12.6 seconds "perfectly acceptable"

Blitzkrieger

Acceptable for what? Sheep?

Was watching a show last night where some gombeen described the 12.6 second 0-60 time of his Honda Insight as "perfectly acceptable".

Ignoring the fact that that time was probably set with higher octane petrol than he uses in a newer car with perfect conditions, 12.6 seconds is about as long as the last ice age lasted. At that speed you could have a man walk in front of the car waving a green flag. It's a rate of acceleration not even suitable for agricultural equipment.

Anything over 6 seconds to 60mph annoys me. Anything over 8 seconds would be a chore to drive. Anything over 10 seconds is really just too god-damn slow.

I haven't got time to waste stuck behind these twats. I always wish they could hear me yelling "Get out of my way, woman!".

I'm exaggerating as always, but I've a semi-serious point. You can actually get pulled over for driving too slowly as well as too quickly. Surely in today's world, 12.6 seconds is too slow?

MagicMarker

WTF are you crapping on about?

Mr.David

chill the beans big boy :P

waraf

I'd say that's a fairly common 0-60 time for something like a small engined focus or fiesta TBH

cnocbui

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

You can actually get pulled over for driving too slowly as well as too quickly. Surely in today's world, 12.6 seconds is too slow?

I think you are getting Ireland mixed up with France, and even then I am not sure that law is still on the books there.

Todays world? You been asleep for a few years than, have you? Sky high oil prices, followed by a World recession where every penny counts to a backdrop of global warming hysteria with the likes of Gormley taxing cars punitively on CO2 emissions. Get real.

Mena

I'm, with the OP all the way, as for Gormley and his hippy green entourage, eat my dust

L1011

cnocbui wrote: »

I think you are getting Ireland mixed up with France, and even then I am not sure that law is still on the books there.

There is a minimum speed limit on motorways in Ireland and other very slow driving can and occasionally is prosecuted as 'driving without due consideration'. Hence you'll fail your driving test for driving too slow.

EPM

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Anything over 6 seconds to 60mph annoys me. Anything over 8 seconds would be a chore to drive. Anything over 10 seconds is really just too god-damn slow.

Oh I feel for you, I really do...

FFS cop on to yourself. Do you realize the insight is an eco model? It's not a fcuking performance car. And most of the performance times are set by professional drivers that us mere mortals haven't a hope of ever matching in the real world.

This really gets my vote as stupidest thread of the century

BlackWizard

EPM wrote: »

Oh I feel for you, I really do...

FFS cop on to yourself. Do you realize the insight is an eco model? It's not a fcuking performance car. And most of the performance times are set by professional drivers that us mere mortals haven't a hope of ever matching in the real world.

This really gets my vote as stupidest thread of the century

+1

Stupidest thread of 2009

Worst post goes to the guy who thinks remapping is a myth

Blitzkrieger

cnocbui wrote: »

taxing cars punitively on CO2 emissions.

In a way those tax bands are a god-send for performance cars. I was thinking of buying an EVO. Under the old system, the EVO would have been the largest engine (1998cc) I would have been prepared to get due to tax rates. Under the new system, an entry level EVO X at 246g/km is in the highest tax band. The same tax band as a 6 litre V12 Mercedes at 346g.

In the same way Subaru moved from a 2 litre to a 2.5 litre engine for the WRX because they couldn't keep wringing the required performance from a 2 litre while meeting emissions restrictions and maintaining reliability, I can see this free Misubishi from the 2 litre engine. They won't have to use stupidly expensive internals to wring 400bhp from a small four-pot - they can just lump a bigger V6 or V8 in there and deliver all the power they want.

In the real world, the new tax band only encourage bigger, higher polluting engines, and only discourage the poor from buying them.

maidhc

Reaonable point made by the OP.

A car which takes 12.6 seconds to hit 60 is going to literally hold up traffic. Even a basic spec Focus or Golf diesel will now do it in 10 or less.

I have a Mondeo which takes 14 seconds to hit 60, and it does need a desperate caning at the lights.

Biro

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

In a way those tax bands are a god-send for performance cars. I was thinking of buying an EVO. Under the old system, the EVO would have been the largest engine (1998cc) I would have been prepared to get due to tax rates. Under the new system, an entry level EVO X at 246g/km is in the highest tax band. The same tax band as a 6 litre V12 Mercedes at 346g.

In the same way Subaru moved from a 2 litre to a 2.5 litre engine for the WRX because they couldn't keep wringing the required performance from a 2 litre while meeting emissions restrictions and maintaining reliability, I can see this free Misubishi from the 2 litre engine. They won't have to use stupidly expensive internals to wring 400bhp from a small four-pot - they can just lump a bigger V6 or V8 in there and deliver all the power they want.

In the real world, the new tax band only encourage bigger, higher polluting engines, and only discourage the poor from buying them.

The Tax bands in Ireland are the last thing on Mitsubishi's mind when deciding what sized engine should go into the Evo. Rally classification is probably closer to the reason they stick to a 2 litre.

Anan1

maidhc wrote: »

Reaonable point made by the OP.

A car which takes 12.6 seconds to hit 60 is going to literally hold up traffic. Even a basic spec Focus or Golf diesel will now do it in 10 or less.

I have a Mondeo which takes 14 seconds to hit 60, and it does need a desperate caning at the lights.

I wonder how long the average driver takes to hit 60mph from standstill in this country, regardless of car? Most people don't accelerate to anywhere near their cars potential; i'd imagine 12.6 secs is more than fast enough for most.

BrianD3

LOL, on public roads most drivers don't even come close to utilising the performance of their car, even slow cars. The driver and the traffic conditions are the limiting factor not the car. If you have a petrol car that does 0-60 in 12.6 and you change up at 3.5k revs (which isn't even close to the red line) you'll be one of the faster cars on the road.

I do over 30k miles per year and spend much of my day overtaking slow dawdlers, many of them driving cars that are significantly faster than my one....

Edit: point already made by Anan1

Sqaull20

maidhc wrote: »

Reaonable point made by the OP.

A car which takes 12.6 seconds to hit 60 is going to literally hold up traffic. Even a basic spec Focus or Golf diesel will now do it in 10 or less.

I have a Mondeo which takes 14 seconds to hit 60, and it does need a desperate caning at the lights.

In a manual? No chance!!!!

No basic spec Golf or Focus will be doing it in less than 10 sec, unless Schumi is driving it! Evo's, Sti's and similar might be sub 5 sec in manual, but it will take skill and alot of practice runs for a normal driver to make it.0-60 is a stupid figure anyway, its 3rd gear pulling and up that matters!

waraf

maidhc wrote: »

Even a basic spec Focus or Golf diesel will now do it in 10 or less.

Nope. 2004 Ford Focus 1.4 litre will do it in 14.1 seconds according to this site: http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=121781

furtzy

EPM wrote: »

Oh I feel for you, I really do...

FFS cop on to yourself. Do you realize the insight is an eco model? It's not a fcuking performance car. And most of the performance times are set by professional drivers that us mere mortals haven't a hope of ever matching in the real world.

This really gets my vote as stupidest thread of the century

+1 stupid thread. Its not a race. Can't stand those muppets who do the whole traffic light grand prix thing

Sqaull20

Biro wrote: »

The Tax bands in Ireland are the last thing on Mitsubishi's mind when deciding what sized engine should go into the Evo. Rally classification is probably closer to the reason they stick to a 2 litre.

Aren't they finished with Rally?

Above 2.0l just sounds big for most markets, besides states, oz etc

maidhc

waraf wrote: »

Nope. 2004 Ford Focus 1.4 litre will do it in 14.1 seconds according to this site: http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=121781

The 1.8 TDCi is now cheaper!

I'm not saying anyone is going to do it in 10 seconds. Just that a car than can do 60mph in 12.6 seconds is relatively underpowered vis a vis most modern cars on the road.

I have to join a busy main road every morning. I rarely achieve it without flooring the accelerator and using every bit of power the car has.

Anan1

maidhc wrote: »

The 1.8 TDCi is now cheaper!

I'm saying anyone is going to do it in 10 seconds. Just that a car than can do 60mph in 12.6 seconds is relatively underpowered vis a vis most modern cars on the road.

It may be below average in terms of its potential performance, but it'll still have no problem keeping up with traffic.

Alun

BrianD3 wrote: »

LOL, on public roads most drivers don't even come close to utilising the performance of their car, even slow cars. The driver and the traffic conditions are the limiting factor not the car. If you have a petrol car that does 0-60 in 12.6 and you change up at 3.5k revs (which isn't even close to the red line) you'll be one of the faster cars on the road.

I agree. Even in my humble 1.6 TDCi Focus (I don't even know the 0-60 time, it's pretty much irrelevant in everyday motoring) I'm first away from the lights by a long margin in 99% of cases without even trying.

unkel

The 0-100km/h acceleration of the Insight is the same as that of a (pocket rocket) VW Passat TDI. Both are probably faster than the average new car sold in this country. Nuff said...

pburns

Well I wouldn't buy a car with a 12.something acceleration time and I think hybrids are an environmental con by the time you take manufacturing complexities, disposal of batteries, extra weight etc. into the equation.

But...
12.6 to 60 is perfectly acceptable for most people. It's the way people drive their cars that matters, not performance figures.

Your rant is all a bit proto-Clarkson. Chill out!

Blitzkrieger

Biro wrote: »

The Tax bands in Ireland are the last thing on Mitsubishi's mind when deciding what sized engine should go into the Evo. Rally classification is probably closer to the reason they stick to a 2 litre.

Not really just Ireland - a lot of countries are adopting emissions based taxing, so what works here may work for a substantial portion of their global market. Taking Ireland as an example : do you try to cut emissions under 225g to save your customers a grand a year on tax, or do you assume your customers will pay <20 quid a week extra tax for the extra performance you gain by saying "Sod it! Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb." and lump in a great big V8?

I think with the demise of the WRC era, and without evening looking at the proposed rule changes, the rally cars are so far removed from the road cars I doubt that they would consider that much when deciding on engine size.


I agree with you, Alun - drivers reactions and willingness to put the foot down probably have a lot more to do with the 'taffic light grand prix' than 0-60 time. I personally spend most of my driving time on the open road rather than in town. Even there, the driver's willingness to maintain a decent speed is usually a bigger factor than the car's performance, but every day I encounter situations where I'm significantly held up because someone's car is just too slow.

Poor me

WillieCocker

Most people don't even do 60 in this country.
As long as it does 0-40 in anytime, people will find it acceptable.

Anan1

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

but every day I encounter situations where I'm significantly held up because someone's car is just too slow.

Are you sure it's the car, and not the driver? Personally speaking, i've been held up by as many V8 saloons as Micras. And don't even get me started on Audi TTs and the like, most appear to be putting out 50bhp tops.;)

Matt Simis

unkel wrote: »

The 0-100km/h acceleration of the Insight is the same as that of a (pocket rocket) VW Passat TDI. Both are probably faster than the average new car sold in this country. Nuff said...

Isnt a Passat TDI around 9.5 sec?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/road-test-volkswagen-passat-20-tdi-756676.html
What is an average car sold in the last 3 years? Golf TDI, Passats and 520d's are very popular and all much faster than 12.6.

I assumed 10sec or so was the modern "normal car" target. 12.6 is by any measure just slow, more importantly a reviewer shouldnt make a point that nearly 13sec to 60 is "perfectly" acceptable, its just about barely acceptable.

CreepingDeath

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

You can actually get pulled over for driving too slowly as well as too quickly.

There's a difference between acceleration and speed.
A Micra can do motorway speeds, doesn't mean it can pull away from the pack at the lights.

Not everyone considers driving a race, there's plenty of people on the roads who aren't in a hurry, have a relaxed attitude, maybe have kids or breakable goods in the car.

samsemtex

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Acceptable for what? Sheep?

Was watching a show last night where some gombeen described the 12.6 second 0-60 time of his Honda Insight as "perfectly acceptable".

Ignoring the fact that that time was probably set with higher octane petrol than he uses in a newer car with perfect conditions, 12.6 seconds is about as long as the last ice age lasted. At that speed you could have a man walk in front of the car waving a green flag. It's a rate of acceleration not even suitable for agricultural equipment.

Anything over 6 seconds to 60mph annoys me. Anything over 8 seconds would be a chore to drive. Anything over 10 seconds is really just too god-damn slow.

I haven't got time to waste stuck behind these twats. I always wish they could hear me yelling "Get out of my way, woman!".

I'm exaggerating as always, but I've a semi-serious point. You can actually get pulled over for driving too slowly as well as too quickly. Surely in today's world, 12.6 seconds is too slow?

For a start anything under 8 seconds is pretty quick. Anything around 6 is very very quick, anything under 6 was the preserve of Ferraris and the like 10 years ago and no one was calling them slow or a "chore" to drive.

maidhc wrote: »

Reaonable point made by the OP.

A car which takes 12.6 seconds to hit 60 is going to literally hold up traffic. Even a basic spec Focus or Golf diesel will now do it in 10 or less.

I have a Mondeo which takes 14 seconds to hit 60, and it does need a desperate caning at the lights.

Yes a basic spec Golf will do it in 10 but 90% of people driving them accelerate about half as fast as the car is capable of. Id say the average time for hitting 60 looking at the way most people i know drive is about 15 seconds.

Anan1

samsemtex wrote: »

Id say the average time for hitting 60 looking at the way most people i know drive is about 15 seconds.

I was thinking the same thing myself.

peasant

My yoke takes over 20 seconds to reach 100 km/h, yet I still find myself being held up by dawdlers all the time.

So yes, 12.6 seconds is perfectly acceptable.

Matt Simis

samsemtex wrote: »

Yes a basic spec Golf will do it in 10 but 90% of people driving them accelerate about half as fast as the car is capable of. Id say the average time for hitting 60 looking at the way most people i know drive is about 15 seconds.

Yeah, in a sub-10sec Golf.
Now put them in a 13sec car and watch that increase to nearly 20sec. See the issue here? Slow gets slower.

maidhc

samsemtex wrote: »

Yes a basic spec Golf will do it in 10 but 90% of people driving them accelerate about half as fast as the car is capable of. Id say the average time for hitting 60 looking at the way most people i know drive is about 15 seconds.

You two are talking complete nonsense...

The OP was exaggerating, and says this clearly.

If you read the thread I never said that if you are not doing 60mph 10 seconds after dropping the clutch from a standing start you are doing something wrong. I merely pointed out that a car which does 12.6 seconds is quite slow compared to the average modern hatchback.

Whether you use the power is another thing, but it is comforting to know you have it.

unkel

Matt Simis wrote: »

Isnt a Passat TDI around 9.5 sec?

A 140BHP 2.0TDI? I'm talking about Irish cars here

The best selling 105BHP 1.9TDI Passat takes more than 12 seconds. The forever popular Golf (1.4 petrol) is a lot slower than that again. And the Octavia with that same petrol engine takes more than 14s. A typical supermini like a Micra takes more than 16s. Both an Opel Corsa and a Chevrolet Matiz takes more than 18s.

I'd guess only 10-20% of all cars sold new in this country do 0-100km/h in less than 10s. And that's on paper

As the others said, you really need all that much power to keep up with traffic. The only car I remember I struggled to keep up with traffic in was a '79 Renault 5 (45BHP) and that was because the car was loaded with 4 adults and all their gear on a 3 week camping holiday

Padraig Mor

pburns wrote: »

. It's the way people drive their cars that matters,

+1.

My car has an official 0 - 100km time of 11 secs (maybe 10.6 or so for 0-60 mph?) which certainly ain't fast. Believe me, I'm usually 100m down the road before the eejit behind me at the lights even starts moving.

Biro

Sqaull20 wrote: »

Aren't they finished with Rally?

Above 2.0l just sounds big for most markets, besides states, oz etc

They're gone out of WRC for a while, but there are many classes in rallying that people buy Evo's for. There are also many race series in Japan that various cars were produced for. The Nissan Pulsar, Honda Civic, Mitsubishi Cyborg and a few like that back in the 90's all had versions with 1.6 N/A engines putting out between 160bhp and 190bhp, all for homologation for a race series in Japan.

Mr.David

Who cares how quickly you can leave the lights?

As long as you can accelerate hard enough to knock down the prick "cleaning" your windscreen its fine isnt it?

A truer measure of real world usability and performance is of course the 50-70mph band as it reflects the majority of overtaking manouveres.

robtri

0-60 times are completely irrelevant on the road...

Op in everyday driving, when you are at traffic lights do you, floor it and and push every last bit of performance out of your car to try to achieve its so called 0-60 time??? do you do this everytime??

Voodoomelon

My head hurts after reading this thread.

maidhc

People are missing the point on this thread.

Anyone who does any open road driving will appreciate having a powerful car. I drive a Focus TDCi with a 0-60 of about 10 seconds and a 50-70 of about 5.5. It is perfectly adequate, but certainly not quick.

I also have a Mondeo TD with a 0-60 of about 14 seconds and a 50-70 of three light years. It is also "adequate", but a lot more tiresome to make progress with.

I had a Porsche 968 a while back for a few weeks. the 0-60 was around 6 seconds, and it was an utter pleasure to drive. Completely effortless!

Blitzkrieger

robtri wrote: »

do you do this everytime??

Yup! Sometimes the Gardai even give me points for doing it! I must be doing well because the last fella was talking about some kind of record. :eek:

Sorry - couldn't resist the sarcasm.

I wouldn't say completely irrelevant. They tend to be an indication of how fast a car is. Better acceleration can be useful in some circumstances. I certainly want the option under my right foot.....

unkel

robtri wrote: »

do you, floor it and and push every last bit of performance out of your car to try to achieve its so called 0-60 time??? do you do this everytime??

I usually do at the M4 and M1 toll plazas

Voodoomelon

unkel wrote: »

I usually do at the M4 and M1 toll plazas

The echo of the engine in the tolls is a sound to behold.

Gary ITR

unkel wrote: »

I usually do at the M4 and M1 toll plazas

I killed a car doing that

Missed third gear, hit the limiter and it imploded, oops... Company car so thankfully I wasn't paying the bill :pac:

unkel

Voodoomelon wrote: »

The echo of the engine in the tolls is a sound to behold.

Indeed! And your window is already down to enjoy the sound - listen to the audio file in my sig

cashmni1

I can't believe I read all that.

jhegarty

I can't even think of one set of traffic lights that are in a 100kph zone.

mcwhirter

My car does 0-60 in 10 secs, however 50-70 takes 6 secs in 5th. It is only a standard 2 litre turbo diesel and not a VAG.

0-60 times are pointless, it is the overtaking times we should be concerned about.

Sandwich

Anything lower than 14secs is just a waste of fuel and a sign of the obsene affluence and decadence of the Western world. Its not as if you even get 'there' any quicker either.

Graham_B18C

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Anything over 6 seconds to 60mph annoys me.

What do you drive? Sure a GTI Golf hits 60 in 7.2s and a Focus ST hits it in 6.5.

They certainly wouldn't annoy me.

colm_mcm

Ecocar in "not a supercar" scandal.