Who cares about horsepower?

[VIAN]

How unfortunate that the people are fooled by horsepower. All I care about is 0-60 times and MPG.


_____Car__________0 - 60_____MPG City_____Overall Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subaru WRX _______ 5.9 ______ 19 __________ 3.22
Honda Civic Si _____ 6.7 ______ 21 __________ 3.13
Toyota Corolla______ 9 ________ 28 _________ 3.11
Infiniti G35 Sedan __ 5.5 ________ 17 _________ 3.09
Mazda 3s _________ 7.3 ________ 22 _________ 3.01

Ford Mustang ______ 5.2 _______ 15 __________ 2.88
BMW 3 Series ______ 6.3 _______ 18 __________ 2.86
Mazda 3i __________ 8.6 _______ 24 _________ 2.79
Acura TSX _________ 7 ________ 19 __________ 2.71
Ford Mustang V6 ___ 6.8 _______ 17 _________ 2.5
Saab 9-3 Sedan ____ 7.8 ______ 19 __________ 2.44
Toyota Camry I-4 __ 9.3 _______ 21 _________ 2.26


The Overall Efficiency is calculated by taking the MPG City and dividing it by the 0-60 time. The purpose is to include two ratings of efficiency into a single number that you can use to compare the overall efficiency of cars with. If you think 0-100 times are more important, or MPG Highway, use them instead.

Since the Corolla is one of the most efficient cars out there, I used it as a reference. I arbitrarily consider an Efficiency of "3" and up efficient.

 

[996GT2]

This scale's definition of "efficiency" is just plain wrong. Just because a car gets a high efficiency number does not make it cheap to run in terms of gas costs, nor does it mean that a car's engine will be able to squeeze the most miles possible from a specified amount of fuel.

For example, the McLaren F1 will do about 10-11 mpg in the city, but it can also hit 60 mph in 3.2 seconds. That gives it an "efficiency" rating of about 3.4, higher than that of a Corolla. Now, which car would cost less to fill up at the pump in real life? The Corolla, by a long shot.

Some other examples of the way this scale exaggerates the efficiency of sports cars and exotics include the Porsche 996 GT2 (15/3.6=4.17), Porsche 997 GT3 (17/3.9=4.36), Dodge Viper (12/3.6=3.33), or even Ferrari 599 (11/3.4=3.24). Now, would any of these cars be considered more efficient than a Corolla or TSX in everyday driving? Of course not.

Also, what's the point of caring about 0-60 times AND mpg when both are essentially mutually exclusive? If you drive any of the cars you listed the way that they have to be driven to get optimal 0-60 times, none will be doing better than about 10mpg...

 

[herm0016]

corvette 3.7 16 4.32

your logic is uh.... no. you are saying it burns 4.32 gallon* seconds / mile you can not use the 0 to 60 time as seconds of accel. you would have to use how many gallons of gas the car burns while accel. from 0 to 60 to get a real result.

 

[Uhtrinity]

10 ___ 65 ____ 6.5


But your scale and rationale is flawed. 0 - 60 times have nothing to do with with efficiency. You are least efficient when doing 0 - 60 in the shortest time possible. Going 0 - 60 in 15 seconds might use 30% less fuel than going 0 - 60 in 7 seconds, even though 8 more seconds passed.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
10 ___ 65 ____ 6.5


But your scale and rationale is flawed. 0 - 60 times have nothing to do with with efficiency. You are least efficient when doing 0 - 60 in the shortest time possible. Going 0 - 60 in 15 seconds might use 30% less fuel than going 0 - 60 in 7 seconds, even though 8 more seconds passed.

His logic is definitely flawed, but it's not a bad metric for efficient-funness.

Unfortunately, it will be dominated by supercars, since mpg tends to bottom out around 12-13.

 

[overst33r]

your scale favors awd which happens to be the most inefficient layout.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
This scale's definition of "efficiency" is just plain wrong. Just because a car gets a high efficiency number does not make it cheap to run in terms of gas costs, nor does it mean that a car's engine will be able to squeeze the most miles possible from a specified amount of fuel.

This scale doesn't take into consideration price. It's not supposed to measure the lowest gas usage. It's supposed to measure a certain gas mileage per 0-60 time. If you want to accelerate from 0-60 in 7 seconds. This scale will let you know which car will be more efficient. As such it is flawed in a way because the MPG City isn't directly related to a MPG rating taken if you kept doing 0-60's. But it is a good reference since all cars are tested the same. I assumed that MPG City would be indicative, only when compared with other cars, of the MPG during acceleration. Although this probably isn't true, it's the only thing I got that's close enough.

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
10 ___ 65 ____ 6.5


But your scale and rationale is flawed. 0 - 60 times have nothing to do with with efficiency. You are least efficient when doing 0 - 60 in the shortest time possible. Going 0 - 60 in 15 seconds might use 30% less fuel than going 0 - 60 in 7 seconds, even though 8 more seconds passed.

It's not gas usage efficiency. It's gas into acceleration efficiency. 0-60 makes the engine work at its max. This is constant in all cars - that the engine is at max.

It's sort of like that whole thing of who cares about horsepower, I care about horsepower to the wheels. This is scale is similar. For instance:

Car A has 230 HP
Car B has 250 HP

But Car A accelerates faster than Car B. Car A is more power efficient. This means that it's able to use the each horse more effectively. The 0-60 time is indicative of how efficient the car is when using maximum power.

Then I take MPG City of the car and divide it by the 0-60 because it's a smaller number and would produce easy to read whole numbers. City because it's more realistic of acceleration. The result is a number that is both based on the power efficiency and MPG. So it sort of describes the Overall Energy Efficiency of the car. But I do think one needs to look at all three numbers; 0-60, MPG, and Efficiency; to apply it usefully.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
10 ___ 65 ____ 6.5


But your scale and rationale is flawed. 0 - 60 times have nothing to do with with efficiency. You are least efficient when doing 0 - 60 in the shortest time possible. Going 0 - 60 in 15 seconds might use 30% less fuel than going 0 - 60 in 7 seconds, even though 8 more seconds passed.

His logic is definitely flawed, but it's not a bad metric for efficient-funness.

Unfortunately, it will be dominated by supercars, since mpg tends to bottom out around 12-13.

Super cars would dominate the scale because they have to transform more of the gas into usable power. They are also a light lighter so the car uses power more efficiently. However, take the Bugatti Veyron @ 1000hp, 3 sec 0-60, and 5.8mpg. Now the efficiency is only 1.94. This goes in with my theory that beyond the 5 second mark, you need to use more gas than usual to get even lower.

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
10 ___ 65 ____ 6.5


But your scale and rationale is flawed. 0 - 60 times have nothing to do with with efficiency. You are least efficient when doing 0 - 60 in the shortest time possible. Going 0 - 60 in 15 seconds might use 30% less fuel than going 0 - 60 in 7 seconds, even though 8 more seconds passed.

0-60 was chosen because, in general, one would be accelerating from 0-60 onto the highway. I'm sure people accelerate from 0-60 more than from 0-100. But if you do 0-100 more, then using those numbers might be better for you.

Originally posted by: mariok2006
your scale favors awd which happens to be the most inefficient layout.

It is the most inefficient layout. But maybe Subaru is just super efficient.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: mariok2006
your scale favors awd which happens to be the most inefficient layout.

Ford Fusion AWD

221 hp

17mpg city

8.5 sec 0-60

Efficiency of 2.



BMW 328xi AWD

230 hp

17 mpg city

6.9 seconds 0-60

Similar horsepower, similar MPG. Same efficiency right. Wrong.

Efficiency of 2.5.

The BMW is 25% more efficient than the Ford Fusion.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Originally posted by: mariok2006
your scale favors awd which happens to be the most inefficient layout.

Ford Fusion AWD

221 hp

17mpg city

8.5 sec 0-60

Efficiency of 2.

08 Subaru Sti

300hp

19mpg city

4.9 (4.5 is lowest i've seen) sec 0-60

Efficiency of 3.87, 4.2 if you use 4.5s

My comment above refers to AWD steam off the line which tapers off after 60.

 

[SAWYER]

Muscle/sports cars>econo cars

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: VIAN
If you want to accelerate from 0-60 in 7 seconds. This scale will let you know which car will be more efficient. As such it is flawed in a way because the MPG City isn't directly related to a MPG rating taken if you kept doing 0-60's. But it is a good reference since all cars are tested the same. I assumed that MPG City would be indicative, only when compared with other cars, of the MPG during acceleration. Although this probably isn't true, it's the only thing I got that's close enough.

Wow. Just plain wow.

City mpg is certainly not taken under the same conditions as a full-throttle 0-60 run. It's not even remotely close, let alone "close enough". Regardless of car, if you're in the middle of a wide-open 0-60 run you're looking at 3-7 mpg during the WOT run. Using the City mileage rating is horribly, horribly flawed if you're seeking to determine how efficiently fuel is being turned into acceleration.

Better to just look at lbs/hp and gear ratios.

ZV

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: VIAN
If you want to accelerate from 0-60 in 7 seconds. This scale will let you know which car will be more efficient. As such it is flawed in a way because the MPG City isn't directly related to a MPG rating taken if you kept doing 0-60's. But it is a good reference since all cars are tested the same. I assumed that MPG City would be indicative, only when compared with other cars, of the MPG during acceleration. Although this probably isn't true, it's the only thing I got that's close enough.

Wow. Just plain wow.

City mpg is certainly not taken under the same conditions as a full-throttle 0-60 run. It's not even remotely close, let alone "close enough". Regardless of car, if you're in the middle of a wide-open 0-60 run you're looking at 3-7 mpg during the WOT run. Using the City mileage rating is horribly, horribly flawed if you're seeking to determine how efficiently fuel is being turned into acceleration.

Better to just look at lbs/hp and gear ratios.

ZV

yep. my passat 1.8T gets 5mpg during WOT in 2nd gear 😀

 

[HannibalX]

OP 0-60 times and MPG have more to do with gearing than anything else.

For instance a fictional car with 200 HP and a final gear ratio of 3:55 produces 0-60 in 6 seconds and 15 mpg. Change that final gear ratio to say 2:73, this produces 0-60 times of 8 seconds and 20 mpg. The car retains the same amount of horsepower.

 

[thedarkwolf]

If you are going to bother using a mustang at least use the GT version
Mustang GT_____5.1______18_______3.53

 

[alimoalem]

Originally posted by: VIAN
0-60 was chosen because, in general, one would be accelerating from 0-60 onto the highway. I'm sure people accelerate from 0-60 more than from 0-100. But if you do 0-100 more, then using those numbers might be better for you.

Originally posted by: mariok2006
your scale favors awd which happens to be the most inefficient layout.

It is the most inefficient layout. But maybe Subaru is just super efficient.

Wooooooow. You know even less than me about cars. Please tell me you're joking. AWD allows for the car to get off the line faster cause it has more grip. as mariok2006 was saying, after 60 it doesn't matter anymore.

Let me ask you something. In every day driving, who cares about 0-60? To me, 0-60 is one of the numbers used to measure fun factor. Will you get ANY enjoyment out of flooring a Prius? I'm sure a Geo Metro will get some good numbers. Also, as someone's stated, your MPG #'s are assuming the method of measurement involved measuring the car's mileage when flooring it from 0-60 constantly. Plus, you said you'll be doing 0-60 in the city more often. Uhhh according to you, aren't you going 0-60 to end up cruising at highway speeds? In the end, your fuel usage will be more accurately estimated using highway mileage.

VIAN, do you make sense to yourself?

 

[mwmorph]

This reminds me of the hp/l theory.

Turbo cars have artificially inflated mpg numbers, flooring it at WOT and putting a turbo in boost will destroy mpg numbers.
AWD cars have artificially boosted 0-60 times. They tail off and comparatively run out of steam at the 1/4 mile.

The WRX is both which explains why it's up there. Your list will be dominated with AWD cars, boosted cars and supercars.

The Porsche 911turbo Automatic does 3.4 0-60 and 18mpg. That nets it 5.294

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
If you are going to bother using a mustang at least use the GT version
Mustang GT_____5.1______18_______3.53

You wish it was that good.

Ford Mustang V8____5.2____15____2.88

MPG value taken from directly from Ford's website.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: alimoalem

Originally posted by: VIAN
0-60 was chosen because, in general, one would be accelerating from 0-60 onto the highway. I'm sure people accelerate from 0-60 more than from 0-100. But if you do 0-100 more, then using those numbers might be better for you.

Originally posted by: mariok2006
your scale favors awd which happens to be the most inefficient layout.

It is the most inefficient layout. But maybe Subaru is just super efficient.

Wooooooow. You know even less than me about cars. Please tell me you're joking. AWD allows for the car to get off the line faster cause it has more grip. as mariok2006 was saying, after 60 it doesn't matter anymore.

Let me ask you something. In every day driving, who cares about 0-60? To me, 0-60 is one of the numbers used to measure fun factor. Will you get ANY enjoyment out of flooring a Prius? I'm sure a Geo Metro will get some good numbers. Also, as someone's stated, your MPG #'s are assuming the method of measurement involved measuring the car's mileage when flooring it from 0-60 constantly. Plus, you said you'll be doing 0-60 in the city more often. Uhhh according to you, aren't you going 0-60 to end up cruising at highway speeds? In the end, your fuel usage will be more accurately estimated using highway mileage.

VIAN, do you make sense to yourself?

I know about the grip of AWD. I love that grip. Who cares about 0-60? I do. I accelerate to highway speeds all the time before I put it into 5th gear. I also do most of my acceleration within that range. I've never driven a Prius, but any acceleration is better than none.

I thought about this mathematically. I said before, that there were no units. Maybe I'm explaining it wrong. I think my original intention was to have a number that includes MPG efficiency and power efficiency.

Adding the 0-60 time with the MPG City rating together doesn't make sense because the lower the 0-60 times, the faster the car. In this case.

Car A = 5s + 24mpg = 29
Car B = 9s + 24mpg = 33

Even though Car A has better power efficiency it gets a lower rating. Or take this case.

Car A = 5s + 30mpg = 35
Car B = 5s + 24mpg = 29

Only when the 0-60 times are the same does it produce the correct results. Multiplying them wouldn't work. Subracting...

Car A = 24mpg - 5 = 19
Car B = 24mpg - 9 = 15

That produces correct results.


Car A = 30mpg - 5 = 25
Car B = 24mpg - 5 = 19

Subtraction seems to produce correct results. But it tends to favor higher MPG too much. For instance...

____Car _________ 0 - 60 (s) _____ MPG City _____ Overall Efficiency
Toyota Corolla ______ 9 __________ 28 __________ 19
Mazda 3i ___________8.6 _________ 24 ___________ 15.4
Mazda 3s __________ 7.3 _________ 22 ___________ 14.7
Honda Civic Si ______6.7 _________ 21 ___________ 14.3
Subaru WRX ________5.9 _________ 19 ___________ 13.1
Acura TSX __________7 __________ 19 ____________ 12
BMW 3 Series _______6.3 _________ 18 ____________ 11.7
Toyota Camry I-4 ___ 9.3 _________ 21 ____________ 11.7
Infiniti G35 Sedan ___5.5 _________17 ____________11.5
Saab 9-3 Sedan _____7.8 _________ 19 ____________11.2
Ford Mustang V6 _____6.8 _________ 17 ____________10.2
Ford Mustang V8 _____5.2 _________ 15 ____________9.8

As you can see, it tends to favor MPG ratings higher. Look at the MPG ratings, they are almost all in order. It also doesn't take into consideration certain things. Look at the infiniti vs the BMW. 1MPG has a different value than an entire second in speed. Where probably anyone would think the infiniti is a better buy and generally is more efficient, this scale doesn't think so.

Now with division...

Car A = 30mpg/ 5 = 6
Car B = 24 mpg/5 = 4.8

That produces correct results..

Car A = 30mpg/ 9 = 3.33
Car B = 30mpg/5 = 4.8

Use 0-100 times if you think 0-60 are partial to AWD systems. The point remains the same. The scale is used to combine two ratings of efficiency into one number.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
If you are going to bother using a mustang at least use the GT version
Mustang GT_____5.1______18_______3.53

You wish it was that good.

Ford Mustang V8____5.2____15____2.88

MPG value taken from directly from Ford's website.

Guess Edmund.com is still using the older EPA standards.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
OP 0-60 times and MPG have more to do with gearing than anything else.

For instance a fictional car with 200 HP and a final gear ratio of 3:55 produces 0-60 in 6 seconds and 15 mpg. Change that final gear ratio to say 2:73, this produces 0-60 times of 8 seconds and 20 mpg. The car retains the same amount of horsepower.

Well, the metric is a funny one, but in his defense it does provide some compensation for different gearings on similarly-powered cars by rewarding the efficient gearings...for example, the Corvette will get a high efficiency rating relative to other cars in that class thanks to that tall 6th gear. Generally you'll lose more in efficiency than you gain in low-end acceleration by giving a car closer ratios (it's a lot easier to hold a gear for a few moments longer than it is to shift into a taller gear when you're already at the top of the transmission...compare and contrast the mileage of the Miata (low power, short gears) with the Vette). I think what the chart is trying to indicate is the performance envelope of a given power package in a car...in other words, the distance between the highest-power-production mode (full-out acceleration) and the lowest-fuel-consumption mode (low-speed efficiency driving). I think hwy MPG would make a lot more sense for this, because that measures a throttled-down engine in top gear. A better metric, however, would be an actual fuel-consumption-per-hp chart for the entire range of an engine. Pick an engine based on good efficiency in the areas you care about (low-end for economy, low-to-mid for sportier, if you want a supercar you don't care how fuel-efficient it is), slap on a transmission which is properly geared to take advantage of this, and off you go.

But maybe I'm biased because of how much my rating rocks:

Suzuki DL650 - 3.8 seconds - 50 mpg - 13.16 "efficiency"

Woohoo!

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: VIAN

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
If you are going to bother using a mustang at least use the GT version
Mustang GT_____5.1______18_______3.53

You wish it was that good.

Ford Mustang V8____5.2____15____2.88

MPG value taken from directly from Ford's website.

Guess Edmund.com is still using the older EPA standards.

The old EPA standards make more sense. Anyone who has trouble meeting those ratings clearly isn't trying. No, you can't floor it from every stoplight and expect to get the full EPA rating, does this surprise anyone?

Apparently so, otherwise they wouldn't have made the change.😉

 

[Rio Rebel]

Take the "efficiency rating" from your formula, and divide it by the number of dates you have ever had. Since you can't divide by zero, if your calculator returns an error, then you should immediately drop all efforts to define auto efficiency and buy yourself a cooler car. 😉

 

[shabby]

Thread closed due to failure!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Buy a motorcycle. Way more efficient for performance and fuel economy than any car.

BTW-The Lotus Elise would score at least a 5.2 using your formula. 😀😉

 

[rh71]

Cars have to be good looking before any other scale matters imo.

 

[zanejohnson]

ooooohhh do mine

0-60: 5.9

mpg city: 27-28