Best Bang for the Buck 0-60 Phenom (& daily driver)

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,147
770
126
As I was completely bored driving across Wyoming yesterday, I started thinking about what the best bang for your buck 0-60mph vehicle would be. Something that would also be a good daily driver. I set a few basic parameters to avoid emphasizing performance over everything else (i.e. a stripped fox-body Mustang with a junkyard V8, Ebay turbo, and slicks would be very quick but not a very good DD).

Parameters
2010 or newer to have some modern conveniences and creature comforts
Stock except for minimal mods: ≤ $1000 total (e.g. stickier tires, smaller pulley and tune for supercharged vehicles, meth injection, etc.)
Runs on 93 octane or lower
0-60mph: ≤ 4.5 seconds

To come up with some kind of quantifiable performance metric, I thought the easiest way would be to multiply the cost by the 0-60 time in seconds. The lowest number wins. Obviously 0-60 times are going to vary so I stuck with more popular automotive reviewers.

A few stock cars:

2013 Audi S4: 0-60 = 4.4s, Used Price = ~$23k, Performance Score = 101,300 $⋅s
2013 A8 4.0L: 0-60 = 3.9s, Used Price = ~$27k, Performance Score = 105,300 $⋅s
2013 Audi S6: 0-60 = 3.7s, Used Price = ~$30k, Performance Score = 111,000 $⋅s
2013 Audi S8: 0-60 = 3.6s, Used Price = ~$42k, Performance Score = 151,200 $⋅s

2011 BMW 335is: 0-60 = 4.6s, Used Price = ~$19k, Performance Score = 87,400 $⋅s
2011 BMW M3: 0-60 = 4.4s, Used Price = ~$27k, Performance Score = 118,800 $⋅s
2013 BMW M5: 0-60 = 3.7s, Used Price = ~$36k, Performance Score = 133,200 $⋅s
2013 BMW 650i xDrive: 0-60 = 4.2s, Used Price = ~$32k, Performance Score = 134,400 $⋅s

2010 Cadillac CTS-V: 0-60 = 3.9s, Used Price = ~$29k, Performance Score = 113,100 $⋅s

2010 Camaro SS: 0-60 = 4.6s, Used Price = ~$15k, Performance Score = 69,000 $⋅s
2016 Camaro SS: 0-60 = 3.9s, Used Price = ~$25k, Performance Score = 97,500 $⋅s

2010 Corvette Z51: 0-60 = 4.0s, Used Price = ~$24k, Performance Score = 92,000 $⋅s
2010 Corvette Grand Sport: 0-60 = 3.9s, Used Price = ~$30k, Performance Score = 117,000 $⋅s
2011 Corvette Z06: 0-60 = 3.6s, Used Price = ~$45k, Performance Score = 162,000 $⋅s

2012 Dodge Charger SRT8: 0-60 = 4.2s, Used Price = ~$23k, Performance Score = 96,600 $⋅s
2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8: 0-60 = 4.5s, Used Price = ~$22k, Performance Score = 99,000 $⋅s
2015 Dodge Challenger Hellcat: 0-60 = 3.6s, Used Price = ~$43k, Performance Score = 154,800 $⋅s

2011 Ford Mustang GT: 0-60 = 4.3s, Used Price = ~$12k, Performance Score = 51,600 $⋅s
2011 Ford Mustang GT500: 0-60 = 4.1s, Used Price =~$33k, Performance Score = 135,300 $⋅s
2013 Ford Mustang GT500: 0-60 = 3.5s, Used Price = ~$43k, Performance Score = 150,500 $⋅s

Some of the notable bang for your buck performers with a 0-60 under 4.0 seconds and reasonably priced:

2016 Camaro SS
2013 Audi S6

So what do you guys have? Any stock vehicles that should be on the list? Any vehicles where a cheap mod would lower the 0-60 appreciably?
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
Frankly I've never owned a 2010+ vehicle. I've driven more than my share and am not really sure what modern conveniences a 2010 vehicle has that, say, a 2000 does not.

Some things come to mind which most 2010 vehicles have that many 2000's (or 1990's) do not:

-Will have nested touch screen menus for adjusting volume, instead of a knob or buttons
-Will have very integrated radios (read=not easily removed), with lousy performance and outdated navigation
-Will be significantly heavier
-Will have more numb steering feel

I can't say I've ever wanted things like multi-zone climate control or keyless entry. Passengers can deal with my temperature preferences, and I don't lock my car anyway.

~

Doesn't qualify for your list due to its age, but I'm swapping a 2.4L Acura engine into my 2000 Insight. I expect mid-4s 0-60, 60+ mpg on the highway, stellar reliability, and a very usable hatch.

LHT sells an AWD Turbo version, of which they said the following:

Well, The K-Sight is a pretty nice car and we're not really drag racing it. But we have logged a couple of low 3 second 0-60 times using the Hondata K-Pro.

We have took it to some local shows as well as SEMA and have managed 57mpg without any issues.

I would think reliability and fuel economy might at least be distant considerations in a daily driven car where cost is a concern?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eng2d2

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
145
106
If 0-60 is the major metric it's a shoo in for the pony cars. Slap a nitrous kit in it, bolt on some slicks, and run 10's all day long.
 

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
135i or 335i with the N54 engine (2010 sneaks in there) -

https://www.bmwn54tuners.com/build-500hp-n54-bmw-135i-335i/

N55's would make the list too if that's all the higher you're shooting for. You've also got the often forgotten about X5M.

Interesting. 500hp for $1,500 worth of mods is impressive. I didn't know the N54 could hold that much power reliably. Is the rest of the drivetrain as strong?

At it's heart, it's a fairly robust platform and the N54's/N55's have historically been pretty substantially underrated power wise from the factory. Cooling is generally the first limiting factor you run into if you want more than a couple of pulls in a row.
 

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
N55's would make the list too if that's all the higher you're shooting for. You've also got the often forgotten about X5M.

Yeah they are very similar but in the interest of the budget restraints suggested by the OP isn't the n55 more difficult to mod? Locked ECU or something? I dont know much (obviously) but people seem to claim the n54 as legendary but not so much the 55.
 

eng2d2

Golden Member
Nov 7, 2013
1,007
38
91
Frankly I've never owned a 2010+ vehicle. I've driven more than my share and am not really sure what modern conveniences a 2010 vehicle has that, say, a 2000 does not.

Some things come to mind which most 2010 vehicles have that many 2000's (or 1990's) do not:

-Will have nested touch screen menus for adjusting volume, instead of a knob or buttons
-Will have very integrated radios (read=not easily removed), with lousy performance and outdated navigation
-Will be significantly heavier
-Will have more numb steering feel

I can't say I've ever wanted things like multi-zone climate control or keyless entry. Passengers can deal with my temperature preferences, and I don't lock my car anyway.

~

Doesn't qualify for your list due to its age, but I'm swapping a 2.4L Acura engine into my 2000 Insight. I expect mid-4s 0-60, 60+ mpg on the highway, stellar reliability, and a very usable hatch.

LHT sells an AWD Turbo version, of which they said the following:



I would think reliability and fuel economy might at least be distant considerations in a daily driven car where cost is a concern?

There is still 2010-2012 cars that doesn't have what you listed above. It just depends on the car. I do agree that 2010 is where they started integrating crap you mentioned on half of the cars. I have a 2010 toyota which I thought was the sweet spot for us. Easy to repair, has space, a/c, room, engine (old tech) transmission (auto) power windows which I dont care for but it still working. The stereo is stock integrated with no screen(thank god) only decent sound no boom boom. The headlight is so so but I like old yellow round cheap light. I hate my tpms . I love my 2010 toyota . My car now has 110k and the only service so far is oil and brake pads. Best car I ever owned. Its a boring appliance but I love it. I also have a 2006 mustang gt that has 24k miles and I hate driving it. Issues so far spark plugs snapping, water leak affecting electronics.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,147
770
126
Frankly I've never owned a 2010+ vehicle. I've driven more than my share and am not really sure what modern conveniences a 2010 vehicle has that, say, a 2000 does not.

Some things come to mind which most 2010 vehicles have that many 2000's (or 1990's) do not:

-Will have nested touch screen menus for adjusting volume, instead of a knob or buttons
-Will have very integrated radios (read=not easily removed), with lousy performance and outdated navigation
-Will be significantly heavier
-Will have more numb steering feel

I can't say I've ever wanted things like multi-zone climate control or keyless entry. Passengers can deal with my temperature preferences, and I don't lock my car anyway.

None of the newer amenities are requirements, just nice to have. I like keyless entry, I like not having to fight my wife over the climate controls, I like have integrated bluetooth, I like individual driver profiles, etc. It's hit or miss whether vehicles will have those features but it get's more likely the newer it is.

Doesn't qualify for your list due to its age, but I'm swapping a 2.4L Acura engine into my 2000 Insight. I expect mid-4s 0-60, 60+ mpg on the highway, stellar reliability, and a very usable hatch.

LHT sells an AWD Turbo version, of which they said the following:

I've had a slew of project cars over the years and, while fun, they're not the greatest DDs. Too many opportunities to be stranded if the current mod/fix doesn't get done before it's time to go to work the next day. That's one of the reasons I limited the mods to around $1k. Less to go wrong.

The LHT sounds very interesting though. I'll have to do some research.

I would think reliability and fuel economy might at least be distant considerations in a daily driven car where cost is a concern?

I totally agree with reliability. I don't want my DD breaking down all the time. As for fuel economy, I have a short commute and, after driving a Prius for 3 yrs, I finally decided enough was enough and I needed something fun. The great gas mileage wasn't worth the complete and utter lack of excitement. I'm certainly not averse to the idea though if I can have economical and fun in the same package.

If 0-60 is the major metric it's a shoo in for the pony cars. Slap a nitrous kit in it, bolt on some slicks, and run 10's all day long.

After looking at the options, I think you're right.

At it's heart, it's a fairly robust platform and the N54's/N55's have historically been pretty substantially underrated power wise from the factory. Cooling is generally the first limiting factor you run into if you want more than a couple of pulls in a row.

Never considered a BMW due to the maintenance costs but that sounds intriguing if they're that easy to make good power.

If you're cruising through Wyoming, you really only need to do 0-60 like once every few hours.

Ha! Thankfully I only have to drive through Wyoming once a year to go see family. The long boring stretch of road this year just got me thinking.
 

Dr. Detroit

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2004
8,344
790
126
0-60 rewards cars with AWD

With the HP wars where they are, 0-100 would be a better metric.
 

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
Yeah they are very similar but in the interest of the budget restraints suggested by the OP isn't the n55 more difficult to mod? Locked ECU or something? I dont know much (obviously) but people seem to claim the n54 as legendary but not so much the 55.

Not really. All the mods on your link are available in N55 form too. The stock turbo setup on the N54 is a bit more friendly to upping the boost but the N55 doesn't chew through fuel pumps.

Never considered a BMW due to the maintenance costs but that sounds intriguing if they're that easy to make good power.

A lot of modern turbo sports cars these days have a decent amount of headroom from the factory. That said, now that I've looked at the link you do need to realize that's a "paper" 500hp build posted by somebody who doesn't have a 500hp build and the cost number was using cheap parts. I'd say $2,500 would be a more reasonable number. That's also assuming you have access to E85. If you're running straight pump gas, that's more like a 400hp build.

If you're wanting track endurance out of it, you're looking at more like $6k.
 
Last edited:

HarryLui

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2001
1,518
33
91
2000 Honda Insight WITHOUT a working IMA battery 0-60 16 seconds $1500 purchase cost Performance Score = 24,000 $⋅s

I win?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yuriman

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,147
770
126
2000 Honda Insight WITHOUT a working IMA battery 0-60 16 seconds $1500 purchase cost Performance Score = 24,000 $⋅s

I win?

Lol. Creative but doesn't meet maximum 0-60 time (≤ 4.5 seconds).

What you want is a motorcycle.

A motorcycle would definitely meet the performance objective but I've never been a big fan myself. Too little material separating me from stupid drivers out there.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
Lol. Creative but doesn't meet maximum 0-60 time (≤ 4.5 seconds).



A motorcycle would definitely meet the performance objective but I've never been a big fan myself. Too little material separating me from stupid drivers out there.
You must have failed physics.
 

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
145
106
A motorcycle would definitely meet the performance objective but I've never been a big fan myself. Too little material separating me from stupid drivers out there.

Agree. Motorcycles are great in more rural settings but I gave mine up when I had to move into the city. Bikes are where it's at in the right conditions. Love em.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
2011 Mustang with a quality FI kit and wider rears + great tires is pretty epic. Actually a ton of vehicles are grip limited off the showroom floor these days.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,969
1,600
126
2011 Mustang with a quality FI kit and wider rears + great tires is pretty epic. Actually a ton of vehicles are grip limited off the showroom floor these days.
But if you're not grip limited, how do you do epic burnouts?
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,147
770
126
2011 Mustang with a quality FI kit and wider rears + great tires is pretty epic. Actually a ton of vehicles are grip limited off the showroom floor these days.

And therein lies the problem. I've been a RWD fan ever since I was a wee lad but lately the AWD vehicles have been catching my eye due to their incredible acceleration and seemingly effortless ability to hook up. I watch a lot of street racing videos and, from a dig, it seems it's almost a forgone conclusion who will win when a GTR or Model S shows up. Most of the fast AWD cars are fairly expensive to buy and/or maintain though.

C5 Z06, or $9k base model C5 with a $5k blower.

C5's are an incredible bargain and great cars. For this exercise though, I was just looking for 2010 and newer vehicles with little to no mods. Something that would be a great daily driver but also an entertaining machine when the woes of life get you down.