When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
You keep saying real world performance, exactly what is real world about it? I have never done it as far as I know, have you & what were the circumstances? How many guys on this site roll to 5 the floor it & how often does it need to happen for it to be real world & not just so much spec racing for the First Loser.
Ok, I think I understand your issue. You seem to be fixated on the "5" part of 5-60. Look, both 0-60 and 5-60 are used to REPRESENT performance and to serve as a sort of proxy. If you fixate on the 5, you might as well fixate on the 60. Just how many times do you accelerate from a stop and then stop at 60? Pretty sure the answer is none, but these numbers serve to PREDICT how the car will perform generally in other situations.
What I contend (and data backs it up) is that 5-60 is a better than 0-60 as a predictor for most other acceleration metrics. 1/4-mile times, trap speeds, 10-60, 20-80, 30-50 are all more closely correlated to 5-60 than 0-60 because things like traction, launch, etc. adds noise to the 0-60 number. 5-60 is cleaner because it eliminates that aspect, and that aspect does not matter for almost every other acceleration metric.
Just how many times a year do you run from 5 mph to 60 mph at WOT?
Nobody rolls out to 5mph then goes to WOT except a guy doing a magazine test.
Pulling out from strip-center onto highway access-road. Do it all the time. They are going about 60mph and have to match their speed or get hit.
In the V6-Accord, usually gave it WOT (or close to it). Anyone with a 2021 TLX 2.0T would likely have to do WOT frequently (or it would take too long to get up to speed).
In the Q5-e, or new A5 ? ... no, WOT is no longer needed in this instance. However, still fun to do it sometimes (if no one is in front of me). Also, doing it into an intersection is not the best time either (due to safety issues).
What I contend (and data backs it up) is that 5-60 is a better than 0-60 as a predictor for most other acceleration metrics.
Nevermind, I retract that statement. I ran a Pearson's correlation analysis based on the raw data I scrapped from C&D's website, and it turns out while 5-60 has a marginally higher r-score compared to 0-60 for 1/4-mile ET and 1/4-mile trap speeds as the dependent variables, it probably isn't stat sig. The distribution is slightly non-linear, but even if you do a logarithmic transformation first to make it linear the difference in r-scores is still fairly small (~0.98 vs ~0.94).
You keep saying real world performance, exactly what is real world about it?
First, we can agree that C&D and R&T use brake-boosting and launch control to measure 0-60mph, while they don't use either to measure 5-60mph.
Second, do you typically use brake-boosting and launch control at a red light? If no (and most people don't), then 5-60mph is the more accurate 'real-world' metric.
Considering the A-Spec (Appearance-Spec? Poser-Spec?) appears to be their top-selling trim, I guess Acura has concluded their buyers care more about spending money to look fast than actually be fast.
I mean you can say that. Every other brand has it now. You have M package, S package, F sport, etc basically an appearance package. It would be nice if they did something to the exhaust.
But at least Acura adds the tech package with it unlike others that nickel and dime you.
Also, to be fair the only reason I even considered last gen TLX was the ASpec package. It actually makes the car look nice and sporty. The basic TLX is a very bland looking car and not worth $40k.
Look at this gen TLX they couldn’t even design a different wheel design. The advance model is a boring looking car.
Also, to be fair the only reason I even considered last gen TLX was the ASpec package. It actually makes the car look nice and sporty. The basic TLX is a very bland looking car and not worth $40k.
Look at this gen TLX they couldn’t even design a different wheel design. The advance model is a boring looking car.
Yes, I found 1G TLX to look too much like an Accord.
Acura definitely mailed it in on 2G alloy wheel design. Hope the Type S wheels are at least worth the extra money.
Ok, I think I understand your issue. You seem to be fixated on the "5" part of 5-60. Look, both 0-60 and 5-60 are used to REPRESENT performance and to serve as a sort of proxy. If you fixate on the 5, you might as well fixate on the 60. Just how many times do you accelerate from a stop and then stop at 60? Pretty sure the answer is none, but these numbers serve to PREDICT how the car will perform generally in other situations.
What I contend (and data backs it up) is that 5-60 is a better than 0-60 as a predictor for most other acceleration metrics. 1/4-mile times, trap speeds, 10-60, 20-80, 30-50 are all more closely correlated to 5-60 than 0-60 because things like traction, launch, etc. adds noise to the 0-60 number. 5-60 is cleaner because it eliminates that aspect, and that aspect does not matter for almost every other acceleration metric.
Yes because its a random number generated years ago to simulate turbo lag. What was lag then is no longer the same. Most new cars are running full boot by 1600 RPM in my car with my gearing thats about 8 mph. The exact same car with stiffer gearing will have better numbers while one with softer gearing will have worse numbers.
Tesla1856in the Q5-e, or new A5 ? ... no, WOT is no longer needed in this instance. However, still fun to do it sometimes (if no one is in front of me). Also, doing it into an intersection is not the best time either (due to safety issues).
Exactly in that case in many of the cars were are talking about and hopefully for the TLX fan S type its no necessary to come even close to going to WOT. In a TL 4 cylinder you may have to & if you do I would suggest you are cutting it to close it might fe a factor.
bilirubin
First, we can agree that C&D and R&T use brake-boosting and launch control to measure 0-60mph, while they don't use either to measure 5-60mph.
Of course they brake boost & try LC in the test. They are maxing out the car to get the last hundredth out of it for bragging rights, no disagreement there.
Now back to the real world. I can absolutely & most guys with anything quick can test it is easily beat the 05-60 time by just punching the gas off idle. C&D says my car is 4.5 to 60 in a 5 mph roll I have no way to simulate that test which is repeatable.
But without boosting off the line just punch WOT my Dragy says 4.31 to 60mph. If the C&D Rollout is applied thats 4.01
C&D says 3.7 or 8 with LC, brake boost, get the best number then run it through their standardized algorithm for weather etc to get the number they post in the magazine. So in my case & I bet a lot of very similar cars the 5-60 its not "real world"
I could have gone a few days ago when it was in the 30's & done 5 seconds with zero traction or in March at 70 & get an optimum sum 4 second number with a warm street, hot tires & a cool IAT.
Second, do you typically use brake-boosting and launch control at a red light? If no (and most people don't), then 5-60mph is the more accurate 'real-world' metric.
Personally no its not necessary. The car is quick no matter how much throttle is used. The neighborhood drag stripe is at the intersection of 540 & six forks heading north. About 250 yards north of the light the road goes from 2 lanes north to one.
The curb lane goes away. Its a big ego area so a lot of people in the outside lane do not want the curb lane car to get in front. If I am in the curb lane I will use as much throttle as necessary.
If in the outside lane I ignore the curb lane & let them go if they want to. Silly thing but the point is some of the cars we are talking about the whole 5-60 thing does not have the same real world relevance as it does to those with slow cars.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-17-2021 at 02:14 PM.
Yes because its a random number generated years ago to simulate turbo lag. What was lag then is no longer the same. Most new cars are running full boot by 1600 RPM in my car with my gearing thats about 8 mph. The exact same car with stiffer gearing will have better numbers while one with softer gearing will have worse numbers.
C&D says my car is 4.5 to 60 in a 5 mph roll I have no way to simulate that test which is repeatable.
But without boosting off the line just punch WOT my Dragy says 4.31 to 60mph. If the C&D Rollout is applied thats 4.01
C&D says 3.7 or 8 with LC, brake boost, get the best number then run it through their standardized algorithm for weather etc to get the number they post in the magazine. So in my case & I bet a lot of very similar cars the 5-60 its not "real world"
I could have gone a few days ago when it was in the 30's & done 5 seconds with zero traction or in March at 70 & get an optimum sum 4 second number with a warm street, hot tires & a cool IAT.
Are you suggesting there is more turbo lag if you start from 5mph vs 0mph without LC or brake boosting? That sounds like what you're suggesting, but I can't fathom why that would ever be the case in an automatic.
Are you suggesting there is more turbo lag if you start from 5mph vs 0mph without LC or brake boosting? That sounds like what you're suggesting, but I can't fathom why that would ever be the case in an automatic.
Would seem that the software is taking longer to make up its mind what to do with the waste gate on a slow roll then on a dead stop launch. All I can say is C&D says 4.5 seconds 5-60. Dragy says 4.31 0-60 without boost or LC. Have already dipped into the Hight 3's with LC & a 1/10 better with Brake Boost because it takes the engine LC caused throttle cut backs away from the computer.
The fact that the car is faster with LC/brake boost is just demonstrating the car is actually slower by just flooring the pedal from a stop. Its also saying that the 4.31 floored from a stop is faster to 60 than the C&D rated 5-60 @ 4.5.
As I said before I cannot measure a 5-60 run with what I have. Maybe the car is quicker than what C&D says for the 5-60 run but I can't prove it one way or another.
Its supposed to be customizable but have never looked into it. If I can get a 5-60 measure will be more than happy to do some runs when it get warm. Can't say much more about the subject because lack of test equipment just makes it opinion.
So I will leave it here till I can measure it or will let it die if I can't, as most likely by spring all here will be happy with the TypeS 0-60 & pissed at its 5-60.
A lot of guys I expect have no idea what Dragy is & how accurate it is. Magazines run most of their tests on the V-Boxnot an actual drag strip & its the Gold Standard of timing devices.
This was done by a guy on Audizine "S4Per" & is supported by just about every test that has been run on Dragy's accuracy.
Track vs V-box vs Dragy results
About the only saving grace from a not so awesome day at the track (aside from meeting Andre (OlyS6) and his amazing S6, and hanging with Dean (limeypride) and his new AMG E63S (that's straight outta' the future), of course!) was getting some data regarding accuracy of the above three measuring devices.
I have a vbox (Performance box) on loan, and it's on its latest firmware as of this writing. Dragy I got a few weeks back, and Pacific Raceways was the setting. Without further ado and net/net:
Dragy was closer to track measurements than the vbox
Dragy read .01 seconds slower than the track on ET
Dragy read .56 mph slower than the track on trap speed
I only got one run in, so unfortunately that's it for now.
Details:
Here's the supporting timeslip: And Dragy screenshots for the 1/4 run, and a separate one to show the 0-60 time:
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-17-2021 at 07:57 PM.
Would seem that the software is taking longer to make up its mind what to do with the waste gate on a slow roll then on a dead stop launch. All I can say is C&D says 4.5 seconds 5-60. Dragy says 4.31 0-60 without boost or LC. Have already dipped into the Hight 3's with LC & a 1/10 better with Brake Boost because it takes the engine LC caused throttle cut backs away from the computer.
The fact that the car is faster with LC/brake boost is just demonstrating the car is actually slower by just flooring the pedal from a stop. Its also saying that the 4.31 floored from a stop is faster to 60 than the C&D rated 5-60 @ 4.5.
As I said before I cannot measure a 5-60 run with what I have. Maybe the car is quicker than what C&D says for the 5-60 run but I can't prove it one way or another.
Its supposed to be customizable but have never looked into it. If I can get a 5-60 measure will be more than happy to do some runs when it get warm. Can't say much more about the subject because lack of test equipment just makes it opinion.
So I will leave it here till I can measure it or will let it die if I can't, as most likely by spring all here will be happy with the TypeS 0-60 & pissed at its 5-60.
Doesn't draggy rely entirely on GPS? That would mean it only starts the timer when the car starts moving. My understanding is that C&D starts the timer for the 5-60 runs as soon as the accelerator pedal is depressed, not when the car starts accelerating, which means things like throttle response, drivetrain lag, etc. all come into play. Since draggy doesn't utilize any other sensors, it doesn't take into account those types of delays. This would could easily explain a few tenths of a second difference.
Instead of starting the timer when the car begins to move or a foot later, the 5-to-60 test uses a pressure switch under the accelerator. The timer starts when the driver mats the pedal. This practice more accurately represents what you’d see at a stoplight, and starting from a slow roll levels the playing field between the industry’s various types of transmissions.
Doesn't draggy rely entirely on GPS? That would mean it only starts the timer when the car starts moving. My understanding is that C&D starts the timer for the 5-60 runs as soon as the accelerator pedal is depressed, not when the car starts accelerating, which means things like throttle response, drivetrain lag, etc. all come into play. Since draggy doesn't utilize any other sensors, it doesn't take into account those types of delays. This would could easily explain a few tenths of a second difference.
You are correct, Draggy does NOT use an accelerator-mounted switch like C&D. All the more reason why 5-60 is the better 'real-world' metric than 0-60, as it more accurately accounts for throttle/turbo/drivetrain response as well. Perhaps a more accurate name for C&D's "5-60mph" test would be "throttle-to-60mph".
IMO, a car's discrepancy between 0-60 and 5-60 is quite a valuable metric as it is a measure of how well that car responds to launch control/brake boosting, but more importantly how bad throttle and turbo lag really is (which an owner will experience in the 'real-world'). For example, a BMW M235i Gran Coupe does 0-60mph in 4.2 seconds, which is just as quick as a Lexus IS-F. However the Bimmer's 5-60 is 6.0 seconds, while the Lexus' is 4.6 seconds. So is the M235i just as quick as an IS-F? Maybe when you're using launch control, otherwise that discrepancy clearly says no.
Doesn't draggy rely entirely on GPS? That would mean it only starts the timer when the car starts moving. My understanding is that C&D starts the timer for the 5-60 runs as soon as the accelerator pedal is depressed, not when the car starts accelerating, which means things like throttle response, drivetrain lag, etc. all come into play. Since draggy doesn't utilize any other sensors, it doesn't take into account those types of delays. This would could easily explain a few tenths of a second difference.
Time starts when a switch on the floor is tripped on a fully depressed pedal, similar to flooring for an AT downshift.
Road & Track said In 2013, this magazine began performing the ingenious rolling 5-to-60 test invented by our sister magazine, Car and Driver. Originally called “Street Start,
Instead of starting the timer when the car begins to move or a foot later, the 5-to-60 testuses a pressure switch under the accelerator. The timer starts when the driver mats the pedal.
I recognize that the 5-60 test is on a matted throttle vs a measurement of a cars initial movement not throttle position.
Question is in both cases does the car accelerate as the throttle is depressed or does it not accelerate till the pedal is to the metal. If it moves as the throttle is depressed its accelerating the cars in both tests. Its accelerating one car from rest as the timer starts and accelerating the other car from 5mph before the switch is tripped.
When you are testing hundreds & tenths throttle movement is fast but not instantaneous. What is instantaneous is as soon an the pedal moves the DBW throttle position sensor start thing happing not waiting till the throttle is fully depressed.
How that sensor data is acted upon is all software which tells the rest of the system what to do. We know there are devices that speed up throttle signals a lot of guys have them here to make the TLX more "peppy" which in reality just front end load the throttle movement setting. We also know that cars with Comfort, Sport, Sport+ and Sport ++ change throttle mapping & response timing.
So back to the numbers. Does my car sit like a lump of lead till after the throttle is on the floor? Does it have any movement as the throttle come down, as the throttle hits the floor or after the throttle hits the floor as you suggested by wanting to add time to Dragy?
I posted:
Z4M40i 4.3s vs 4.5s = 2 Tenths Faster by Dragy There has been no real response to this other than maybe it should be a few tenths more because its GSP. So add a few tenths & you get Standing start 5MPH start the same.
C&D said this the spread between a full out launch & a rolling launch was .8 & .7 sec. My no LC/Brake Boost test gave away & was slower than the C&D 0-60 test by .3 & .2. You think it should give away more so its slower than 4.5sec? If you want to add to my time how much do you want to add?
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec No Rollout 4.1 Zero to 100 mph: 9.1 sec Zero to 130 mph: 15.9 sec Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.8 sec Standing ¼-mile: 12.3 sec @ 116 mph
And this
60 mph: 3.7 sec No rollout 4.0 100 mph: 9.1 sec 130 mph: 15.8 sec Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.8 sec ¼-mile: 12.2 sec @ 116 mph
You posted:
Focus RS: 4.6s vs 5.7s = 11 tenths Slower
Golf R: 4.5s vs 5.8s = 13 tenths Slower
S3: 4.4s vs 5.6s, = 12 tenths Slower
STI: 5.3s vs 7.0s = 17 tenths Slower
Evo X: 4.4s vs 6.0s = 16 tenths Slower
This whole thing is getting into a what if but the one constant I see is 4 cylinder cars seem to have a lot of trouble with the 5-60 test. The actual race shown in the Throttle House Vid pretty much supports the spread among the 3 tested 6 cylinder cars is consistent with C&D's tests.
M340 Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec 60 mph: 3.8 sec - no rollout 4.1 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 sec
MB C43AMG
Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec No rollout or 5-60 listed
Audi S4 Rollout, 1 ft: 0.2 sec 60 mph: 4.2 sec No rollout 4.4 Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.7 sec
One last wrinkle & I am out. On a standing start I can't just slam the throttle to the floor. Its fed in progressively to reduce/eliminate wheel slippage. So the car is moving before I get to WOT. Also as soon as you release the brake an AT car starts to move. Dragy uses 10ghz resolutionwith an algorithm that interpolates to 1/100th of a second.
Don't really think you can hang your hat on the button on the floor vs the first movement of a GSP system to create any worthwhile difference in time.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2021 at 11:47 AM.
You keep mentioning your Z4, but I already explained that the discrepancy between 0-60 and 5-60 is most pronounce for turbocharged AWD cars. Last I checked, the Type-S is AWD, as is it's main competitor the S4. And lest I am mistaken, your Z4 is not AWD, so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger. Perhaps rather than continuing to use your Z4 as the example (or straw man as it were), maybe you should use a car that is more similar to the Type-S. I don't know if you've driven an S4 or S5 before, but I have, and I can tell you that while it's quick, it does not feel like it's a car that's supposed to do 0-60 in 4.2s. It feels more like a car that does 0-60 north of 5 seconds. In fact, the "slower" Mustang GT feels like it pulls substantially harder than S4. And here the 5-60 numbers reveal the truth: 5.1s for the Mustang GT, 5.7s for the S4.
You keep mentioning your Z4, but I already explained that the discrepancy between 0-60 and 5-60 is most pronounce for turbocharged AWD cars. Last I checked, the Type-S is AWD, as is it's main competitor the S4. And lest I am mistaken, your Z4 is not AWD, so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger. Perhaps rather than continuing to use your Z4 as the example (or straw man as it were), maybe you should use a car that is more similar to the Type-S. I don't know if you've driven an S4 or S5 before, but I have, and I can tell you that while it's quick, it does not feel like it's a car that's supposed to do 0-60 in 4.2s. It feels more like a car that does 0-60 north of 5 seconds. In fact, the "slower" Mustang GT feels like it pulls substantially harder than S4. And here the 5-60 numbers reveal the truth: 5.1s for the Mustang GT, 5.7s for the S4.
Correct once again. The value of 5-60 is that it highlights the particularly large discrepancy from 0-60 that is seen from drivetrain losses using AWD and turbo lag.
Case in point, the G1 TLX 0-60 was 5.7 seconds for both the AWD and FWD models, but the FWD 5-60 was 0.1 seconds quicker (and a 3 mph faster trap speed).
Further, the naturally aspirated Acura vehicles (like the MDX, G1 TLX, RLX PAWS, TSX V6, G4 TL) have a 5-60 that's only 0.1 to 0.3 seconds slower than its 0-60.
While the turbocharged Acura's (like the G3 RDX, G2 TLX) have a 5-60 that's 0.4 to 0.6 seconds slower than its 0-60. Turbocharged German cars have particularly large discrepancies (the X2 M35i and M235i Gran Coupe 5-60 is nearly a full 2 seconds slower than their respective 0-60, and the Audi S5 and Mercedes CLA AMG have a 1.5 second discrepancy). But this is more of a testament to their aggressive launch control settings.
So turbocharging and AWD (and I would add launch control) are independent factors at worsening a 5-60 and 0-60 discrepancy. More reason why 5-60 is the more accurate real-world acceleration metric.
Correct once again. The value of 5-60 is that it highlights the particularly large discrepancy from 0-60 that is seen from drivetrain losses using AWD and turbo lag.
Case in point, the G1 TLX 0-60 was 5.7 seconds for both the AWD and FWD models, but the FWD 5-60 was 0.1 seconds quicker (and a 3 mph faster trap speed).
Further, the naturally aspirated Acura vehicles (like the MDX, G1 TLX, RLX PAWS, TSX V6, G4 TL) have a 5-60 that's only 0.1 to 0.3 seconds slower than its 0-60.
While the turbocharged Acura's (like the G3 RDX, G2 TLX) have a 5-60 that's 0.4 to 0.6 seconds slower than its 0-60. Turbocharged German cars have particularly large discrepancies (the X2 M35i and M235i Gran Coupe 5-60 is nearly a full 2 seconds slower than their respective 0-60, and the Audi S5 and Mercedes CLA AMG have a 1.5 second discrepancy). But this is more of a testament to their aggressive launch control settings.
So turbocharging and AWD (and I would add launch control) are independent factors at worsening a 5-60 and 0-60 discrepancy. More reason why 5-60 is the more accurate real-world acceleration metric.
I don't really agree with real world testing either, it's only showing a limitation of the turbo and that the engine needs more air/pressure to operate properly. Why not 10-60 or 20-60, based on what the transmission is doing engine rpm can be building more boost. 0-60 is a nice universal standard, what happens when you floor the pedal. That's when you also get the glorious sound of the exhaust, which can be more droney at 5-60. Not saying one is better than the other, but if a car has a bad 0-60, the 5-60 ain't gonna be any faster.
I don't really agree with real world testing either, it's only showing a limitation of the turbo and that the engine needs more air/pressure to operate properly. Why not 10-60 or 20-60, based on what the transmission is doing engine rpm can be building more boost. 0-60 is a nice universal standard, what happens when you floor the pedal. That's when you also get the glorious sound of the exhaust, which can be more droney at 5-60. Not saying one is better than the other, but if a car has a bad 0-60, the 5-60 ain't gonna be any faster.
That's the thing, 0-60 isn't just flooring the throttle, it's more like: activate launch control (if available), floor the brake with the left foot, then mash the throttle with the right foot, then release the brake with the left foot.
If anything, the process of 5-60 is more of what happens when you simply floor the accelerator.
Feeling is just so much BS. People who think they car feel a few tenths difference in a car are generally those who just stuck in a new air filter and are riding the placebo effect. That's why machines not feelings do the work. As for using a car similar to a TypeS exactly what is a Type S? The S4 is a dog in its range of cars do you want to go there for a comparison?
I use the Z4 because I can physically test it not just talk magazine spec numbers. The Z4 numbers are real. FWIW Tried it today of a flat street. If the car is in gear as the brake comes up & the car goes to 3/4mph without touching the gas. So on my test release the brake(remember you did not want any Brake Boosting) the car moves from brake release so there is little or no delay in the clock starting. The GPS clock is not being delayed as you claimed.
The Z4 is RWD The M340 is RWD. The 2021 M340 will offer AWD the only info on that is what C&D wrote "so if BMW's word holds true, a 3.5-second zero-to-60 time awaits". Noticed on some of the latest tests the 5-60 was not listed. Main difference between RWD & AWD in standing start acceleration is additional traction. An AWD Z4 would be quicker off the line than my car. At some point generally the second 1/8th mile in a quarter mile drag the additional weight will allow the RWD to pass it if the AWD has not created to much of an initial lead.
BTW the Audi is 4.2 a with a .2 rollout so the street time is 4.4. That clearly showed up in the video, car is a dog in that league. The guy driving the Audi both off the line & on a roll needed binoculars to see the M340 it was so far ahead. The whole 5-60 thing might be able to fit slower 4 cylinder cars but so far not feeling seat of the pants I can't see it on cars in the 3 second range. Its just like shaving the trunk on a 330 to make it cleaner. Or maybe so people will not think yoy bought the slow BMW.
Going back to this I don't understand what you are saying with your Z4 is not AWD,"so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger."
I don't really agree with real world testing either, it's only showing a limitation of the turbo and that the engine needs more air/pressure to operate properly. Why not 10-60 or 20-60, based on what the transmission is doing engine rpm can be building more boost. 0-60 is a nice universal standard, what happens when you floor the pedal. That's when you also get the glorious sound of the exhaust, which can be more droney at 5-60. Not saying one is better than the other, but if a car has a bad 0-60, the 5-60 ain't gonna be any faster.
How about M340i Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.1 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.6 sec
S4 TypeS stand-in
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.8 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.6 sec
TLX -Shows signs of Greatness C&D
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.7 sec
Not sure how they manage to hold top gear but thats what it says. Trying to accelerate in the second OD gear really
bilirubin That's the thing, 0-60 isn't just flooring the throttle, it's more like: activate launch control (if available), floor the brake with the left foot, then mash the throttle with the right foot, then release the brake with the left foot.
If anything, the process of 5-60 is more of what happens when you simply floor the accelerator.
Fact is I beat the 5-60 without doing all that stuff just slid off the brake & MANAGED not mashed the throttle. With strong cars mashing gives you tires spin, great noise & lots of smoke but the car does not move well. I can do 11's with a mash & short 11's on the 1/2 shift. All of the above just slows you down. Real life these cars a very quick & don't need LC or Brake/Boosting to turn in numbers better than 5-60. The 5-60 think fits 4 cylinder turbos a lot better than it does performance I6 V6 & V8's. Still trying to figure out the comments on AWD vs RWD. On the street AWD will all things being equal put a hole shot on a RWD car.
Was at the beach last few days & got some sand in it need to clean it out. Amazing device for its size. Has a magnetic area so it holds tight with no movement that would screw up the timing. Have a small ferrous metal pad in the Cobra on the console to hold it. All the interior panel's are Alloy. Have not gotten a good timing on it yet lots of traction issues with clumsy clutch & gas feet with 2.8 the best 60 run so far. 3.2 is worse. Dragy & the Cobra's GSP speedometer seem to agree within a few tenths so they are good enough for government work.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2021 at 06:52 PM.
How about M340i Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.1 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.6 sec
S4 TypeS stand-in
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.8 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.6 sec
TLX -Shows signs of Greatness C&D
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.7 sec
Not sure how they manage to hold top gear but thats what it says. Trying to accelerate in the second OD gear really
Fact is I beat the 5-60 without doing all that stuff just slid off the brake & MANAGED not mashed the throttle. With strong cars mashing gives you tires spin, great noise & lots of smoke but the car does not move well. I can do 11's with a mash & short 11's on the 1/2 shift. All of the above just slows you down. Real life these cars a very quick & don't need LC or Brake/Boosting to turn in numbers better than 5-60. The 5-60 think fits 4 cylinder turbos a lot better than it does performance I6 V6 & V8's. Still trying to figure out the comments on AWD vs RWD. On the street AWD will all things being equal put a hole shot on a RWD car.
I'm starting to lose track about what your point is. This whole discussion is about 5-60 vs 0-60, and you seem dead-set on telling everyone about how your Z4 is faster. How is that relevant? Does looking at 5-60 change anything? No, because the M340i is still faster in that regard, so what is your point exactly? You're starting to become a caricature of the joke "How do you know if you're talking to a BMW owner? You know because they won't stop talking about their BMW".
Often times you seem to bring up your Cobra and your Z4 even when there's seemingly no relevancy. One can only assume that the only reason you're doing so is to tell everyone that you have those cars...
Going back to this I don't understand what you are saying with your Z4 is not AWD,"so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger."
For someone who claims to have as much experience with cars are you do you, I don't believe for a second that you don't understand that AWD turbo cars have an inherent advantage in 0-60 times that isn't present in any other acceleration metric, especially since I even explained it earlier. At this point you're either purposely being obtuse or just plain ignorant.
I'm starting to lose track about what your point is. This whole discussion is about 5-60 vs 0-60, and you seem dead-set on telling everyone that your Z4 is faster. How is that relevant? You're starting to become a caricature of the joke "How do you know if you're talking to a BMW owner? You know because they won't stop talking about their BMW".
Often times you seem to bring up your Cobra and your Z4 even when there's seemingly no relevancy. One can only assume that the only reason you're doing so is to tell everyone that you have those cars...
Well you can always go back to racing magazine stats since they are so exciting to read. Or a TLX Type S that does not exist in the public view so you can stuff in an Audi to take it place. Then the conversation about the Focus RS, Golf R, S3, Evo X that you brought in was very simulating for 4 cylinder fans. Personally I prefer to talk about cars I have actually owned & have seen how they run in real life. Sorry if the Z4 does not fit your narrative about the 5-60 but keep on looking for cut & paste material to replace experience. How about a 2018 440 4.4 with a .3 roll out bringing the street start to 4.7 against a 5-60 of 5.0 or 3 tenths to play with. That was the 320bhp version they never tested the 355bhp version that I had. Wonder if it closed the gap?
BTW my current cars are in the signature line just like yours, no secrets there. Only thing is I did not see the need to pad it out with my old cars. Never even included my new all electric machine.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2021 at 07:21 PM.
Well you can always go back to racing magazine stats since they are so exciting to read. Or a TLX Type S that does not exist in the public view so you can stuff in an Audi to take it place. Then the conversation about the Focus RS, Golf R, S3, Evo X that you brought in was very simulating for 4 cylinder fans. Personally I prefer to talk about cars I have actually owned & have seen how they run in real life. Sorry if the Z4 does not fit your narrative about the 5-60 but keep on looking for cut & paste material to replace experience. How about a 2018 440 4.4 with a .3 roll out bringing the street start to 4.7 against a 5-60 of 5.0 or 3 tenths to play with. That was the 320bhp version they never tested the 355bhp version that I had. Wonder if it closed the gap?
What exactly doesn’t it fit about my narrative? It perfectly fits my narrative because it illustrates how an AWD turbocharged car that does 0-60 as quickly as that car will actually be slower in the quarter mile and in every other acceleration metric. My whole point is that 0-60 can be misleading and 5-60 is a better metric, so I’m not exactly sure how your Z4 disputes that at all. Which brings me to my point; why exactly even mention the Z4, if not to bring attention to the fact that you own a Z4 (as has been a common theme in many threads these days).
For someone who claims to have as much experience with cars are you do you, I don't believe for a second that you don't understand that AWD turbo cars have an inherent advantage in 0-60 times that isn't present in any other acceleration metric, especially since I even explained it earlier. At this point you're either purposely being obtuse or just plain ignorant.
"so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger."
Is that what that sentence said? Interesting who would have ever guess that AWD is better off the line. So because my car is slower off the line than AWD, which I posted a few times, "the difference will not be as larger".
What difference are you talking about and larger than what?
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2021 at 07:28 PM.
Soo I watched this video a couple of times. First time I watched I laughed in disappointment for the TLX. I've already expressed my disdain for the 2G TLX(other than the exterior). However, on my 2nd viewing, I noticed two things. 1) This was the SH-AWD TLX which for obvious reasons would win off the line, but the added weight attributes the slower rolling races. 2) Not sure why he did this, but he manually downshifted into 2nd gear using the paddles for the rolling start race. He should have left it in Sport+ mode to do its own thing. Manual paddle shifting in TLX = atrocious from what I learned in my 1G TLX. Either way though, its bad if your cheaper counterpart beats your premium model. That Sonata N Line though, Koreans kicking ass and taking names, mass kudos to that N team.
"so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger."
Is that what that sentence said? Interesting who would have ever guess that AWD is better off the line. So because my car is slower off the line than AWD, which I posted a few times, "the difference will not be as larger".
What difference are you talking about and larger than what?
You keep mentioning your Z4, but I already explained that the discrepancy between 0-60 and 5-60 is most pronounce for turbocharged AWD cars. Last I checked, the Type-S is AWD, as is it's main competitor the S4. And lest I am mistaken, your Z4 is not AWD, so of course the difference for your car will not be as larger
It seemed like the only reason you mention the Z4 is to point out how the difference between 0-60 and 5-60 for that car is not nearly as large as the difference I brought up in my examples. In response, what I said is that of course the difference between 0-60 and 5-60 for the Z4 will not be as large as for turbocharged AWD cars because it is not AWD. You seemed to want to use your car as an example to discredit my claim, and I'm saying that example is irrelevant because we're specifically talking about turbocharged AWD cars, which the Type-S will be and your Z4 is not.
Soo I watched this video a couple of times. First time I watched I laughed in disappointment for the TLX. I've already expressed my disdain for the 2G TLX(other than the exterior). However, on my 2nd viewing, I noticed two things. 1) This was the SH-AWD TLX which for obvious reasons would win off the line, but the added weight attributes the slower rolling races. 2) Not sure why he did this, but he manually downshifted into 2nd gear using the paddles for the rolling start race. He should have left it in Sport+ mode to do its own thing. Manual paddle shifting in TLX = atrocious from what I learned in my 1G TLX. Either way though, its bad if your cheaper counterpart beats your premium model. That Sonata N Line though, Koreans kicking ass and taking names, mass kudos to that N team.
If he down shifted prior to the rolling race he was raising the engines RPM to bring it into its power band & he was backing that up with additional gear multiplication right now as opposed to waiting for the computer to do a kick down a gear or two or maybe none.
In a roll race its good to be in the upper part of the power band & in the lowest gear you can use to get a jump then shift up. Hit the gas the car moves right now run a few thousand RPM & shift. You want the rpm drop on the shift not to fall out of the power band.
Helps tp know where the power is but these gets don't have the time to chart it but have enough experience to get the best general performance out of the car.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2021 at 07:52 PM.
A lot of people have blinders on with the Koreans. The Stinger GT2 and G70 Sport are such underrated vehicles and offer everything you'd expect for the price point and then some. Best part, these are vehicles with proven performance and have solid aftermarket support. By the time the Type-s does come out, almost all of it's competition will be on a refresh cycle. Once again it will be left far behind before it gets a chance to catch up.
I know what you meant, but I’m still going to clarify. Those cars are not underrated. They have won comparison tests with the Germans. What they are is a brand that most people don’t want to tell their neighbors or co-workers what they bought. The typical buyer does not care about performance. They care about the image.
It seemed like the only reason you mention the Z4 is to point out how the difference between 0-60 and 5-60 for that car is not nearly as large as the difference I brought up in my examples. In response, what I said is that of course the difference between 0-60 and 5-60 for the Z4 will not be as large as for turbocharged AWD cars because it is not AWD. You seemed to want to use your car as an example to discredit my claim, and I'm saying that example is irrelevant because we're specifically talking about turbocharged AWD cars, which the Type-S will be and your Z4 is not.
Story starts to slide from 5-60 was the real life gold standard for real life on the street car performances period. Then AWD appeared as a condition because the TypeS is AWD which also had the additional benefit of taking a quick RWD car out of play. Now its shrunk down to where it pertains to the S4/TLX Type S because they are AWD car & AWD cars cant pull any metric but off the line. BTW the Merc & BMW that ate the Audis lunch in the video are also AWD cars so it was a very fair race. No interest in matching the TypeS with one of those AWD cars?
My position has not changed It not very good at measuring fast cars & ok for slower cars. All the cars listed like the GOLF did not go into the fast car category. They went into the fast 4 cylinder category. Then careful internet searches will always turn up some puppy's like the Audi that can't get it done. They are outliers not the proof. Audi makes some fast cars but the one the run was not one of them.
This AWD car weighs 4262lb is a 4 door sedan. It runs 0-60 in 3.0 seconds, with roll out & 3.3 seconds street start its 5-60 is 3.5 seconds, Standing ¼-mile: 11.0 sec @ 130 mph. Street & 5 to 60MPH within 2/10 of a second.
This RWD car weights 3647 lb is a 2 door sports car. Zero to 60 mph: 2.8 sec with a .2 second roll out, street start 3.0 seconds Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 3.5 sec Standing ¼-mile: 11.2 sec @ 122 mph Street & 5 to 60mph within 1/2 second
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2021 at 08:53 PM.
I know what you meant, but I’m still going to clarify. Those cars are not underrated. They have won comparison tests with the Germans. What they are is a brand that most people don’t want to tell their neighbors or co-workers what they bought. The typical buyer does not care about performance. They care about the image.
Genesis is an infant and they have done so much already. They will get there it just takes time to grow your brand.
Story starts to slide from 5-60 was the real life gold standard for real life on the street car performances period. Then AWD appeared as a condition because the TypeS is AWD which also had the additional benefit of taking a quick RWD car out of play. Now its shrunk down to where it pertains to the S4/TLX Type S because they are AWD car & AWD cars cant pull any metric but off the line. BTW the Merc & BMW that ate the Audis lunch in the video are also AWD cars so it was a very fair race. No interest in matching the TypeS with one of those AWD cars?
Wow way to build up a straw man. Did I ever say all I wanted was for the Type-S to compete with the Audi? No, I specifically said if it did 5-60 in 5.1 (as someone suggested as a hypothetical), I would be happy because it would be just as fast as a Merc C43.
Originally Posted by pyrodan007
Imagine if the type-S' 0-60 time is 5.0 but it's 5-60 is 5.1, I'm pretty sure performance fans will blame the car for having slow acceleration even if the other is not bad.
Originally Posted by fiatlux
If it does 5-60 in 5.1s, regardless of 0-60, I'd be pretty happy. That would mean it should pull as hard as the C43, and harder than the S4.
What exactly are you saying I'm wrong about here? I suspect it's something that I didn't even say and something you imagined all in your head
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
This AWD car weighs 4262lb is a 4 door sedan. It runs 0-60 in 3.0 seconds, with roll out & 3.3 seconds street start its 5-60 is 3.5 seconds, Standing ¼-mile: 11.0 sec @ 130 mph. Street & 5 to 60MPH within 2/10 of a second.
This RWD car weights 3647 lb is a 2 door sports car. Zero to 60 mph: 2.8 sec with a .2 second roll out, street start 3.0 seconds Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 3.5 sec Standing ¼-mile: 11.2 sec @ 122 mph Street & 5 to 60mph within 1/2 second
Can you please add more context to your posts? What is "This AWD car" and what is "This RWD car"?
As someone that came from a BR-Z, WRX, and Accord Sport, the 0-60 times are fun to watch but not really #1 on my priority list. There are plenty of places you can get cheap HP. A Mustang GT has 460 HP for $35K. But a luxury performance sedan needs that balance of power, handling, looks, and comfort. Driving an Accord Sport and 2G TLX back to back, the Accord may be faster but the TLX is a much more engaging drive. The suspension is stiffer, the cabin is more comfortable, and the cornering is way better. You can induce power on oversteer in a TLX on a dusty surface. The double wishbone suspension, I think, also give the TLX a more solid feeling.
IMHO, Acura is trying to hit a price point. It's dangerous to get into that $50k zone because there are so many good cars there. The C43 AMG, Giulia, Stinger GT, M340i, S4, ect. I can see why they went cheap on the powerplant. I only wish Acura had gone for a quicker shifting automatic.
Often times you seem to bring up your Cobra and your Z4 even when there's seemingly no relevancy. One can only assume that the only reason you're doing so is to tell everyone that you have those cars...
Well, the BMW Z4 *IS* pretty awesome for a 2-seater. I would have a hard-time not talking about it.
If the 1965 Cobra is running , also of note. But these old Shelby's ... what I want to know ...
a. What car was that before Shelby got ahold of it (it's obviously not a Mustang)..
b. Did they use the Cobra-snake insignia back then?
And @fiatlux this discussion of Sonatas and Accords ... well, personally, not sure why those common cars are being compared to a TLX, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that would rather hear-about this new 2020 Cayenne Turbo Coupe of yours.
Just kinda dropped that into your sig and thought no-one would notice?
As someone that came from a BR-Z, WRX, and Accord Sport, the 0-60 times are fun to watch but not really #1 on my priority list. There are plenty of places you can get cheap HP. A Mustang GT has 460 HP for $35K. But a luxury performance sedan needs that balance of power, handling, looks, and comfort. Driving an Accord Sport and 2G TLX back to back, the Accord may be faster but the TLX is a much more engaging drive. The suspension is stiffer, the cabin is more comfortable, and the cornering is way better. You can induce power on oversteer in a TLX on a dusty surface. The double wishbone suspension, I think, also give the TLX a more solid feeling.
IMHO, Acura is trying to hit a price point. It's dangerous to get into that $50k zone because there are so many good cars there. The C43 AMG, Giulia, Stinger GT, M340i, S4, ect. I can see why they went cheap on the powerplant. I only wish Acura had gone for a quicker shifting automatic.
I can only speak for me, but when the TLX-S was announced and it was said that it would have its sights on the S4 and C43, I was hoping it would be cheaper than the S4 and run just as well, if not better performance figures seeing as the S4 was already out for a couple years. Unfortunately, it seems it's not going to meet those expectations. Yes, when similarly equipped, the TLX-S will be cheaper, but it's already been stated by Acura that we're looking at low to mid $50k range price tag to start. In Acura fashion, there likely won't be many high-priced options outside the different wheels with summer tires. Judging by the performance figures that the non-S models put out, it's very likely that Type-S is actually not going to be matching what even the dated S4 is doing.
In fact, looking at the Sonata N-Line performance numbers by C&D, I suspect that it's going to be within a tenth or two in 0-60, 5-60 and 1/4 times of what the Sonata N-Line is doing. Yes, overall, it will be a better driving experience and have a nicer interior, but will it be enough to justify a $20k premium over the Hyundai? I have absolutely no interest in the Sonata N-Line, but it will make the Type-S pill that much harder to swallow. If the aftermarket can do some magnificent things reliably with the TLX-S like they've done with the CTR, that will certainly help. Most people aren't going to even consider modding the vehicle though, and may very well pass on it if it's unable to best a Hyundai.
Another thing to consider is that they made the vehicle larger (ie: harder to maneuver in tight spaces), yet the rear legroom and more importantly, the trunk space falls short of its competition. With all these compromises, and the value proposition diminished, it's a tough sell ... at least in my eyes. I guess we'll see when it's finally released ...
Another thing to consider is that they made the vehicle larger (ie: harder to maneuver in tight spaces), yet the rear legroom and more importantly, the trunk space falls short of its competition.
What class do you believe the TLX is competing with? If it's the C-Class, 3 series, A4, IS, and G70, then your statement is false concerning legroom and trunk space.
What class do you believe the TLX is competing with? If it's the C-Class, 3 series, A4, IS, and G70, then your statement is false concerning legroom and trunk space.
Spoiler: it's competitive.
I stand corrected. I remember reading somewhere that the 3, C-class and A4 all had the identical trunk space. That proves to be incorrect, or I misremembered what I read. The 3-series has more, but not the C-class or A4. Only the C-class has less legroom tho. For its exterior size tho, it doesn’t translate all too well for room inside by comparison. Yes for the G70 and the IS is noticeably smaller in every way to all these vehicles. Most of the increase in length of the 2G TLX seems to have gone towards making room for the DWB.
If the 1965 Cobra is running , also of note. But these old Shelby's ... what I want to know ...
a. What car was that before Shelby got ahold of it (it's obviously not a Mustang)..
b. Did they use the Cobra-snake insignia back then?
Shelby's personal COBRA sold yesterday for $5,400,000.00 with the buyers premium he had to write a check for $6,000,000.00
All the true COBRA's were Anglo/American cars. The AC Motor Car Company Thames Ditton, Surrey UK, supplied the rolling car & Shelby installed FORD engines etc in California.
The base car was a modified AC ACE, the red car, a hand built aluminum body two seater. Yes IIRC the snake was there from day 1 there is one on the blue car. This is COBRA #1 sold for $14,000.000.00 Still had the AC face on it.
Interesting story. Shelby was a real hustler. He took his only car at the time & painted it different colors between major auto shows. Saw the original at NYCAS back in 1962 & said I would have one some day. It was painted blue for NYC as it is today in the picture. Car was right in the entrance. Life being what it is in 1967 & married living in NJ had to go with a car that had a roof & bought the first loser in the "hey little cobra" song, a 1967 StingRay 427 Tri-Power coupe. Built the COBRA to round out the set as an original is too expensive & under performance compared to the Factory Five Racing car.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-19-2021 at 09:16 AM.
For its exterior size tho, it doesn’t translate all too well for room inside by comparison. Yes for the G70 and the IS is noticeably smaller in every way to all these vehicles. Most of the increase in length of the 2G TLX seems to have gone towards making room for the DWB.
Yes, the extra length was needed to house the V6 coming in Spring. While I agree the interior dimensions don't line up well with expectations due to the external dimensions, I would frame it this way:
You're paying less than A4/C-Class/3 series pricing for A6/E-Class/5 series dimensions.
For someone in my situation that already has a bigger 2nd car, I'm getting the credit of a bigger car without paying dearly for it. Just for fun, you should check out the trunk space of the next class up and you will be further surprised!
01-16-2021, 05:08 PM
