the laws of physics recommend, in order to perpetuate the corporate styling zeitgeist of the time period, and load the car down with mass-adding features to pad the profit margins with.
I’d like to see at least ONE company do something different instead of copying everyone else. Give us a lineup of the following:
-Barebones low-cost ICE shitbox with as low mass and as low CdA as possible. Think Mitsubishi Mirage, except RWD, and half the CdA. A 3-cylinder of about 80 horsepower is all it needs… to top out at over 140 mph, and get 80+ mpg highway, and 40+ mpg city. Offer a “performance” version with a turbocharged engine of roughly 200 horsepower that could accelerate like cars 10x its cost, and still get the same fuel economy as the base version.
-Low mass and low CdA sports car. Think Opel Eco Speedster, which got 94 mpg US with its 0.20 drag coefficient, 1.4 m^2 frontal area, and could top out at 160 mph on 112 horsepower. Except make it electric, with roughly 300 horsepower, a 40 kWh battery, and a finished mass ready to drive of roughly 2,500 lbs. Miata-like price tag.
-Economy-oriented long-wheelbase RWD EV sedan with a 250 mile range @ 70 mph, able to seat 5 with the comfort and roominess of an old W123 Mercedes, using only a 35 kWh battery. The Mercedes EXQQ shows us the way, except this car has a significantly smaller battery which keeps weight under 3,000 lbs, and may be possible to sell at a small profit for around $25,000.
-Small, RWD, aerodynamic work truck with a retractable aerodynamically-tapered bed cover extending from the roofline. When the bed cover is extended to the tailgate, the truck looks like a fastback, has a Cd value around 0.20, but with a frontal area slightly less than that of a modern Ford Maverick, and only needs 200 Wh/mile to cruise 70 mph on the highway from the aerodynamics. It’s energy consumption doubles when the cover is retracted and the bed is loaded to GVWR, given the impact of drag and mass. Only needs a 40 kWh kWh battery, as the truck weighs in at 3,000 lbs. Offer an ICE version with a small 3-cylinder engine so it can get around 30 mpg highway fully loaded with the bed cover retracted, and 50 mpg highway with the bed cover in use.
Take no prisoners. These vehicles will be primarily about load reduction coupled with low cost, with narrow thin margins and a bare minimum of features standard. Low mass, low CdA. All of them should be repairable with basic tools, without any proprietary software or tools locking out small-business mechanics and DIYers from fixing them. And all should be RWD for hooning potential and upgradeability with aftermarket parts for tuners to have fun with.
I suspect that they’d gain a cult following and eventually take over, although it would be a slow, steady climb. And competitors would not be happy about higher-margined products getting their sales cannibalized by this genie being let out of the bottle.
Beautiful vision, hope someone fulfills it. Fear the real Pandora on the loose is always connected proprietary monthly subscription and autonomy nonsense the major manufactures are banking on. I’ve upgraded, but with a 13 year old well made, low mileage, 1/3 original sticker gem. Probably the last daily I’ll need, and any fun cars will likely be older.
That “real pandora on the loose” is not sustainable in an economy where 3/4 of the population doesn’t even have $1,000 saved for an emergency and lives paycheck to paycheck. It will eventually crash and burn, and that’s exactly what we need. And when it does, we need to make sure there are no government bailouts for the companies that have loosened this pandora’s box on us, or that paradigm will persist. I predict at some point within the next decade, there will be parking lots full of unsold CUVs/SUVs/trucks, and a massive increase in fuel prices to go with it. coupled with an entirely unmet demand for inexpensive EVs as well as economy-oriented ICEs. Prices of old cars that aren’t saturated with electronics will skyrocket in value due to their inherent reparability. We’ll see.
“It will eventually crash and burn, and that’s exactly what we need.”
Well it hasn’t yet and I’m not sure it ever will. TPTB are just too good at keeping that can moving down the road with those bailouts.
“And when it does, we need to make sure there are no government bailouts for the companies that have loosened this pandora’s box on us, or that paradigm will persist.”
That ship sailed a looong time ago. And whose going to act? Occupy Wallstreet?
How’d that go?
Your argument reinforces my view that past and present incentives have lacked vision. If our tax dollars are to encourage environmental responsibility, the terms must be exceptionally well constructed. Carrots for low CdA, high efficiency, repair-ability. Sticks for inefficient, disposable crap. Any gamble by manufactures on subscription services should be solely on them. Suspect most of this readership does at least some of their own maintenance and repairs, but the populace at large does not. Current conditions favor leasing a new EV, turn it in before it needs tires, repeat, and most that can do this are very happy with this situation, and falsely feel they are being Eco-friendly. The wise secondary market knows these are to be avoided as diminishing return propositions.
Not so much an argument as statement of facts.
Moral hazard creating bailouts, steam venting ineffectual hippie drum circle distractions (and I strongly suspect ) modernized cointelpro for any potential effective protest are the go to strategies to keep that can of nasty moving down the road.
SYMS outlet had a slogan “an educated consumer is our best customer”. Autopian seems to attract mostly thoughtful commentary, and hopefully educates beyond what is readily evident to have some positive effect. Would hate to dig out my bongos.
“Would hate to dig out my bongos.”
Leave the bongos behind. You can do better:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2-NaTqDwYPA.
Don’t tell anybody about the rapid appreciation thing till I load up!
we need the Twingo over here!
The new Twingo is actually rear engine RWD. Sell it here as a Nissan or Mitsubishi
I would be happy if the made a two door, simple, light sedan on a slightly stretched Miata or BRZ chassis. Modern day BMW 2002 with Japanese reliability and good MPG. My sales case is young enthusiast guy with a family who wants a Miata can make a better argument and use case for such a vehicle.
I agree that 7 seconds is all people need, especially with enough yorque to get moving.
There is a stop sign freeway entrance in Michigan at the far side of a bridge. (The only one of its kind?) It has 2 lanes and a traditional entrance ramp leading up to the full stop entrance ramp. (2 different sides of the river.) Due to the wetlands and private property, the acceleration lane is very short.
That is one place where my 9+ second Mazda5 could use more kick. My other car is around 8 seconds, and the difference is noticeable. I am aiming for 7 secs on my next car. In my opinion, faster than that is indulgence.
Stop sign on ramps are pretty common in PA, though they’re slowly being phased out with obscenely large interchanges.
At this one in Pittsburgh, you have about 450ft from the stop sign to get up to speed, merge on, and get over one more lane if you don’t want to be forced back off of the Parkway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4287908,-79.9328203,3a,75y,79.06h,90.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA_HS7Y1xg00s8QjMyXakKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Ugh! I don’t know which is worse, facing the correct direction in PA, or watching exiting vehicles barrel towards my 9 o’clock while I wait for my opening. (Did I mention that it’s also a 2-way on-off ramp?)
Barton Road entrance onto M14 East, north of Ann Arbor? It’s even uphill! Yea, that’s a tough one, and was part of my daily commute for the better part of a decade. Our Mazda5 struggled a bit with that one at rush hour too.
So many fellow Mazda5 fans!
We snagged the last year, and I REALLY wish they had offered the Skyactive engine with the latest transmission. (For some reason I thought we were getting it, but that was only on the Mazda3 and Miata that year.) We have the autotragic transmission, and it is not as responsive as other transmissions of that year.
Well there was always the 6MT. IF you could find one.
They’re out there, and not too hard to find if you’re willing to fly out & drive back. Thats what I did with the 2012 I currently have a few years ago – the 2006 5MT before that we found locally, although the amount of rust on that one convinced me that travelling was the better option.
Unfortunately, my wife had a foot injury at the time, and wasn’t confident in her ability to safely run the manual transmission. (Especially since she’s never routinely driven one.) So autotragic it is!
I very much regret that we gave up the remarkable 6MT for the tragic 5 speed auto. The engine would offer so much more with the manual.
Keep looking, they’re out there.
You are CORRECT, Sir! The entry-exit ramp approaching it don’t help at ALL when picking your opening!
I wanted to find a drawing that shows people how tough this is but could only find vague satellite images or limited view drawings.
do I need something that fast? No! Is it fun to have it? Eff yeah!!! Also, I hate big NA engines. Either something small and high revving, or small and highly boosted
My ’64 VW bus with a worn engine had top a speed of of 54 MPH, so it was pedal to the metal all the time. The acceleration was on par with the max speed. It was never able to get to 60. Still, a merge onto the freeway was just fine. It was good enough.
I have never owned a car that would embarrass me pulling away from a stop light, and I have driven some extremely slow cars (Geo Metro XFi, 1948 Willys CJ2a, 1965 6cyl. automatic Mustang…), even my ’99 Miata is slower than 7 seconds to 60.
Those low E.T.s are just bragging numbers – Irrelevant to daily driving.
Heh. Back in the late 80s, a friend was arguing about this with his electrician dad, as a passenger in his work van. (For context, this friend used to drive me to high school in his very nice 1974 Challenger with a hot 360 in it, and his family’s driveway was a source of envy, all built under Dad’s supervision.) They were at a stoplight next to a then-new C4 Corvette. Dad revved his Dodge van’s 318 2-barrel to get the attention of the Vette driver, and gave him “the nod.” Vette guy chuckled and shook his head like “okay, man, whatever you say.”
Dad then proved his point by holeshotting the Corvette when the light turned green, and it took until deep into second gear for the Vette to catch up and pass. His dad could actually, you know, drive. Even in a work van. He had a better 100ft time.
Paying attention is huge. I’d watch the other light in my diesel Mercedes, and start building revs against the brake when it turned red. I’d be building boost pretty quickly off the line and always loved surprising people that way
Plus, you get to roll a small-enough-to-still-be-hilarious amount of coal on them. Another friend in high school got handed down her mom’s 300TD wagon, and she said one of her favorite things about it was stopping at a light with someone who had been tailgating her right behind her, then nailing it off the line and farting diesel smoke at them.
I’d like to prove you wrong but I can’t because I fully agree. Pretty much everything I’ve ever owned had a 0-60 time right in that ballpark and I’ve never had any issue anywhere or felt like I absolutely needed more power just for normal, everyday driving.
I will say that driving an EV6 GT-Line AWD for a few days has been a nice bit of acceleration I don’t actually need. I am really gonna miss it when I double my 0-60 time going back to the Niro.
Gonna be really tempted to buy something quick very soon.
I’ve driven a Mercedes 300 SDL with the turbo disabled. 0-60 mph time went from 11 seconds to 20 seconds as a result. It was slow, but still adequate for merging into traffic and cruising on the freeway.
If the car can actually hit 60 mph, then chances are, its acceleration is “good enough”.
By the standards of 30 years ago, anything less than 8 seconds 0-60 was reasonably quick. That’s a good baseline to aim for with a “fun” car.
My electric GT6 hasn’t been times to 0-60 yet, but I calculated that it should do it in 5 seconds in its current configuration. It needs a limited slip differential because it wants to go sideways when I stomp the accelerator down.
My 13 horsepower 91 lb microcar that is legally a “bicycle” is expected to end up with a 0-60 mph time of around 8 seconds after the battery upgrade to 108V is finished. With 13 horsepower, but limited to 46.8V, it only tops out at 50 mph, but it will pull ahead of a V6 Dodge Charger at a stoplight to about 30 mph. It’s legitimately quick, and the expected 0-60 mph time of 8 seconds once upgraded will be even quicker since it will extend the power curve to a higher RPM instead of dropping rapidly after 35 mph or so. If I were to engage in barbell training and get my legs to the condition of a pro athlete, I could possibly shave another second off that 0-60 time. As it is with 46.8V, the launch is quite scary given how little traction the rear tire has and given how small and light the vehicle is, and I rarely use its full capability, in favor of trying to operate it efficiently. I have to pedal my ass off to do this, as I use a torque sensor to determine power output which scales with pedaling effort, which is one of the keys to bypassing the motor vehicle definitions where I live.
You know performance is getting very accessible when one can inexpensively build an ebike that is faster than most cars were 30 years ago.
I watched a clip on youtube of an early 80’s Motorweek.
They tested a VW Jetta GLI, and a Peugeot 505 turbo automatic.
Both did 0 to 60 in around 12 seconds.
And that time was perfectly adequate for Motorweek.
Timed my Dad’s old MB 220 Diesel with 4 speed manual once.
0 to 60 was 32 seconds. Could have taken a nap waiting.
And I bet it is perfectly usable in modern traffic.
“You know performance is getting very accessible when one can inexpensively build an ebike that is faster than most cars were 30 years ago”
30 years ago one could get the same level of performance with an even cheaper used motorcycle. Mine was $40.
You have lots of experience living up to your namesake I see. $40 for a working motorcycle was a damn good deal then!
I do. I didn’t even pay that $40. The friend who GIFTED me that motorcycle did. He passed me the bike when he upgraded to a bigger, heavier and slower one.
As the wise Butthead once remarked, “Huh huh-huh. It was free, asswipe.”
What kind of bike was it?
1980 Kawasaki 250 LTD
https://bikez.com/motorcycles/kawasaki_kz_250_ltd_1980.php
Light, fun and oh so cheap especially for commuting. IIRC with my ~150lbs I measured its 0-60 somewhere around 6-7s which was faster than any car I had driven to that point. Not a freeway bike though. I kept it on the expressway.
Nice. Made 27 horsepower, which is pretty good for a 289 lb bike.
I’ve always wanted a 1978 Kawasaki KZ1000. 1/4 mile time of 11.9s, stock.
The bike my friend replaced the Kawasaki with was a 1978ish Honda with the two speed automatic. I think it was a 750a. Why? Because it was a 750!
“Cycle World tested the 1976 CB750A’s top speed at 156 km/h (97 mph), with a 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) time of 10.0 seconds and a standing 1⁄4 mile (0.40 km) time of 15.90 seconds at 138.95 km/h (86.34 mph).Braking from 60 to 0 mph (97 to 0 km/h) was 39 m (129 ft).”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CB750_and_CR750#CB750A_Hondamatic
For a motorcycle it was slow but that wasn’t its biggest problem. At 580 lbs it was HEAVY, at least compared to the lithe little 279 lb Kawasaki. It was also a pig, again compared to the fuel sipping (80 mpg?) Kawasaki.
I do miss that Kawasaki.
Tesla stans are some of the most embarrassing people on the entire internet. What an insufferable bunch of hacks. I’ve said this a few times, but the Venn Diagram of Tesla stans and car enthusiasts is nearly two separate circles. Anyway, I actually agree with the premise of this article and EVs have made a lot of us numb to some of these numbers.
A 0-60 in the 6 second range is good enough for 95% of people. Hell, it’s probably faster than what a lot of normies have experienced. I personally like a time in the high 4s/low 5s because I’m an idiot who wants to return to monke at every on ramp, but how often do I actually do that in my car? Maybe 2-3 times a week.
My favorite thing to do on exit ramps is watch the expedition tailgating me try to keep up, then back off and slowly fade away as they realize their 3 ton SUV can’t take a turn like a low, sporty car.
“A 0-60 in the 6 second range is good enough for 95% of people.
…
I personally like a time in the high 4s/low 5s because I’m an idiot”
Well that explains the remaining 5%.
Uh…
raises hand
These Tesla losers are so fucking strange
It appears that they need lots of ways to feel superior over other people. Like most annoying groups, it is not all of them; just the most vocal.
I agree 0 to 60 irrelevant. Acceleration is only important for the merge from on ramp to the interstate. So you aren’t starting from zero, you are doing 40 mph coming up to 60 mph where the cars you are merging with are doing 70 mph or more. The problem is idiots on the road who won’t move over even if the fast lane is open. People on the arm ramp slow down and stop as opposed to speeding up to the road speed and merging. IF THE SIGN SAYS MERGE YOU NEED TO MATCH SPEED NOT STOP AND NEED 0 TO 60 TIME.
I grew up in the age of 60’s Muscle Cars. 0-60 times was very relevant for us. I always looked at that data in the magazines and still look at it first. All the family cars were V-8s and my first was a 1972 Mustang fastback w/ the 351 Cleveland – 2bbl. unfortunately. A 4 barrel would have had even more giddy up. But my acceleration was as fast as most of my buds, particularly those driving Vegas. As accelerations have improved, 7 secs seemed to be a good benchmark. Anything more is just getting silly. Now I’m older, seats are starting to be more important. 🙂
I hate it when that happens.
Clearly fake news! A pack of Sasquatches is called a Furball and a hovercraft doesn’t need a runway.
Ahh… but it’s a runaway hovercraft.
A runway hovercraft with flaming Sasquatch is just a good Thursday in Prince George.
True
So do you have Prince George in a can?
Average drivers feel it’s more important to have enough power available to do what they need when they need it rather than focus on raw 0-60 times that auto reviewers continue to be obsessed with.
For instance, light footed drivers who don’t like winding out their engines may prefer small turbo fours over their NA counterparts despite similar 0-60 times because the turbo’s low RPM torque advantages are more valuable to them. More lead footed drivers meanwhile may prefer the NA engine’s more linear and reliable high RPM performance.
This. I’d way rather have good responsive torque. That’s fun to me. Torque that puts a smile on your face. It doesn’t feel like you’re having to work as hard to get what you’re requesting from the car.
The out right numbers when attempting to maximize your 0-60 time don’t tell the full story anyway. The lower-revving torquier engine IS faster in every day situations where you’re already up and rolling, on the highway, don’t need to downshift as much to get the acceleration you’re looking for.
But, sometimes it’s also more fun to have to be more active with a manual transmission on a lower torque, high revving engine. Not everyone is into that kind of thing, but a manual transmission certainly adds to the experience. Lower power cars also require you to go through the gears a lot more. You’re not going to do 60 MPH in 1st like some of the sports cars out there…
I mean, aren’t all these high 0-60 times relatively fake anyways? Unless your commute consists of prepped surfaces and you aren’t responsible for damages dropping a clutch in full boost. Like the Golf R, doing 4.1 0-60. Like the car is fast, but my ass are you doing that anywhere remotely close to real life.
But yeah, you’re more than right. You can lose your license with a car that fast if you believe in yourself. Really anything that can graze 60 mph on a slight uphill should be totally fine for public streets.
Nearly all of my cars can reach 60 mph eventually but I’m generally too busy driving to worry about timing them at it.
For me, it’s much less than 7 seconds. Maybe 3.0 – 3.5. But When I get a Jones for speed, I’m on my motorcycle, and they are generally a lot faster than cars.
There’s one especially bad interchange I take every day, where the entrance ramp has essentially an open hairpin then immediately merge onto a 55mph road. So your 15 to 60 gets tested there as you don’t have much time to merge.
In New York City there are a few super short onramps that have stop signs at the entrance.
My Audi Allroad does 0-60 in the low 5’s. Those onramps made me thankful of it.
I will never live in a world where 0 to 60 in 7 seconds isn’t just ‘good enough’, but is legitimately quick.
When all the girls left around in the gene pool are 200lbs of waddling beauty and make the floor creak at every step, they might as well be coming with a matching bra size, and “good enough” be damned.
Sorry dude, but….what the fuck? What stupid point are you trying to make with your misogynist bullshit there?
Pete. Dude has chosen the name ‘Goblin’. There is prolly a reasonably high chance that such an individual is going to throw down with some hot takes.
I mean, it’s still reprehensible. But, he’s a Goblin. Of course he would say that.
Peter Jackson’s movies were the best thing after hot water, but they had the side effect of casting a very specific connotation to my chosen nickname, which I selected years before, and is related to goblin reservations, universities, October Beer, Oop brewing moonshine and the fact the “Mr O’Toole” was already taken pretty much everywhere.
All Hail the Goblin!
A song in your honor, good sir:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsMKOx6fumc
Maybe you’d be able to follow the point if you didn’t light your fuse that quick, my hollier than thou Jedi ?
It’s a weight joke. Modern cars are morbidly obese, so they might as well have at least one sexy thing going on for them. Here, now that it’s translated and spoon fed it’s not a joke anymore. You’re welcome.
PS: And yes, I’m fatter than everybody else. I do fat jokes. Boo hoo.
pfffft.
Why does a weight joke need to be gendered?
That’s the misogynist part.
Excellent question, my kind Sir (I presume):
Because it’s a joke, because it’s my joke, and because this is the only way it works as a joke. I don’t believe in explaining jokes, as they cease being jokes when explained, and become semantics.
Here, you have it. And I’d hate to disapoint you, but you don’t have enough data to label me or my joke mysoginist – never had. Self rightousness might give you the illusion of a blank trump card for naming and definitions in whatever echo chamber your righteous anger resonates, but it would pain me to leave you with illusions as for the real world.
Cheers.
Sorry dude, but what? I don’t have enough data to label your joke misogynistic?
No that’s bullshit.
A joke stands on it’s own merits.
It doesn’t need extra info or data to determine whether it sucks or not.
I rest my case.
Cheers
lol okay dude
Because fat people come in two kinds?
0-60 in 12 seconds is adequate 🙂
15+ slooooooooooooooooooooooooow
12-15 moderately slow
10-12 adequate
8-10 more than adequate
6-8 fucking fast
4-6 extremely fast
<4 ludicrous
< 3 plaid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWL8ejf2nM
This is the correct take. Your numbers are spot on.