d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Sports Coliseum > Motor Sports & Cars > My Car Before Winter Storage :(
Prev1171819202133Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 28,747
Joined: Mar 19 2007
Gold: 0.00
Dec 5 2011 09:07am
Quote (stupidkid282 @ Dec 5 2011 09:53am)
I would consider cars under 6 seconds to be fast, but that's just me.

There has to be some kind of grading system.  For me it's:

over 8 seconds= slow
6-7.9=quick
4.5-5.9=fast
4.4 and under is very fast


The 2.0T does 0-60 in 6.8, rofl. That's slower than my 2003 Saturn

Pathetic
Banned
Posts: 12,271
Joined: Sep 2 2006
Gold: Locked
Trader: Scammer
Warn: 70%
Dec 5 2011 10:44am
you guys haven't realized i don't even own a genesis?

This post was edited by Framed on Dec 5 2011 10:44am
Member
Posts: 36,937
Joined: Oct 20 2007
Gold: 48,650.00
Dec 5 2011 10:50am
Quote (Framed @ Dec 5 2011 11:44am)
you guys haven't realized i don't even own a genesis?


about three days ago.
Member
Posts: 28,747
Joined: Mar 19 2007
Gold: 0.00
Dec 5 2011 10:54am
Quote (Framed @ Dec 5 2011 11:44am)
you guys haven't realized i don't even own a genesis?


You actually do. There's plenty of pictures of it on the Genesis forum

It's got VHT on the tails, 150 dollar rims, and some 5 dollar blue split loom

You're just another poser with a riced out Hyundai. gtfo
Member
Posts: 10,572
Joined: Mar 20 2007
Gold: 4.37
Dec 5 2011 01:56pm
Quote (DarkByDesign @ Dec 5 2011 03:07pm)
The 2.0T does 0-60 in 6.8, rofl. That's slower than my 2003 Saturn

Pathetic


I know what the 2.0t is capable of.

Although, i've kept on forgetting that this thread is full of fail and that his car isn't a 3.8


I still stand by my grading system.

This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Dec 5 2011 01:57pm
Member
Posts: 17,247
Joined: Oct 19 2007
Gold: 484.02
Dec 5 2011 01:58pm
Quote (stupidkid282 @ Dec 5 2011 09:53am)
I would consider cars under 6 seconds to be fast, but that's just me.

There has to be some kind of grading system.  For me it's:

over 8 seconds= slow
6-7.9=quick
4.5-5.9=fast
4.4 and under is very fast





Fast is relevant to the person but I wouldn't use 0-60 times.


14.50+ 1/4 mile = slow

13.00-14.50 = average

12.00-13.00 = quick

11.0-12.0 = kinda fast

10.0-12.0 = fast

<10.0 = fucking fast


0-60 times are a terrible measure of acceleration for faster cars.
Member
Posts: 10,572
Joined: Mar 20 2007
Gold: 4.37
Dec 5 2011 02:06pm
Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 5 2011 07:58pm)
Fast is relevant to the person but I wouldn't use 0-60 times.


14.50+ 1/4 mile = slow

13.00-14.50 = average

12.00-13.00 = quick

11.0-12.0 = kinda fast

10.0-12.0 = fast

<10.0 = fucking fast


0-60 times are a terrible measure of acceleration for faster cars.


I'm taking a more realistic approach, and i always compare cars STOCK with no mods.
0-60 is always used to measure speed, it may not always be best, but it is always used.

also-I would never ever be dealing with a car that is under 4 seconds

This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Dec 5 2011 02:10pm
Member
Posts: 17,247
Joined: Oct 19 2007
Gold: 484.02
Dec 5 2011 02:17pm
Quote (stupidkid282 @ Dec 5 2011 03:06pm)
I'm taking a more realistic approach, and i always compare cars STOCK with no mods.
0-60 is always used to measure speed, it may not always be best, but it is always used.

also-I would never ever be dealing with a car that is under 4 seconds


It's always used by magazines... And that is why the recorded times are so inconsistent. Anything that is capable of doing 0-60mph in <6 sec on an un-prepped regular road surface would be capable of faster times on a prepped track. It's also uber consistent. That's why you see cars like the new Mustang GT and the 5th gen Camaro vary by over half a second from magazine to magazine.


Anything under 5.0 seconds is most likely spinning it's ass off on a public road. Their quoted 1/4 mile times that they use a Go-Pro for are crap as well. It needs to be on a track or it's worthless.



The only reason they even use 0-60 is because it's supposed to represent how fast you can get up to highway speed. That's fine for a minivan. For a performance car you need to allow a few gear changes and some traction. The C6 Z06 hits 60 without shifting to second gear. That's a good example of a simple advantage such a short test allows.
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Feb 8 2011
Gold: 53.30
Dec 5 2011 02:22pm
Quote (Framed @ Dec 5 2011 10:44am)
you guys haven't realized i don't even own a genesis?


Heard you bought a honda
Hows that workin for yah
Member
Posts: 10,572
Joined: Mar 20 2007
Gold: 4.37
Dec 5 2011 02:24pm
Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 5 2011 08:17pm)
It's always used by magazines... And that is why the recorded times are so inconsistent. Anything that is capable of doing 0-60mph in <6 sec on an un-prepped regular road surface would be capable of faster times on a prepped track. It's also uber consistent. That's why you see cars like the new Mustang GT and the 5th gen Camaro vary by over half a second from magazine to magazine.


Anything under 5.0 seconds is most likely spinning it's ass off on a public road. Their quoted 1/4 mile times that they use a Go-Pro for are crap as well. It needs to be on a track or it's worthless.



The only reason they even use 0-60 is because it's supposed to represent how fast you can get up to highway speed. That's fine for a minivan. For a performance car you need to allow a few gear changes and some traction. The C6 Z06 hits 60 without shifting to second gear. That's a good example of a simple advantage such a short test allows.


not everyone buys cars for the track, infact, i garuntee that most cars between 5-7 seconds never hit the track (which a lot of affordable cars fall into). Driving is something we all do. Taking it to the track is a hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand what you're saying.

This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Dec 5 2011 02:29pm
Go Back To Motor Sports & Cars Topic List
Prev1171819202133Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll