WikiProject Automobiles	(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)	AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Cars portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Started page 2 Added to catagory automobiles 3 Reasons for deleting table. 4 GT500 5 Request for comment 5.1 Statement by Thernlund 5.2 Statement by Dgies 5.3 Statement by Wilfw 5.4 Statement by Petershank 6 Its funny 6.1 Took out all duplicates 7 RPCV8 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Request to add a superior 0-60 and quartmile time external link 8 Evo X 9 Inclusion of drag racing 10 History of 0-60 Wrong 11 History and default system

[edit] Started page

Speeddemonvegas 07:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added to catagory automobiles

also added lotus. Speeddemonvegas 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I added Ferrari and cobalt supercharged to list. 68.224.14.81 05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for deleting table.

I've deleted the table that listed a selection of cars' 0-60 times for a number of reasons

• Heavy US bias
• Concerns about advertising
• Incompletability of table -- It would come down to the same as List of cars if it were to be finished

tommylommykins 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The table is not mearly a list of cars, it is a list of the fastest cars in the US market at a given price.

No bias toward advertising example is given, and the cars of are different manufacture. More vehicles are foreign then domestic. Your act amounts to vandalism. 68.224.14.81 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to take part in a flame war, however I do feel that the stringent criteria for including cars to te list are wrong:

• because American magazines are listed as the only possible sources, only American readers of certain magazines (also inadvertantly creating advertising material) to add material.
  • Therefore only cars in the american market to be included; A US magazine would not have so much incentive to write about a European or Asian car
  • The magazines only have a certain size, not every car on the market can be included, thereby creating a bias to the more profitable car compannies, who may pay to have their cars written about
• Only 'new' cars may be included:
  • Most cars are old, therefore the list forbids the entry of most cars
  • The definition of 'new' is unclear, all cars were new once; what if a model was not superceded by an updated model?
• The sorting by price has nothing to do with 0-60 times; By sorting cars into the best for their price, they are highlighting which are better or worse in that respect: This is, In my opinion advertising, although not deliberate.

Finally, There is an overall concern that the table does not enhance the readers knowlege of a 0 - 60 value. I believe it does not.

tommylommykins 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GT500

Sorry, but the GT500 is quicker to 60 mph than 4.5s That's an old number. I'll find you guys a new one from a real car mag CJ DUB 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

RfC request added at technology RfC page. My views have been stated earlier on in the talk page. tommylommykins 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Thernlund

That table looks absolutely terrible. I'd be inclined to remove it based just on that. However, I'll also say that I don't think price has anything to do with the subject of the aricle. IF a table of cars and their 0 - 60 times were to be added, it should include a broad range of cars (all the way from a Honda Civic to a Lotus Espirit), and should have only average times WITH references. A simple two column table, if any.

But again, I'd ice that current table in a heartbeat if there wasn't an in-progress debate (which, according to the history, Tommylommykins did... rightfully in my opinion). It looks like crap. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

what is average? define it? The table has referenced times. I suspect you are infact the same as user Tommmylommykins. 68.224.14.81 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... no. I'm not the same user. Can't imagine how you came to that.

When I say average, I generally mean a published source that is NOT a single magazine issue. Several published times from different sources should be averaged together. But hey, I do recognize that a single magazine issue might be the only available source. So long as it's sourced I guess. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dgies

The table as previously included is essentially trivia. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and this table was full of detail only of interest to sport car enthusiasts. There is also no criteria for which sports cars should be included in the table, so it would grow to include every sports car and few if any general-use vehicles.

The sort of table which would be of interest to a general audience would only list the car model, possibly the engine type, and the 0-60 time, but it would list a wide variety of vehicles, from economy cars, mainstream sedans, minivans, SUVs, and tractor-trailers, in addition to some of the more notable sports cars. —Dgies^t c 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Wilfw

A table of 0-60mph times would - I believe - be best suited to its own page, or as an addition to other articles about cars.

What could be useful would be just a few examples of 0-60mph times, but not in a table form. From the current article, the reader has no real idea of the time taken for 0-60mph except for "It is usually less than Quarter mile time". Personally, as an outsider looking at this article, I don't find that very helpful. Times such as the fastest 0-60mph car, and perhaps what a more common time would be for a 'consumer' type car, as in-line text. Wilfw 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Petershank

I agree with Dgies and Wilfw. The article is about the concept. A few typical examples, from cars in 4 or 5 categories, would help put it in context, but I don't need or want a list here. Make another good article such as Cost/Performance Comparison of Street Cars, etc.

[edit] Its funny

Instead of editing why not just make your own table on the same page and reference your sources. You dont like what the table says? Scared of the facts? Fine list all the 0 to 60 times yourself in a seperate table on the same page, but the tables relivence stands. Mymazdatribute 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a speedy deletion tag to the duplicate of the table on this page you created at Lowest_0_to_60_acceleration_for_a_given_price_for_vehicles_sold_in_the_USA.. The discussion over the table ought to be centralised at this page. tommylommykins 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Took out all duplicates

now only fastest vehicles 0 to 60 by price remain, the table is more accurate now 68.224.14.81 08:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPCV8 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Request to add a superior 0-60 and quartmile time external link

I believe www.autolounge.net/misc/specs.html has a far superior table of 0-60 and quarter mile times than what is linked and posted on the wiki page itself. I edited the link in, but it was removed. This is my first time contributing to the site and don't quite understand the reason. So I guess I will just ask again. The current link has hardly over 300 entires where as my proposed has a considerable amount more (didn't bother to count). Furthermore, my link provides alot more data in relation to 0-60 time. What RPM the horsepower and torque peaks occur at and so on. The current link has advertisements as well as money related issues as one of its primary display features. Thanks.

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote autolounge.net. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, mentioning as you have done here, be patient and let a neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. discontinue adding the link yourself, and add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. see Advertising and conflicts of interest guidelines.--Hu12 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is completely fine. If autolounge.net is not a good source in your opinion than might I recommend www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html. In my opinion the current link is blatently inappropriate for this article. As stated by others before, there are advertisements, the content is quite limited to only supercars, and many of the table columns involve pricing of the automobile which has absolutely no relation to 0-60 time. I understand trying to prevent someone from advertising their own site, I don't understand the diehard promotion of a clearly inappropriate link. Either autolounge.net or albeedigital's website both provide a MUCH better and broader source of 0-60 information. Obviously I believe autolounge.net seems to provide the best information since it appears to include a large number of vehicles also included in albeedigitals site as well as other pertenant information that would effect 0-60 time. In either case, the current link needs to go. There are many superior datatables out there, link whatever you see fit. Also, for the record. I don't maintain that website, I merely stumbled upon it and found it a good source of information. Your actions are questionable-- RPCV8

[edit] Evo X

That wasn't a primary source and didn't have any citations. I've seen times ranging from 4.5 to 5.5 seconds in various Evo X previews. Also, the European, Japanese, and American models will each have slightly different torque and horsepower. I would suggest including it once a reputable source tests a production model.

Also, if this is limited to (mass?) production cars, others would have to come out such as the SSC Aero. Maybe the article should state somewhere that it's only for production cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.88 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Evo X could do with a better source. It is already released in the Japanese/New Zealand markets so there may be a better source out there to get a time from already.

As for the cars that are on the list, its tricky to know which ones are best to have on there. If you read the comments further up this page, people have suggested just having a few times in the article throughout the text. This could be a good idea to prevent the list becoming far to long and to prevent arguments over which cars should or should not be in there.Cstubbies (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found this List of fastest cars by acceleration maybe a link to this list could be placed in the article with a few times being used inline aswell.Cstubbies (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of drag racing

0-60 mph times are not a form of drag racing. Although they both include driving cars from a standing start as quickly as possible, thats where the simmarlarities end. A quote from the opening blurb of the drag racing article "Drag racing is a sport in which cars or motorcycles race down a track with a set distance as fast as possible." 0-60mph times are not measured over a set distance. In this article it is written "This performance testing is related to drag racing, which is an acceleration from a standing start over a measured distance to determine the fastest time and top terminal speed" Again this is not over a set distance and does not measure the top terminal speed. Unless anyone disagrees I will delete this sentence from the article Cstubbies (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course 0 to 60 mph is not the same as organized drag racing, but the idea of having a vehicle accelerate from a standing start is common to both and measures performance. Zero to 60 mph measures the time it takes to reach a specific speed and drag racing calculates both the speed and time to cover over a specific distance. Therefore, it is worthy to mention the relationship between these two. There is no reason to delete a explanation and link that may help those readers that may be interested in this topic. This type of linking is common practice within Wikipedia.

I am not sure what you mean by "Again this is not over a set distance and does not measure the top terminal speed" ... since the drag racing article explains that "standing start ... over a measured distance" and "Two separate performances are monitored for each run: elapsed time (e.t.) and speed." Obviously the most common form of drag racing takes place not during sanctioned events, but everyday at traffic lights. Drivers try to beat the vehicles standing in the other lanes when the light changes to green.

Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the inclusion of a sentence or paragraph stating drag racing and other forms of measuring a cars performance, such as 0-100-0, or setting a specific time around a certain track? Having a sentence in this article explaining what drag racing is seems like it is going off the topic to me. Cheers Cstubbies (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of 0-60 Wrong

The statement,

It became popular as a measure of acceleration necessary to reach cruising speed when the United States national speed limit was still 55 miles per hour (89 km/h).

is flat-out wrong, as anyone old enough to remember will verify. I have removed it. (The 0-60 measure was popular long before the U.S. had a national speed limit, which did not occur until the early 70s.)--Tedd (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History and default system

The way it was explained to me is that it started with 0 to 100km/h way back when 100km/h was like a special magic number. Back then 0 to 62mph became the US counterpart, but for convince and slightly better numbers it was later rounded down to 60mph. Unfortunately old & buried people don't make for good citations. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about the topic can point out one (citation) or clarify this.

Back to the point. It just seems wrong that mph is the primary unit (breaking the Wikipedia:Manual of Style) and that 0_to_100km/h redirects here (0_to_60_mph) and not the other way around. Especially if metric one isn't just the dominantly used one, but also historically older as well.--130.208.247.2 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)