Why are Aston Martins so slow?

NathanE · 9 Apr 2007 at 14:41

Gibbo said:
Hi there

It scares me that so many people in this thread seem so impressed with quick 0-60 times.

If a car does 0-60 in say 5s but takes 15s to hit 100mph, would they still comment on it as fast? As to my I think thats not that quick, as past 100mph it will be very slow.

To myself 0-60 means very little, I am far more interested in 0-100 performance and 60-130 acceleration as that sets aside truly fast cars from the ones that are just good upto 60mph.

Hammer vs screwdriver really.

If you're on a race track with plenty of tight turns and no large straights then you will have wished you were in an Elise rather than a brutish American motorway cruiser

dirtydog · 9 Apr 2007 at 14:50

[TW]Fox said:
I actually MUCH prefer 30-70 becuase I do it very often and it's a decent measure of a cars true performance. Shame accurate 30-70 times are very hard to come by.

I must do 30-70 quite a few times a week but I cannot remember the last time I did a quick 0-60.

Yeah I take your point

As for availability of those figures, I know Autocar always used to include the 30-70 thru gears and 50-70 in 5th in their road tests (I bought their mag every week for years) but I don't know if they still do.

[huzeeee] · 9 Apr 2007 at 14:52

Not read the post, but the porshe has a turbo which means its a totally differnt engine- not a similar one at all. Plus the aston isnt a hardcore sports car, more a cruising gt car with performance in mind. Plus didnt clarkson pull away in the aston in 4th gear and then to 150mph

All in one gear thats amazing.

Gibbo · 9 Apr 2007 at 15:08

Hi there

I think people mis-understood my point.

A car with a quick 0-60 time for example is a Subaru WRX but its performance past 60mph and in-gear acceleration is rather poor. For example for it to hit 100mph they take in the region of 16s I believe. So very quick off the mark but in-gear acceleration or acceleration past speed of 60mph are not too great.

Look at some of the Honda's for example, they are 0-60mph in the region of 6.5s yet most of them hit 100mph in 16s or earlier. A classic example is the S2000, it takes 6s to hit 60mph, but reaches 100mph in 14s. To me this is clearly the quicker car over the WRX, but most would class the WRX as the quicker car because they only look at 0-60mph statistics which in reality is not used so often. When on a racetrack does 0-60 come into the equation except for the start? Its the acceleration between 40-130mph that really counts. Even on the road the acceleration that counts is 30-80mph for overtaking or just fun driving.

It does not particular matter about favouring my car or not as it can reach 60mph quite easily in sub 4.5s, its only the intial 0-30mph dash it might loose out on compared to a 4WD/AWD vehicle if it does not hook the traction so well.

How often do people do 0-60mph dash, for me its very rare in the cars I have owned as its not friendly on the cars mechanics. I can see the need for 0-60 test/data but to me 30-50mph, 50-70mph, 40-90mph, 0-100mph and 60-130mph is a far better test to show if a car is truly quick or not. There are many cars which are reasonably quick to 60mph but then die a death beyond that, with basic WRX Subaru's been a prime example. People think its quick because it can hit 60mph quick, but most Honda VTEC's would embarras a WRX on a roll from circa 40mph and a lot of the Rover Turbo's too.

Gibbo · 9 Apr 2007 at 15:20

NathanE said:
Hammer vs screwdriver really.

If you're on a race track with plenty of tight turns and no large straights then you will have wished you were in an Elise rather than a brutish American motorway cruiser

If I had a wish I would just go round the track with as many different cars as I could, including Elise and American motorway bruisers for fun factor.

dirtydog · 9 Apr 2007 at 15:32

Gibbo said:
How often do people do 0-60mph dash, for me its very rare in the cars I have owned as its not friendly on the cars mechanics.

The 0-60 figure gives people an idea of the car's acceleration from a standstill, that is all

It doesn't mean that you will try to extract this maximum acceleration on a regular basis; it is just indicative of how fast the car will feel when you pull away from a standstill - which is something that everybody does every time they drive. Say if a car can do 0-60 in 5 seconds then it would be effortless to do it in 6.5 or 7 seconds, without straining either yourself or the car.

Incidentally I just had a quick look at an old issue of Autocar and it seems that the 30-70 is broadly similar to the 0-60 time in a lot of cases.

Gibbo · 9 Apr 2007 at 15:49

dirtydog said:
The 0-60 figure gives people an idea of the car's acceleration from a standstill, that is all It doesn't mean that you will try to extract this maximum acceleration on a regular basis; it is just indicative of how fast the car will feel when you pull away from a standstill - which is something that everybody does every time they drive. Say if a car can do 0-60 in 5 seconds then it would be effortless to do it in 6.5 or 7 seconds, without straining either yourself or the car.

Incidentally I just had a quick look at an old issue of Autocar and it seems that the 30-70 is broadly similar to the 0-60 time in a lot of cases.

Hi there

Well if my 0-60 was as quick as my 30-70 the car would be damn stupidly quick. Mine takes 2.9s to accelerate from 30mph upto 70mph using 2nd gear.

dirtydog · 9 Apr 2007 at 15:55

Gibbo said:
Hi there

Well if my 0-60 was as quick as my 30-70 the car would be damn stupidly quick. Mine takes 2.9s to accelerate from 30mph upto 70mph using 2nd gear.

Your car is hardly normal though

Although I did say broadly similar and I expect your car could do 0-60 in 3.5-4 seconds if traction permitted

The figures seem to be within a second of each other most of the time, and sometimes near identical.

[TW]Fox · 9 Apr 2007 at 16:53

Gibbo said:
A car with a quick 0-60 time for example is a Subaru WRX but its performance past 60mph and in-gear acceleration is rather poor.

No, really, it isnt. Compared to your Mustang sure, but compared to the average car the performance of a WRX past 60mph is far from 'poor'.

For example for it to hit 100mph they take in the region of 16s I believe. So very quick off the mark but in-gear acceleration or acceleration past speed of 60mph are not too great.

Most people would consider 0-100 in 16 seconds fast. Especially as 2 litre saloons etc take in the order of 30 seconds to reach 100mph.

Gibbo · 9 Apr 2007 at 17:14

[TW]Fox said:
No, really, it isnt. Compared to your Mustang sure, but compared to the average car the performance of a WRX past 60mph is far from 'poor'.

Most people would consider 0-100 in 16 seconds fast. Especially as 2 litre saloons etc take in the order of 30 seconds to reach 100mph.

Hi m8

What I am trying to say is a car with a quick 0-60 is not necessary quicker than a car which might be slightly slower to 0-60.

Some cars excel in the 0-30 dash due to good off the mark traction, wheras other cars are far quicker beyond 30mph once they have got past any traction issues they may have.

30-100mph an S2000 will be quicker than an Impreza WRX, but the 0-60 on the WRX is quicker. What I am saying is don't assume a car is really quick just because it gets to 60mph quick.

Like the Aston Martin in this thread, it may take 4.8s to hit 60mph which is hardly any quicker than a WRX but I bet the Aston would leave the WRX and even an STi by several bus lengths across a mile run, even though the 0-60 stats are similar to that of a WRX and slower than an STi.

Not sure if I am getting across what I am trying to say but hopefully someone will understand.

Scrutinize · 9 Apr 2007 at 19:07

Gibbo said:
Not sure if I am getting across what I am trying to say but hopefully someone will understand.

I understand

Standard WRXs arn't that quick when you look at cars like the 182/197/Type R/LCR/Focus ST/Golf GTI and the 0-100 or 1/4 mile times its all fairly close.

Compared to normalish cars these are all quick though

0-60 is used and understood as its all most people really ever get to see or do.

Since when is 4.8 sec to 60 (Aston) actually slow though???. The difference between 4sec-5sec to 60 is pretty minimal in real life and considering the after 60 performance of these cars.

As Gibbo says how a car performs is not its standing start, especially when you look at cars like Porsche and Aston M.

Morba · 9 Apr 2007 at 19:11

Gibbo said:
Hi m8

What I am trying to say is a car with a quick 0-60 is not necessary quicker than a car which might be slightly slower to 0-60.

Some cars excel in the 0-30 dash due to good off the mark traction, wheras other cars are far quicker beyond 30mph once they have got past any traction issues they may have.

30-100mph an S2000 will be quicker than an Impreza WRX, but the 0-60 on the WRX is quicker. What I am saying is don't assume a car is really quick just because it gets to 60mph quick.

Like the Aston Martin in this thread, it may take 4.8s to hit 60mph which is hardly any quicker than a WRX but I bet the Aston would leave the WRX and even an STi by several bus lengths across a mile run, even though the 0-60 stats are similar to that of a WRX and slower than an STi.

Not sure if I am getting across what I am trying to say but hopefully someone will understand.

while i understand your points, its worth remembering that the OP is specifically talking about 0-60, so a car that does 0-60 in 6 seconds but 0-100 in 10 seconds is not quicker than a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds but 0-100 in 15 seconds.

silversurfer · 9 Apr 2007 at 19:23

0-60 is for hot hatches but its not appropriate for a proper GT car of this class.

0-100 under 10 seconds to me is a good simple definition of a supercar, the fact that this car does it in 10.5 says enough.

If you measure a car by how fast it can get from the bottom of a multi storey car park to the top then I guess this car could be called slow, but thats missing the point isnt it