Why are cars slower 5-60 than 0-60?

Joined
31 July 2001
Messages
5,194
Location
Boston, MA
I've been meaning to ask this now for years. All car mags list 0-60 and 5-60 times. I can't understand why universally 5-60 is ALWAYS slower than 0-60. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
It should depend on the car. It's traction, it's torque, etc.

Something like an STi, or EVO has much more traction than power. They can redline it and drop the clutch and LAUNCH the car.

Something like an Integra Type-R has no torque or traction, and therefore it's 5-60 should be quicker than it's 0-60.
 
It should depend on the car. It's traction, it's torque, etc.

Something like an STi, or EVO has much more traction than power. They can redline it and drop the clutch and LAUNCH the car.

Something like an Integra Type-R has no torque or traction, and therefore it's 5-60 should be quicker than it's 0-60.

Not really.


Think about it this way: What are your RPM's at 5mph? Now you have to accelerate thru the WHOLE RPM band.

Even a car with marginal traction can "launch" better by simply getting the RPM's up and getting a little tire spin....you'll get to 60 a lot quicker.
 
What about rolling at 5mph and dropping the clutch like a regular launch? Wouldn't that help?

Yeah, but that's not how they test 5-60 or any other rolling acceleration tests. That's the point of them: to test how much passing power you have while already rolling, in gear without a clutch-drop.
 
5-60 mph is a "street"/real life test of the flexibility of an engine. Chances are that you aren't going to launch on the street but rather start out slow, then punch it.

As others have said, at that point, you're at a certain RPM and you're stuck with it. From a launch, you can start the car in optimum conditions and keep it in (or closer) to its high-power RPM range. I've never heard of a car (travelling horizontally, at least :D ) that got to 60 mph slower by launching from a dead stop as opposed to a rolling start of 5mph.
 
Yeah, but that's not how they test 5-60 or any other rolling acceleration tests. That's the point of them: to test how much passing power you have while already rolling, in gear without a clutch-drop.

Yeah, I know.... I was just thinking if for some reason you need the extra hop from a slow roll, I'd probably consider doing a quick clutch slip?
 
Want to see a real difference, try a no torque S2000 from 5 mph, the time is MUCH slower, torque will really come into play here for 5mph.

Some cars do not hit peak torque until about 6000 rpms or more, like the S2000, big difference in times, much slower from 5mph..
 
Amen to that. My S2000 is a dog from a 5mph punch. Sure, it'll beat a Civic (barely) but there are quite a few cars that are quicker from a 5mph punch. You'd be surprised how close a Civic is from that kind of a race...
 
Amen to that. My S2000 is a dog from a 5mph punch. Sure, it'll beat a Civic (barely) but there are quite a few cars that are quicker from a 5mph punch. You'd be surprised how close a Civic is from that kind of a race...

............... there is a VERY broad range of civics. from an automatic 1.5 liter 85 civic, to some pimped out civic, ive smoked many many MANY s2000's in my civic days:tongue:



but a 5-60 mph test if done for the average world(aka soccer mom etc.) than they would be rolling in first gear and punch it,

but for a few people(myself and whoever) i am very intune with my driving, i have pushed the clutch in in a split second spun up the motor, dropped the clutch a few times to get out of a sticky cituation,

just fyi: dont randomly try that in a nsx in traffic for the first time, rwd is alot different than fwd in the scenario,



i just call my driving "defensive" :tongue:
thats the excuse i use when im smoking the tires doing a uturn with traffic coming, the car turns alot fast:biggrin:
 
One you launch one, one you don't. That's it. 0-5 takes maybe a 3rd of a second after you launch and your engine is producing power in its powerband instead of barely above idle.
 
Back
Top