If you stop and think about it, 60 mph is pretty damn fast, at least at human scales. I’m not talking like interstellar travel here, I mean real, day-to-day, sandwiches-and-soap life. It’s a nice speed to think about because it lines up so nicely with how we measure time: 60 minutes to an hour, so 60 miles per hour means that you’re moving at a mile-a-minute, which is easy to understand; every minute, a mile!
We live in an era where cars can go from stationary to 60 mph in shockingly short spans of time, and I think it’s starting to affect our minds. I say this because a recent review of the 2025 Ram 1500 Big Horn V6 that appeared in Motor Trend spends much of its time trying to convince everyone that a truck that takes 8.1 seconds to get from stopped to 60 mph is somehow unacceptable. That, I think, is nuts. Getting from 0-60 in 8.1 seconds is just fine.
I realize this is a drum I’ve banged before, but seeing as how articles like this are still appearing in big-time outlets like Motor Trend, I think that drum still needs some further spanking. I’m not even sure if this is a pervasive way that people now think or if this is just a symptom of the weird, distorted ways that we auto-journos can think, but the general concept that somehow anything that takes longer than, say, six seconds to get to 60 mph is slow seems to be part of the general discussion, and, again, it’s ridiculous.
Let’s look at some of what was said in this review so you can see what I mean. First, though, let’s go over the specs on this truck so we know what we’re talking about. The version reviewed here has a mild hybrid setup (basically an integrated starter/motor in place of the alternator that helps with stop/start and provides a bit of extra power at lower speeds), with a 3.5-liter V6 making 305 horsepower and 269 pound-feet of torque. This engine is bolted to an 8-speed auto. Nothing amazing, but those numbers are just fine.
The truck is a chonker, with a curb weight of 5,082 pounds, giving a not-that-unreasonable 16.6 pounds per horsepower. That’s nearly the exact same power-to-weight ratio as a 2010 Ford Mustang V6, which used 210 horses to motivate its approximately 3,400 pounds of heft, for a ratio of 16.2 pounds per horsepower. That wasn’t the fastest Mustang, but I don’t recall anyone praying they wouldn’t get stuck behind one on the freeway.
Anyway, let’s get into some quotes from the article:
“Paying the extra $2,695 for the 2025 Ram 1500’s next-level-up (and all-new) twin-turbo Hurricane I-6 engine and its 420 hp is therefore nearly a requirement, not a consideration, for anyone keen on their truck not being a rolling roadblock.”
The part that gets me here is, of course, describing a truck that goes to 60 in 8.1 seconds as a “rolling roadblock.” No, man, just no. What about this is a roadblock? Where the fuck are you driving this? Is this what you picked for a track car?
Maybe he’s having some fun with hyperbole, which I get, because being hyperbolic is more fun than playing video games while having sex on a roller coaster with a mouthful of cake, sure, but at the same time, this concept is at the core of the review: this truck is too slow.
Here’s another quote:
“In the Ram, when you step on the gas, you’ll watch the tach needle twist and hear the engine snarl through its powerband. Acceleration follows tepidly, even as the V-6 revs to its high-rpm power peak. A stoplight drag against a 30-year-old Miata is effectively a draw; by the time the Ram gets to the speed limit, the Miata is still on its quarter panel. Reaching 60 mph takes a long 8.1 seconds, well beyond base-engine-equipped competitors; even Chevy’s four-cylinder Silverado is a full second quicker to 60 mph.”
First, a draw with a Miata is impressive! The truck is like five times the size and weight of the Miata, and it’s still managing to race it to a draw? That’s incredible! And, it’s not like anyone was thinking about Miatas, even with their little 116 hp engines, as “roadblocks.” Because they’re not.
The review says getting to 60 takes “a long 8.1 seconds,” but I just can’t abide this. In reality, out of the weird bizarro world of car reviews, 8.1 seconds is not “long.” In fact, for a long, long time, 8.1 seconds was fast! You know what took about 8 seconds to get to 60 mph? One of these:
A Ferrari! A Ferrari Dino GTS! Nobody thinks of this thing as a “roadblock,” do they? Sure, it’s from 1973, but who cares? Has the length of a mile changed since 1973? Have we re-constructed and dramatically shortened all of our on- and off-ramps to our highways since the 1970s? Did we switch to metric time and seconds mean something different? The answer is no, to all of these silly questions, of course.
Yes, traffic was a bit slower in the past, but not that much slower; and, more importantly, modern traffic just isn’t so blindingly fast that a car that accelerates to 60 in just over 8 seconds would be a liability, anywhere.
I guarantee you that nobody driving the V6 Ram 1500 is going to cause massive traffic slowdowns, anywhere. I can say this confidently because I drive a 52 horsepower car that takes about twice as long to get to 60, and I have yet to have a line of angry cars behind me, honking horns and screaming threats as I merge onto a highway. Somehow, I can merge on almost any on-ramp I’ve ever encountered at about the same general pace as everyone else, because most normal human drivers don’t bother driving at a full 10/10 of their cars’ performance envelopes when they’re just commuting to work.
Sure, there may be some hyper-intense motherfuckers who white-knuckle every on-ramp, foot-pinning that gas pedal into the carpet until it either yields or moans in pleasure, and maybe those tightly-wound velocity junkies may find eight seconds too glacial. They probably exist. But I’ve never impeded the progress of one, even in my 0.9-liter, 52 hp gumdrop.
You know what accelerates way, way slower than 8.1 seconds to 60? Trucks. Big trucks. Fully leaden, the average 18-wheeler semi requires about a minute to reach 60mph. Considering the weight they’re hauling, that’s incredible. And, even with those slow speeds, millions of them are on the roads at any moment, and somehow everything keeps running smoothly.
Fast cars are fun. There’s no question about that! Stomping on the gas and finding you’re at that magic mile-a-minute in less than a handful of seconds is of course a thrill. It’s great. It’s also not how people drive, day-to-day, and the implication that a truck that goes from 0 to 60 in 8.1 seconds is somehow inadequate or even has the potential to impede other drivers is, frankly, ridiculous.
I don’t know what kind of collective madness we’re all saturated by when it comes to how we see 0-60 speeds, but enough already. If your main criteria in buying a new car is acceleration, then I suspect maybe you already know that a huge pickup truck shaped like a shipping container possibly isn’t your ideal option. I also suspect that deep down, you also know that an 8-second-to-60 vehicle is going to be absolutely, totally fine for daily driving in almost every situation, and you will never have to bear the stigma of being a “rolling roadblock.”
What’s wrong with us? We’re such absurd creatures, sometimes.
Any 0-60 Time Under, Say, 7 Seconds Is Good Enough For Most Of Us: Prove Me Wrong
You Only Need 50 HP To Get By Even In Modern Traffic
The Tesla Roadster Getting To 60 In One Second With Rockets May Be Possible But What The Hell Will You Do With It
MotorTrend’s journalism is horrendous. Stick to TV guys.
I’m at a point where I’m not sure if Jonny Lieberman’s writing is as bad as it is on purpose for the hate clicks, or if the guy is genuinely that bad at his job.
my take is a little of both.
So much runs on hate clicks.
Read the article and thought that mid 8’s isn’t so bad… then I almost fell out of my chair when they claimed a 0-60 time for the Hurricane I6 to be in the high 4’s! Holy hell.
No kidding. 0-60 in the 4s isn’t fast for a pickup, or fast for a crew cab, or fast for a six cylinder car. It’s just plain FAST.
It’s screw-around-and-kill-someone fast for anyone who doesn’t know to handle that kinda speed and stomps the accelerator.
I remember when 0-60 in 6 seconds was considered fast for the 2011 Ecoboost F-150
I remember when the Tundra 5.7 would do a 6.0 second 0-60 (early trucks, apparently?) and that was considered insane.
TFL just tested a standard output hurricane 1500 and it did mid 6’s at Denver elevation. Impressive.
To put that into some sort of perspective, putting aside the 288GTO and the F40, no production Ferrari reached the high 4s until the ’91 512TR.
So much this – the wife’s 2007 Corolla does zero to 60 in a perfectly adequate time and accelerates acceptably 99% of the time. My hybrid Camry and V6 MDX are both switfter and I have never found myself needing more power. Wanting more power, maybe, but not needing more. 300hp should be more than enough for any street driven vehicle.
This, 100% my wife drives a 2005 Pontiac Vibe (basically a corolla wagon, but with the 1.8 liter 130 hp 4 cylinder) and it is plenty peppy on surface streets and really only feels underwhelming if you’re trying to pass someone on the highway or pull a mountain pass-but I’ve gone 90 in that car what more do you need
Yep, I dislike the Corolla on long highway runs (it gets buzzy over about 75) but is our around town go to.
Sandwiches AND soap, must be nice. Then you go playing video games while having sex on a roller coaster with a mouthful of cake. I don’t think I can relate to you anymore.
Right? That’s not the opulent sort of lifestyle I live.
I enjoy his creativity, except when it comes to battery removal.
That too is my line.
Really any chainsawin’ that doesn’t involve wood, honestly.
Not even juggling?
Or ice?
You both make good points. So yeah maybe we just keep the batteries away.
My buddy has a Pentastar V6 Ram. Mind you, this is a Ram Classic which probably weighs ~700 lbs less than the truck reviewed, but with four adults inside and a jetski in tow, it never lacked any power, even though it was on 33″ mud tires – as much as I wanted to give him shit for the V6, I couldn’t! That said, the 5.7 sounds amazing, I couldn’t own a Ram without one.
As trucks are getting heavier and a 5.5 ft bed is now the norm, they’re not much more than towing vehicles, since large cargo won’t fit in the bed. If you’re pulling a 5k+ lb trailer, the bigger engine would probably be a must-have.
I’ll go one further – a mainstream 5000lbs vehicle able to do 0-60 in 8 seconds is *too fast*. Ideally it’d do 0-60 in like 10 seconds (more or less whether or not it’s got a trailer).
Good stuff here Torch. As usual.
MT has not been relevant to me since about 1975. Which is a shame.
They don’t make magazines like they used too.
I want my
I want my
I want my MT lede
Actually, I don’t. Just more clickbait silliness.
Base engines in trucks have produced impressive acceleration basically … never, so I’m unsure why this is such a big deal to Motortrend.
I think a lot of journalists get lost on what consumers are actually caring about, I don’t think anyone buying a base engine pickup will expect it to be any faster than this. I don’t think there needs to be more than a sentence or two that describes how a midsized crossover that isn’t wearing a Porsche badge handles a corner. These are mainstream vehicles and mainstream buyers aren’t trying to get to 60 any faster than 8 seconds,they don’t need their van to hold the road. They want quiet comfortable vehicles with the features they want and that will be reliable.
I wish this was true, but I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere (citation needed, I admit) that when asked to rank what features customers care about in their car purchases, performance regularly is one of the highest.
I think it’s because they understand that.
In the 80’s I worked for a time selling spas. (Don’t hate me..I had to make a living). This was in San Jose when Tech was just starting to bloom. Engineer types would come in and be all about horsepower and number of jets, both of which have no – none – bearing on how one actually uses and enjoys a soak. I’d try to tell them that but they were engineer..types..so deaf ears. I would encourage them to have their unit wired so they could turn the “filter mode” circulation from the top like the rest of the controls.
Often enough later when they’d come in for supplies they’d mention that they were so glad they did as when they were enjoying a nice quiet evening under the stars – you could still see stars there at the time – low,slow and quiet is exactly what they wanted.
Engineer type here – but I think practical. Home has an older spa I have fully rebuilt with new pumps/jets/electrical pack. There were a number of “features” I have removed/disabled over time to improve reliability and actual useful function. Yes: low, quiet and gentle.
I mean it sounds like something that would score high on a survey because it is at the core of what a vehicle does but if it was so important I’m not convinced the vehicle demographics would look how they do now ie: I think sedans would still be a dominant segment. I’m sure it matters to some people (myself included) but that doesn’t track if the Camry consistently out sells the Mazda 6 or even the Accord.
One thing I wish product planners understood; it’s important to the hear what the customers says, but product decisions should be made based on what customers actually do when it’s time to put their money where their mouth is.
Agreed, Jason. My past and current vehicles both do 0-60 between 10 and 11 seconds, and I can’t say I’ve had problems. Even when I’ve stopped on an emergency pullover for a nap, I just wait for an opening and…rejoin.
If anything, I wish more newer vehicles were as “slow” as 8.1 seconds for general safety. But either way, as you said–most people aren’t pushing them to the limit in daily driving.
That’s because 10 seconds is fast.
Did the conversion van really do 0-60 in 11 seconds or less?
Sadly, times don’t come up right away with a cursory search. It was the 4.6l. But I’m pretty sure it was 12 at the slowest. Was still perfectly adequate for my needs.
And hey–it was the same as similar year Mustang engines…
Ahh, you had the 4.6. I assumed it was a 302, which is what most conversion vans had. And a 302 slushing through an automatic(sometimes a three speed!) is not a fast recipe.
Ha! I’ve been searching for a replacement conversion van for years (even while I still had the old one…) and I promise there’s still plenty of them post-’97 (when Econolines first got Tritons).
I can’t even imagine what a 3-speed would feel like. I can’t say I’ve ever driven a “slushbox”.
Gotta disagree with that last part. Your E4OD may have been considerably better than a janky old three speed, and they’re not bad transmissions by any means, but they are a slushbox. The ones using the pickup/van tuning anyways, with lower gearing and a looser converter. And they do waste significant power in the converter.
This is coming from a Hardcore Manual Stan™ who hates it every time the converter unlocks because drivetrain slip is simply against the natural order if things.
Fair enough. Not that I was a fan of it being a 4-speed auto (I dislike it more in retrospect than I necessarily did at the time), but I’ve never driven stick so I don’t necessarily know what you mean. The 2005 Focus and 2010 Flex I learned to drive in were both autos so it’s not like it was that different, just few/er speeds.
The only distinct thing I remember hating in the van was things like using cruise control up steep hills in the 45-60 mph range–it would constantly accelerate –> shift up –> decelerate –> shift down –> repeat.
But apparently, as far as ICE/hybrids are concerned, it’s still unreasonable of me to want some kind of scaled-up eCVT in a van.
I drove one with the same powertrain for a year, doing 2 hour commutes at 75mph, never had any problems with keeping up with traffic. Its not a drag racer, its a capable vehicle. Towing it was slow at max load, and I kept it to 65mph, but just stayed in the slow lane.
While I agree that 0-60 in 8.1 seconds is fine, the comparison to the 2010 V6 Mustang doesn’t prove the point all that great.
The 210 hp V6 in the 2010 Mustang was basically a boat anchor; it was very behind on horsepower compared to a comparable Challenger V6 (250 hp I think, they replaced this with the Penstar V6 shortly after) or Camaro (around 305 hp) while somehow also being poor on gas. Not a single person missed the old V6 when it was replaced by an all-new 305 hp one in 2011 that also got better gas mileage as well.
They’re speedbumps. 😉 Come on, you know you were thinking it.
Growing up in Houston, I lovingly nicknamed my Miata the “Texas Speedbump” based on the size, abundance and driving habits of trucks in the area. That no longer seems to be a Texas issue.
I used to live on a military base, and I kept getting shit from guys at the barracks about my Miata. Guys would look for a parking spot, think they found one, and then realize that my Miata was actually occupying the spot, having completely hidden itself between the two lifted trucks it was parked next to.
I have the same issue at work now. I make sure to park my Miata with the nose or tail even with the brodozers I park between.
In fact, someone asked my today whether I drove it today or not. Yeah, it’s out there, I said. You just can’t see it behind the SUVs and trucks.
8.1 seconds is like a second faster than my “Jeep”…. and most gas economy cars.
Motor Trend is just reaching at this point.
8.1 ticks to 60 is fine. Even towing a camper it will be fine. Nobody expects towing anything to go fast.
Just this week, somebody was talking about the new M5 and how its sub-4 0-60 time was unacceptable because it’s a few tenths slower than a Tesla Plaid. I’m not here to discuss the overall merits of the two cars, but come on, folks. Fact is, both of them are probably too powerful to drive at their limits for most people.
Oh, and that old Miata is just a speed bump for the average new pickup.
Even a 5 second 0-60 is enough to cause whiplash if not prepared.
“Slow” and “not as fast as comparable vehicles” are two completely different things but since when do people care about such petty things as reason, details, and nuance?
The M5 is a very expensive performance vehicle, and it’s become expected that, if a performance car is gaining a lot of power and a LOT of torque at the cost of handling, it should become quicker in a straight line. Sacrifices should come with some benefit.
The Ram is the cheapest, most economical version of a utility vehicle. What excuse does the flagship of The Ultimate Driving Machine have?
Shows us a picture of the Mustang with visible “5.0” badges on the front fender.
Ironically, the 5.0 V8 was introduced in 2011, not 2010, so that’s not even a 2010 Mustang either.
At least he got the fact that it’s a picture of a mustang right.
craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap. I was sloppy. Lemme fix that.
Ha ha, I hope it didn’t come across as mean, I was trying to be funny.
I read basically everything about the Mustang from 2010-2012 in high school, so the differences jumped out to me immediately.
The first 302 cubic inch (5.0 liter V8) engine in a Mustang was introduced back in 1968….
And Mustangs have been continuously available with some kind of 302ci or 5.0L engine since at least 1979.
Really. So how do you explain the Mustang GT being powered by the 4.6 modular from 1996-2010?
Yep, and then we had the modular 4.6 liter in the GT from 1996-2010, after which it was replaced by the 5.0 Coyote in 2011.
For those that didn’t see it, the original picture of a “2010 Mustang V6” was actually a 2011 GT (with the 5.0) and has now been changed.
Now that I’m a Subaru BRAT owner – even though mine isn’t running yet – complaining to me about your truck’s 0-60 time is the equivalent of sitting across to me while I’m quietly enjoying my bologna & cheese sandwich with a side of Good Value potato chips and complaining about the penetration of the smoke ring in the brisket you had flown in from San Antonio.
I’m still enjoying my sandwich. I even pressed a few M&Ms into the Wonder Bread.
Thank you for contributing some sanity.
Let’s not forget the air cooled VWs, whose 0 – 60 could be measured with a sundial.
My 1972 Super Beetle, equipped with the most powerful engine VW put in the Beetle (1600cc, ~50hp) does it in around 18 seconds. Merging is not fun and I rarely take it on the highway. (That, and it’s rusty as hell and the front end is worn out.) I do get frustrated when I’m behind someone trying to merge going 40mph, when I know damn well my Beetle can hit 60 (admittedly at full throttle) by the end of the same ramp. But around town, I never have any issues keeping up with traffic.
These types are the same clowns that stuck us with buckboard seats covered with “sport cloth” and “sport-tuned suspensions” that’ll force you to visit your dentist.
No, 8.1 seconds is not slow, and I agree that this is hyperbole. But what’s the 0-60 time of this truck when it has 5 people and 1400lbs of cargo?
Short of some F-150s with a heavy-duty payload package, here are very few half-ton trucks around rated to haul five people and 1400 lbs of cargo. I’d say 5 people and 400 lbs of cargo is closer to the capacity of a 1/2 ton.
A hell of a lot faster than my pickup, which has 150 buff ponies. And I don’t block traffic.
Wow too funny. I DD one of these w the Pentastar engine and had the same reaction after reading the MT article. I almost second guessed myself until I got back into it, drove it, and realized the author was just, uh, wrong.
0 to 60 at 8.1 sec is fine. What I want to see is the 85 to 65 time. That’s what really matters…