Which I don't know why.... they don't give you a 0-60 time on your track slips. The people to blame are working at magazines and putting that number in the statistics.

I personally don't care if car A is faster than car B 0-60 if car B mops car A in everything else.

 

The history of the 0-60 goes back to the idea of not "supporting" excessive speed on the streets. Furthermore, its convenient for purposes of matching up with 0-100 kph (0-62 mph) used by the metric standard so don't just blame it on the magazines.

0-60 is a mere number, just like peak hp, peak torque and 1/4 mile time. All these combined can show a true measure of a car's performance, but by themselves they can clearly mislead.

 

Distance over time is a more accurate rendering of straight line performance and how face you get to a certain MPH. One car can actually be drigin 60 faster and yet e behind another car not quite at 60 (although closing in). I would say that quarter mile times are more telling of a cars straight line speed than 0-60. Look at figures from mags. 0-60 is often close by comparison. Where you see the real difference is in the quarter mile.

 

Truth be told, if you could only get 1 number - its 1/4 mile TRAP SPEED, which would tell you the most.

1/4 mile times are still misleading as evidenced by high 13 second 1/4 mile time run by WRX's only to have a trap speed of 96 mph.

But even this by itself can be flawed, trap speeds by themselves are unable to show an inability to put power down. For example, comparing two cars that both trap at 110 mph, but one runs a 12.8 sec. and the other runs a 13.5. In reality, that would show that 1. the car that ran a 13.3 has serious issues getting a good launch but 2. from a roll, the 13.3 car actually has a good shot at beating the 12.8 sec. car because it over came the poor launch on route to accelerating to the same speed by the end of the 1/4 mile (technically had less room to accelerate once it got traction). Note, however, most of the time, a car which runs 13.3 with a 110 trap will be because they suck at driving, rather than any fault of the car.

I maintain that 0-60, 0-100, quarter-mile time, and trap speed (as well as any other singular number in which we attempt to measure performance by), all only provide a snap shot into the car's performance and only by putting them all together can you get a complete picture.

 

yes I agree that you do also have to look at the big picture and not ust one number.

 

I dont think you guys realize the point of a Porsche.

If I can afford a Porsche, Im going to buy the porsche over the Nissan...

Why? Because its a ****ing Porsche

(This is completely excluding the boxster/boxster-s)

 

The last statement completely negates everything else you said. That is probably the biggest reason against owning a porsche (too many people think just like you do). If you are buying it for name/image only you might as well save the money and get a boxster. If you are buying it for it's performance, handling, heritage, whatever then fine I can at least see a point in that.

 

who cares about straight line speed...

 

But the problem there is that the handling dynamics (not ultimate grip though) are arguably superior on the Boxster with its mid-engine layout compared to a 911.

I would honestly buy a 09 Boxster S over a 09 911 Cab. any day of the week and a 09 Cayman S over a base 911. To me, buying a non S 911, esp. a convertible, makes you a poser cause you just spent 20k extra on a car that is dynamically inferior to a Cayman S/Boxster S, especially since for the 1st time you can get a LSD with Cayman/Boxster (although only with the PDK in the U.S.) so that you can drive a "real Porsche." Of course, I'd take a 09 Carrera S over all three.

I do agree that GENERALLY speaking buying a base Boxster is for posers but from a driving feel aspect, if you want a new convertible for 50k, what else would you get (and coming up with 10k extra for the S is not an option)?
The Corvette, 350z Conv., SLK 350, and MZ4 - all outpace it in terms of acceleration, but all are dynamically inferior (you could make an argument for the MZ4 and a weaker argument for the Corvette). Note: this is a small niche, which is why I say most are posers.

On that note, I love how people buy into marketing- take the same chassis, make it marginally stiffer by making it a coupe, give it 10 more horsepower and its a great car, while the car it was based on is "lame", "gay", "worthless," "for posers," etc. Best part is that in his 1st review, Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear guy) actually preferred the Boxster over the Cayman because the handling was more playful. Porsche, you guys are geniuses.

 

once again, i repeat. judging straight line acceleration of a car by 0-60 ftmfl!

 

It will be iteresting to see direct comparisons between the two in the auto mags. I predict regardless of numbers produced even if the 370Z is better in every performance category the Porsche will win.Hell the mags said the RX-8 is better time and time again. If in my opinion the 350Z is getting beat by an RX8 in the car mags a Porsche will surely beat the 370Z in the mags as well. Regardless still fun to read even if seemingly biased.