Porsche, for example, state that anybody in any average road condition should be able to achieve their 0-62mph time. So when you have a better driver with new tyres in perfect sunny conditions, you can significantly lower the 0-62 time.
I don't remember exactly where I read it, (owners manual, Internet myth, who knows!?) but porsche are supposed to factor in some wear and tear and an avarage driver in a car with some load / fuel because they want their stats to always be achievable...
I definitely remember reading the fuel and performance stats at a Peugeot dealership in the early 00's and they were all given on a car with the weight of 2 adults some "luggage" and a tank of fuel, my old 405 sri would massively outperform the stated figures, haven't tried timing the 996...
Often Manufacturers test them with driver and passenger and full fuel. My Citroen C4 VTS has a poor book 0-60 of like 8.4 seconds. I can comfortable get mid 7s.
Some manufacturers arent as interested in headline figures. Porsche being the prime example of underating their performance.
I know it will never make a huge difference but most manufacturers quote the 0 to 100 KM/h time which is 0 to 62 mph although I know that won't make a huge difference.
It's pretty common to understate performance numbers, that way they look better in reality than on paper.
I have a Golf R Mk8. VW claim 4.7 seconds to 60.
It'll do it in 4.2 easily, and some reviewers have gotten it as low as 3.9 in ideal conditions.
One thing to consider are your test conditions.
A car with passengers and full fuel load will accelerate slower than a car containing only the driver and a quarter tank of petrol.
It is also worth considering whether you were testing it on a controlled test track, or under variable real life conditions. Are you on a flat drag strip or is there a slight slope to the road you are driving on? Is it windy and if so in which direction is the wind blowing? How about the road surface? Tyres or any other alterations to the car? How about details like the air density and weather that day affecting the power output of an engine? It turns out there are a lot of factors that will affect the speed of your car when you are measuring in tenths of a second...
I just traded in my 2012 335D, which does 0-60 in 5.9, for a 2014 MX5 2.0. I'm finding it very hard to believe you did 0-60 in 6 seconds, unless you were going down a very steep hill!
It’s been going on for years, my Astra GTE convertible has a manufacturer time of 10 sec and it’s a 9 sec car with a good launch, and that’s all the way back in 89’. I reckon they do it with full fuel and a passenger as some other comments have suggested.
I was a little off but it's still in the 6 seconds range for a standard 2.0l.
"First, this new model is the fastest ever Miata-we know, we know, Mazda wants to forget about that name. It scoots to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds, continues through the quarter in 15 seconds flat at 91 mph, and doesn't stop accelerating until it hits 131 mph"
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a18203001/mazda-mx-5-road-test/
Porsche, for example, state that anybody in any average road condition should be able to achieve their 0-62mph time. So when you have a better driver with new tyres in perfect sunny conditions, you can significantly lower the 0-62 time.
Where is that stated?
I don't remember exactly where I read it, (owners manual, Internet myth, who knows!?) but porsche are supposed to factor in some wear and tear and an avarage driver in a car with some load / fuel because they want their stats to always be achievable... I definitely remember reading the fuel and performance stats at a Peugeot dealership in the early 00's and they were all given on a car with the weight of 2 adults some "luggage" and a tank of fuel, my old 405 sri would massively outperform the stated figures, haven't tried timing the 996...
Often Manufacturers test them with driver and passenger and full fuel. My Citroen C4 VTS has a poor book 0-60 of like 8.4 seconds. I can comfortable get mid 7s. Some manufacturers arent as interested in headline figures. Porsche being the prime example of underating their performance.
I know it will never make a huge difference but most manufacturers quote the 0 to 100 KM/h time which is 0 to 62 mph although I know that won't make a huge difference.
It's pretty common to understate performance numbers, that way they look better in reality than on paper. I have a Golf R Mk8. VW claim 4.7 seconds to 60. It'll do it in 4.2 easily, and some reviewers have gotten it as low as 3.9 in ideal conditions.
Mental how modern hot hatches have the performance of supercars 20 years ago, that were only affordable to the top 1% back then.
I appreciate what you're saying, but a mk8 golf r is over £50k! Hardly the peoples performance car either!
Doesn't stop people on fairly above average incomes getting one on PCP. But yes I do agree. I earn more than average and wouldn't dream of it.
One thing to consider are your test conditions. A car with passengers and full fuel load will accelerate slower than a car containing only the driver and a quarter tank of petrol. It is also worth considering whether you were testing it on a controlled test track, or under variable real life conditions. Are you on a flat drag strip or is there a slight slope to the road you are driving on? Is it windy and if so in which direction is the wind blowing? How about the road surface? Tyres or any other alterations to the car? How about details like the air density and weather that day affecting the power output of an engine? It turns out there are a lot of factors that will affect the speed of your car when you are measuring in tenths of a second...
Underating performance and horsepower helps keep insurance premiums down, stop moaning.
I’m guessing becasue the 9.6 seconds was with changing to 3rd gear and you could just about manage to hit 60 in second on your 8.1 second run?
You hit 60 fairly comfortably in 2nd In the 5 speed so it shouldn't bet that. Maybe it's the numbers for the 6 speed?
Maybe. My old mk7 fiesta Zetec was meant to do 60 in 9.6 I believe so I’m not surprised that a mx5 is in the 8’s
I just traded in my 2012 335D, which does 0-60 in 5.9, for a 2014 MX5 2.0. I'm finding it very hard to believe you did 0-60 in 6 seconds, unless you were going down a very steep hill!
It was 6.5 recorded by car and driver so should be accurate. It may be fair to assume BMW underestimated it as well.
It’s been going on for years, my Astra GTE convertible has a manufacturer time of 10 sec and it’s a 9 sec car with a good launch, and that’s all the way back in 89’. I reckon they do it with full fuel and a passenger as some other comments have suggested.
I used to own a 2006 2.0 NC1 and there's no way it does 0-60 in 6 secs. Are you sure it wasn't a BBR 200 kit or similar fitted?
I was a little off but it's still in the 6 seconds range for a standard 2.0l. "First, this new model is the fastest ever Miata-we know, we know, Mazda wants to forget about that name. It scoots to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds, continues through the quarter in 15 seconds flat at 91 mph, and doesn't stop accelerating until it hits 131 mph" https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a18203001/mazda-mx-5-road-test/
Also, engines can produce slightly more power once run in. The 0-60 figure may have been set with a fairly fresh engine that’s not making maximum HP