[Pauli]

http://www.zeroto60times.com/

I stumbled upon this website, and thought it was pretty cool. Basically, it gives performance data for most all makes of vehicles from first year of production to present. I am just getting started - However, I have made a few observations thus far:

'02 Corvette Lingenfelter 0-60 in 1.7 sec - OUCH!
Nice to see some 45+ yr old cars running sub 4's i.e Shelby Daytona
Some muscle cars doubled their 0-60 times in just a few years. i.e Chevelle '70 to '74 - what gives?
Porsches all over the board depending on yr/turbo/ etc...

See anything that surprises you?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Gotter]

'92 968s out-clocked the '93s... more weight in later models?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

Those times are taken from different sources (magazines). No 2 runs will be the same for any car. Location, elevation, driver, temp all go into play. A '93 isnt any slower then a '92 as the specifications are identical.

Both those times are from Car And Driver articles if i'm not mistaken. Road and track ran a 5.9 0-60 & 14.4 1/4 with a '92 Coupe. Non-M030 cars would be better for a drag race then M030 cars, (better traction) as you wont get wheel hop like you will in an M030 car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

+1 0-60 times can vary so much in any given test because of all the variables involved, that IMHO, the stats are almost useless.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

16s vs 17s will make a difference - lsd will make a difference - just the other day i got times that varied as much as 1.5 seconds - wheel spin is a hard thing to control - so is clutch slip - the shift to second plays in too, as well as whether or not they shift to third

way too many things to really compare times or put too much emphasis on them

remember too, these are the best times they got, not the average, or what you might normally see - that's the way magazines work

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Pauli]

If you read the mission statement from the editors - they acknowledge that all of these factors will effect results - condition of track surface, tune of test vehicle, outside temp, barometric pressure, variation of test drivers etc... They do say that usually an average of the best 2 runs are recorded, one in each direction to eliminate wind factor. Their philosophy is that times should be provided in terms of a "range" of acceptable results, but opted to go w/ a single number due to it's popular format.

It's not an exact science, but would also be next to impossible to gather up the thousands of cars and run them all under the same conditions ...... To me it's just a fun guideline to look at.

Pauli

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

i always look for several sources. the big 4 magazines (Car&Driver, Motortrend, Road&track, Automobile) usually will all test a vehicle. Occasionally you will see the same car tested more then once by the same publication. For example, the E36 M3 was in countless comparo's in car and driver...and so was the E46 M3.

Whats interesting is, Car & Driver ran both the quickest and slowest published times with the 968. (1st was a road test, 2nd time around it was in a comparo with 5 other vehicles). Road and track also tested the car. Their 1/4 times were 14.2 & 14.7, Road and Track ran a 14.4. Based on this info, its safe to assume a good driver with some drag experiance should be able to run a mid 14sec 1/4 with a stock 968.

The other side of the coin is figuring which magazines use which methods for published times. I may be mistaken, but Moter Trend does several runs and publishes the absolute best time they can achieve with said vehicle. Road & track on the other hand will run the car down the 1/4 several times and give you an average all of the runs. They claim that gives you a more realistc number that readers can achieve with their own cars and some experiance.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

"'92 968s out-clocked the '93s... more weight in later models?"

Naw - it's our lightweight connecting rods! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

EDIT-

Sorry wrong thread... too many Miller Lites!

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - funny

given that times ranged from 5.6 to 6.1 (and i'd like to know how they got 5.6) there are obviously variables at play - the idea is to get an idea of how a car stacks up, not necessarily focusing on a particular spec - it's all relative too

relative to muscle cars of the 60s, we are a bit slow

relative to cars from the 70s, we stand up very well

during the 80s we were still in the hunt

unfortunately for us, relative to cars today, that means we now stand amongst the average grocery getter, and no longer amongst performance cars

that is, on paper........

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[PhilG968]

Grocery Getter, ahh, now I need a beer.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

after my day today, me too

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Like flash said... " on paper " . Also, compared to past muscle cars and present cars in the 0-60 stats we're not all that great, but seems to me when it comes to the 1/4 mi the 968 still maintains a a fairly respectable spot in the sports car group ( and that's a better measure anyway because a few of the variables which can affect the 0-60 times start to even out and the 1/4 mile run tends to produce a more consistent result from one test to the next ) The beauty to our cars' performance though is beyond the 1/4 mile. Willing to bet that a bunch of the cars ( lots of the new ones ) with even better 1/4 mile times than ours will be left behind in a full mile run by the 968. Don't know if it's the way cars are geared, or what causes that but from 90
to 150+ you're not going to find more than a handful of (non-exotics) that will outrun it.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i almost said something to that effect

a good example of a car we all drooled over and thought was lightning fast at the time was a 440 challenger i had - about 400hp and 500ft/lbs - about 3400lbs - 0-60 was about 6 with a 1/4 mile in the low 13s - very nice - but, top end was only a bit over 140 - a real job to get up over .85G too

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968TDG]

What happened to that car Flash?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - no, not the acrobatic charger - this one was a car i owned with a partner - huge mistake - did not end well - great car though

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

I was in the Ford dealership (picking up a friend) and was strolling around the showroom looking at the Mustang GTs. The salesman asked if I was interested in buying one. I said that I still preferred my car and pointed out the 968. He asked if I wanted to race and I said "Sure, as long as I get to pick the road...". He declined...

0-60 only matters when that little %$#% in the rice burner with the coffee can exhaust needs a lesson at the stoplight [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

JMHO,

Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

agreed - but, launch is immediately gratifying, and frequently something that we all utilize to measure our testosterone levels

i have no illusions about the limitations of the 0-60 on this car, but i sure as heck don't want a hyundai beating me

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

LOL, and that's why I don't do 0-60 runs ... not often ayway. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] BTW, Bob I think the only Hyundai that might have beaten you / us
( b/f the SC conversion ) is the new Genesis. Not a bad looking car for an Asian vehicle if I may also say so.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.