Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFIT
I read the article again and it says the .5 second difference "reflected in our test results — a half-second to 60 mph" meaning that the 10.7 zero to sixty included using the paddles. As they said..."reflected in our test results" meaning they were used.
You don't realize how big of a difference that is. Using the old generic car length for every tenth puts the manual TEN car lengths ahead. That is a HUGE difference. A second is what usually seperates a base model small motor car with the more expensive, powerful sport model.
That being said, I can appreciate the handiness/simplicity of the auto and don't "hate" on it. I have an auto in my Explorer and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm just pointing out that a full second in the quarter is HUGE.
I think we can both agree that a v6 Accord is a lot faster than a Fit. Guess what...it's about a second faster than a manual Fit in the quarter.
V6 Family Sedan Comparison Test |
i still think its a bit of a stretch, even if you are going by generic car lenghts. And remember, car and driver is the only publication to have gotten those numbers. They also got 6.2 seconds for a gti one time, which made me wonder why everyone else said that the mazdaspeed 3 was 'so much quicker', when it was only at 5.8 to 6 flat. the reason was no one else got that time, only they did, meaning most people who are not car and driver=not getting that clamied 0-60.
automatics are a little harder fluctuate so extremely, hence why most everyone gets the same 0-60 with it. and for an automatic that doesn't increase weight a ton, an almost 3 second discrepancy is a pretty big deal. About 90 percent of m/t drivers WONT get those times. I guarantee it.
and im not saying that the 'supposed' quarter mile isn't huge advantage, but the fact of the matter is that 16.8's is still nothing to brag about. or worth arguing for that matter.