danglerb

I disagree, numbers are no substitute for human experience in matters of pleasure or where taste is required. Those numbers specifically depend a LOT on tires. They do offer a good start on predicting the level of performance, but outside of racing what merit does that information have?

I wouldn't be so annoyed about it, except that marketing by the numbers has messed up too many cars, or caused them not to survive. The numbers make people make poor choices, like the notion that a car two seconds faster zero to sixty automatically is superior, and automatically is more desirable.

Isn't it a little insane that in a country filled with 55 MPH speed limits, 0-60 MPH was still a dominant marketing figure?

jwbeck17

Though just to be grammatically fair, "lightning" is misspelled. Please correct before the T-shirts are printed.

Tom. M

Ah....how far we have fallen...to rely on spell check...and miss the obvious...

corrected....and if there are some grammer issues....please edit as necessary

Abby Normal

You say you disagree and then pretty much repeat what I posted.

And I really don't remember posting anything about the human experience but okay.

The figures in question (typically) are not predictions, they are supported by testing in a controlled enviroment. And while tires can change those statistics, there is still a baseline established by this type of testing.

And if you can't see the advantages outside of racing of superior braking distances, road holding capabilities and acceleration , I'm not sure what to tell you. I believe those can all relate to safety issues also.

Markmandude

I agree. There are big differences in acceleration when comparing 5 to 6 second zero to 60. Nothing beats the feeling of being pushed back in your seat. My 928 has decent acceleration, but it is not comparable to 355 rwh tq in the mustang.

I never loved the 911s like I did the 928 except for late 70's early 80's wide bodies with no whale tale. Those are sexy as hell.