(EXPANDED FROM 2/3/2022)
The attention economy can be unforgiving, so it makes sense that auto media outlets would be aggressive in marketing their content. For example, the other day Rob Delisa submitted a comment to a previous version of this post.
I enjoy having thoughtful conversations with fellow writers, but there was one problem with Delisa’s comment: He didn’t actually engage the substance of my story and instead seemed to be narrowly focused on promoting his website.
Let’s use Delisa’s spamming attempt to expand on our discussion about vehicle acceleration. A few years ago a Jalopnik review of the Mazda MX-30 led to a comment-thread debate about how much power was adequate. Writer Ken Saito (2021) had just concluded that the electric crossover’s 0-60 time of 9.7 seconds was “hardly hot hatch quick” but “sufficient” for daily commuting.
Some commentators disagreed. For example, edv1000r (2021) wrote that when “most of the competition is doing 0-60 in 6.5 seconds 9.7 seconds is an eternity.” And stopcrazypp (2021) argued that even “a base Corolla gets 0-60 in under 8 seconds today. And even if you compare to a much cheaper EV (like a $32,000 base 40kWh Leaf) that gets under 8 seconds also. 0-62 in 9.7 is dog slow nowadays.”
Other commentators pointed out that the MX-30 was reasonably fast compared to the high-performance cars of yore.
“People will complain about a 9 sec 0-60 while ignoring the fact that the now-revered E30 318 was slower than that and the Porsche 944 was only marginally faster,” argued BigRed91 (2021).
“It’s not 1986 anymore,” countered edv1000r (2021). In buying an MX-30, one would be “spending $45k to get smoked 0-60 by a teenager in a 9 year old Honda Fit they bought with their allowance.”
What’s this conversation really about?
If Indie Auto were a “normal” automotive blog, we would follow the same path of the Jalopnik comment thread and get into the weeds about which car does better or worse in 0-60 times. Instead, let’s take a step back. Actually two large steps back — and think through our assumptions.
For starters, what is the practical significance of being able to go from zero to 60 in 9.7 seconds rather than, say, 6.5? Where in one’s actual lived experience of driving a car would a savings of 3.2 seconds make a meaningful difference? When — and how often — would one fully draw upon that acceleration?
The most important reason I might need good acceleration is when passing on two-lane country roads. It’s a safety issue. In addition, fretting about whether I could get “smoked” by a teenager is silly. Why should I care except to worry about whether the teenager’s hot dogging might lead to an unsafe situation?
We might also be skeptical about taking 0-60 times too literally. Even the Zero To 60 Times (2025) website acknowledges that this is “by no means an exact science.” For example, another entity “testing the 0 to 60 times of the same car, is almost certain to arrive at a different 0 to 60 result” because of a variety of factors.
Where did our fixation with 0-to-60 times come from?
Tom McCall was the first automotive writer to list zero-to-60 times in his road tests (Robinson, 2021). David Zipper (2024) noted that McCall’s benchmark resonated with the public because “prewar cars were often underpowered,” but that changed in the postwar years as automakers made their cars more powerful.
“At the time, relatively rapid acceleration could serve a practical purpose, since cars that picked up speed slowly could be stressful to maneuver in situations like merging onto a highway with a short on-ramp,” Zipper (2024) wrote. “But in recent decades, the utilitarian case for quicker acceleration has grown moot.” He pointed to an EPA report (2022) that noted how average 0-to-60 times for the 2021 model year was 7.7 seconds — half the average during the early 1980s (2022, p. 27).
Quicker acceleration has gone hand in hand with dramatic horsepower increases since the late-70s. This has partially offset improvement in the efficiency of gas-powered vehicles, according to the EPA (2022). In other words, our collective fixation with speed has been getting in the way of reducing greenhouse gases.
Jason Torchinsky (2024) has argued that “an 8-second-to-60 vehicle is going to be absolutely, totally fine for daily driving in almost every situation.” He also criticized MotorTrend for complaining that a Ram truck was too slow because it went from 0-to-60 in 8.1 seconds. “I don’t know what kind of collective madness we’re all saturated by when it comes to how we see 0-60 speeds, but enough already.”
Just another horsepower race along life’s highway
So why have automakers been fixating on making cars faster — with cheering on from car-buff media outlets such as MotorTrend? Because making cars more powerful has always been one of the U.S. auto industry’s biggest ways to goose sales. This is just another form of what Brooks Stevens once called “planned obsolescence” (Adamson, 2003).
The auto industry is once again trying to draw us into a “mine’s bigger than yours” competition. We saw this with the horsepower races of the late-50s and again in the late-60s. Even today, now-elderly readers of auto history websites debate with great passion which “muscle cars” from Detroit’s golden years were fastest.
Also see ‘Old Car Farts: A big health benefit of going fast’
Sociologists have long recognized that highly visible possessions can be used to announce at a distance one’s status (Simmel, 1969). This has been dubbed “conspicuous consumption” (Veblen, 1994). Michael Mayerfield Bell noted that this can become a competition whereby “one tries to keep up with the Joneses, the Joneses are trying to keep up with the neighbor on the other side, and up the line to Liberace, the Rockefellers. . . and Bill Gates” (2004, 47).
Going fast can be fun, but what does it say about people who build their sense of identity around owning the quickest car?
Why should we care if EVs are faster?
This brings us back to Rob Delisa’s comment. He noted that the “growing market of Electric Vehicles has really changed what is considered fast. Even Hybrids have an advantage over their full-gas counterparts when it comes to speed.”
Delisa’s (2025) website states that the Tesla Model X Plaid has a 0-to-60 time of only 2.5 seconds — and the Model S Plaid is only 2.1 seconds. That’s a bit faster than the Mustang GT, which “only” does 4.2 seconds.
If you take those numbers literally then EVs are indeed changing what is considered fast. However, my question is: So what? Why would anyone beyond race-car drivers use that speed? Delisa doesn’t say, presumably because his goal was more modest — to get people to click over to his website.
To which I would repeat what Torchinsky (2024) said: “enough already.”
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Adamson, Glenn; 2003. Industrial Strength Design: How Brooks Stevens Shaped Your World. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Bell, Michael Mayerfeld. 2004. An invitation to environmental sociology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
- BigRed91, 2021. Commentator in “Mazda’s Funky MX-30 EV Is High Style, High Price, Low Range.” Jalopnik. Posted 12:30 p.m., June 4.
- Delisa, Rob; 2025. “0–60 MPH Database Times: Searchable Performance Database.” Car Lease Tips. Accessed July 10.
- edv1000r, 2021. Commentator in “Mazda’s Funky MX-30 EV Is High Style, High Price, Low Range.” Jalopnik. Posted 1:08 p.m., June 4.
- EPA; 2022. The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Published in December.
- Robinson, Peter; 2021. “Who Invented 0–60 MPH? Why, It Was Tom McCahill, Of Course.” MotorTrend. Posted May 26.
- Saito, Ken; 2021. “Mazda’s Funky MX-30 EV Is High Style, High Price, Low Range.” Jalopnik. Posted June 4.
- Simmel, Georg. 1969. The metropolis and mental life. In Richard Sennett, ed., Classic essays on the culture of cities. New York: Cornell University Press: 47-60.
- stopcrazypp, 2021. Commentator in “Mazda’s Funky MX-30 EV Is High Style, High Price, Low Range.” Jalopnik. Posted 3:32 p.m., June 4.
- Torchinsky, Jason; 2024. “This Motor Trend Review Says A Truck That Goes To 60 In 8.1 Seconds Is Too Slow. No, It Isn’t.” The Autopian. Posted June 27.
- Veblen, Thorstein. 1994. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
- Zero To 60 Times; 2025. “Welcome to Zero To 60 Times.” Accessed July 10.
- Zipper, David; 2024. “How fast can a car go from 0 to 60? It really doesn’t matter.” Fast Company. Posted Aug. 1, 2024.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: BMW (1986)
Except west of the Missouri River and east of the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas, exactly where can one use a vehicle safely by driving 0-to-60 in less than three-or-four-seconds ? I recently read that the U.S. highway death-toll hit an all-time high in 2021. Even on urban and suburban streets, some drivers are emulating their “role models” from “Fast & Furious”. We do not need SUVs and F-350s that can break the land world speed records, in my dated, not-so-humble opinion.
The all-time high for motor vehicle deaths (by raw numbers) was 1972, with 54,589 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents. This was far above the 2020 number of 38,680.
The peak figure for fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (which takes into account how much people are driving, as more miles driven increases the possibility of a fatal accident) was 24.09 in 1921, the first year available for that measurement. It was 1.37 in 2020, which was above the low point – 1.08 of 2014. It has thus been increasing over the past few years, but we are nowhere near the record figure no matter how it is measured.
An increasing percentage of fatalities are bicyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. Bicyclists and pedestrians are not permitted on limited access highways, where speeds are much higher and drivers are most likely to utilize acceleration capabilities (to merge and pass vehicles). A motorcycle accident can be fatal to the operator and a passenger at 50 mph.
People expect progress in their goods and services. That is why commercials hype expanding coverage and reliability of cellular phone networks, and why an internet provider offering 2001-levels of service (remember the old dial-up tone?) today would quickly go out of business.
With vehicles, the measurements of improvement are performance, fuel efficiency and driver aids. The easiest way to measure performance is 0-60 mph, hence the emphasis by reviewers. Note, however, that this figure is not hyped in commercials on television (it may be hyped in print ads run in the “buff books” that are not read by the general public). Television commercials aimed at the general public are more likely to hype various driver aids, overall comfort, go-anywhere capabilities or even fuel economy.
As for building an identity around a fast car – that’s just one way people try to set themselves apart from the crowd. It’s no different than building a sense of identity around having traveled around the world, eating at a different fine restaurant every week, living in a custom-built home in a tony neighborhood or wearing imported suits that cost four figures (with expensive shirt, shoes, belt and tie to match).
Some people are really into cars, although my experience has been that people really into cars go for the entire experience – acceleration, handling, braking and even styling. The people who regularly read enthusiast websites or print magazines are most likely to utilize the acceleration capabilities of their vehicles.
Interestingly, much of the latest emphasis on 0-60 mph has come from proponents of electric cars, who boast about the instant power generated by an electric motor. Part of that is genuine excitement over the rush of performance. Part of it is to make electric vehicles more palatable to a skeptical crowd.
As Julie Andrews once sang, “A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.” That’s still true today.
9.7 secs is fine for any sane driver of a transport vehicle. Sure, it would be hopeless for a sports car, but the MX-30 makes no pretence at being a sports car.
I’d be more interested in whether or not it is responsive across the rev range, and if it goes up steep hills without sounding like it’s having a hernia, rather than being swayed by some puerile 0-60 marketing hype.
We’re all going stark raving bonkers – for heaven’s sake, grow up!
In 1985 my Honda Prelude 5spd. had 100 hp., weighed 2300 lb., and did 0-60 in about 10 seconds. It handled sweetly, was light and airy, comfortable, and was always great fun to drive and never seemed underpowered!
Yup. I still have a 1989 Honda Civic sedan. Not terribly fast, but it is great, good fun to zip around town.
We can get too bogged down in minutiae here.
How short a time interval can the human mind perceive? I don’t know. I think the decimals are largely irrelevant here unless you’re a race driver. From behind the wheel, could you tell the difference between 0-60 in 10 seconds or 9? Not likely. Between 10 and say 7, definitely.
But life is not made up of 0-60 sprints. They’re a useful indicator of a car’s accelerative abilities relative to other cars, but a number on paper is no substitute for a thorough test drive.
I agree that this discussion is just the current horse power war. In reality most cars have more than adequate power. The slowest car that I ever owned was a ’75 Hondamatic Civic wagon which I drove in the mid 1990’s. That car was definitely under powered and was often at a loss to merge safely onto local freeways. By comparison, my ’70 Mustang with a 250 six and auto, driven in the mid 2000’s, had no such problem. My V6 powered ’07 F150 has enough power to tow comfortably on level ground. I tested it’s limits towing a loaded car trailer over the Cuesta Grade outside Paso Robles. Like a heavily loaded big rig, it slowed to 25 mph.as it crested the summit, but it made it. By comparison, that ’70 Mustang crested that summit at 70 mph.
I have owned lots of powerful (for the times) cars, but current levels can be dangerous in inexperienced or non attentive hands. There are loads of embarrassing videos online of drivers leaving car shows in high powered new Mustangs losing control and crashing after doing burn outs. Four to five second zero to sixty times are impressive, but not really needed and that rate of acceleration can be dangerous under a lot of conditions. I recently rented a ’21 Mustang GT that has over TWICE the hp of my ’96 model. I drove it back from Southern California, and after sampling the power a couple of times, I drove the 400 miles home like a sensible human cruising at a steady 78 mph. on I-5. I was rewarded with 28 mpg. by letting the other 200 horses take a nap on the way home. When would I ever need that much power? I’m not racing people at stop lights, but unfortunately some drivers are.
Jose, your story about the Cuesta Grade reminded me of when I rather stupidly used an early-80s Subaru to tow a trailer over the Rockies. Going up those grades and watching the speedometer fall — 35, 30, 25, 20 — while the temperature gauge inched closer and closer to the red zone. I made it without blowing anything up, but I sure got lucky.
So yes, there are situations where having decent power can be a very good thing. How about if we designed “regular” vehicles for that rather than for top HP bragging rights?
Most of Stellantis’ European sales (80% perhaps?) stem from either 136 hp petrol B-segment hatchbacks and crossovers (Peugeot 208, Opel Mokka…) or from even less powerful cars such as the Fiat Panda 70 hp or the 101 hp Fiat Grande Panda.
The fastest of the aforementioned cars’ 0-60 mph time hovers in the 9 seconds region, and the rest sits at around 12-13 seconds.
The 160 hp Giulia Diesel does 0-60 in the high 7 seconds if I recall correctly and it’s already considered gargantuan by Southern European standards.
This comes to show that income and urban conditions can have a massive impact on the customers’ expectations and desires.
I don’t think we’re talking about tow vehicles here. (We ruined a couple of older V6 cars & vans pulling trailers & boats over the Grapevine one too many times before actually buying a proper tow vehicle.). Some of it is like the slippery slope: if all cars are faster, then I need to be able to keep up, especially when getting on the freeway (a common occurrence in Los Angeles & Orange Counties. I have loved my old car until I replaced it with a newer one that makes the old car seem slow and unsafe with far worse braking. I keep my cars a long time, so the change is noticeable. The tide rises all boats. It is also amazing how much more efficient and peppy those little 4 cylinder engines are today. I will admit to missing the sensory pleasure of driving a big V8 though. If I had the funds, my next car would be at least a Mercedes with the straight six engine. I have leased two electric cars, but I would never buy one (it would be like driving an old phone or computer.). As far as climate change, definitely we humans need to take action, but didn’t our planet have an ice age that eventually melted, way before human civilization was in the mix. Of course, the auto industry is slow to make changes unless required to do so. Maybe you have more research on why companies such as Mercedes and Volvo started making safety based engineering improvements so early. They were pioneers. Nowadays people complain about the rising cost of cars, cost to buy and cost to repair accident damage, but the cars are loaded with so many safety features that were considered luxuries only a few years ago. There has to be a middle ground between severe mandates for all vs. let the marketplace decide.
I also tend to keep my cars for a long time. My daily driver would likely still be a 1989 Honda Civic if my family had not inherited a 2010 Kia Rio. At first I was dismissive of the car, calling it the KiaRea. But the more I drove it, the more I realized that it was a better car in many respects even if it felt cheaper. So I finally sold the Honda.
Regarding regulations, I don’t think one has to be an apologist for them to note that CAFE standards didn’t change for years due to intense pressure from the auto industry on a succession of Republican and Democratic administrations. So while we can debate whether other kinds of mandates have been too “severe,” I think it fair to say that climate change policies have represented a grand compromise. That’s even the case with the newest ones, which switched to footprints that made it easier for the auto industry to continue selling larger vehicles.
Trump’s approach is the antithesis of a compromise — effectively unplugging CAFE standards could theoretically take us back decades. However, what’s perverse about that is it won’t in practice help the auto industry all that much because it will still need to comply with regulations in other nations. In addition, there’s simply no way that the current deregulatory approach will hold in the long run — climate change is going to get worse, and that will build public pressure for more action. No automaker is going to want to get caught flat footed when the regulatory spigot gets turned on again. So in the end, the biggest impact of gutting CAFE may be a performative exercise of “owning the libs” rather changing all that much the long-term trajectory of auto industry practices.
Great comments, especially the last sentence.