The quickest cars on earth ... 0-60 times

[Shel_B]

There are quite a few cars these days with high top speeds and very quick 0-60 times between 2 and 3 seconds. If you've never "nailed" a Plaid, you don't know what you're missing. They are QUICK!

Are there any cars with 0-60 times of under 2 seconds? Has anyone driven such a car? How does an under-two-second car feel compared to a 2.5 second car? Is the difference obvious?

 

[andrew_j]

I have been in a three second car Porsche 911 RS? and then a plaid. The plaid was a hole other level of quick felt more sudden as there was no noise or drama just intense slingshot roller coaster acceleration.

 

[MacManus99]

I've had the good fortune to have ridden in a M-S Plaid. While the acceleration from a dig was certainly impressive (and physically uncomfortable), I found myself more impressed when the driver punched it while cruising at 90 mph. I've never felt anything accelerate like that while already at speed.

 

[#18FAN]

Also truck Rivian will do it in 3.0 sec

 

[pghvolvo]

I know back in the sixties one of the most feared sleepers was the Pontiac Catalina 2+2 421 Super Duty with a four speed. 1962-1966. They'd pull 13.8 quarter miles and 3.9 second 0-60 times. Remember this was in a 4,400 pound car with skinny bias ply tires.

 

[#18FAN]

Top Fuel .4 seconds

 

[MRC01]

I've driven a Taycan Turbo S (0-60 in 2.5 secs) on the track. That's about 1 G of forward acceleration, which is near tire/traction limits, so accelerating faster that (such as under 2 seconds) is extremely rare especially in street legal cars. I've also tracked fast gasoline powered cars having 0-60 times in the 3-4 second range.

Most of the difference I felt is all in the first 2 seconds, sometimes called the "jerk" or "impulse" of the acceleration. After that, driving around the track, they feel much closer in performance since you're keeping the gasoline car in its optimal power RPM range. Also, the only cars I've driven with sub 3 second 0-60 times are electric, which are much heavier than gasoline cars. The Taycan weighs over 5000 lbs. which is almost a full ton heavier than the 911 or the 718. Even though the Taycan holds the road well in corners, you can feel all that weight in the switchbacks and transitions. The Taycan felt like driving a high performance monorail train rather than a car, much less nimble. And most of the difference in acceleration punch was at slow speeds. Overall, I found the 911 and 718 more fun and engaging to drive. What they gave up in standing start acceleration was a small price to pay for their superior lightness and agility.

 

[andrew_j]

I've had the good fortune to have ridden in a M-S Plaid. While the acceleration from a dig was certainly impressive (and physically uncomfortable), I found myself more impressed when the driver punched it while cruising at 90 mph. I've never felt anything accelerate like that while already at speed.

That is what I found more impressive also even in Model 3 performance. When you punch the acceleration at nearly any speed it responds instantly. IMHO way more useful than any ICE based vehicle acceleration.

 

[skyactiv]

What good does this car do you in traffic and do you really want to drive something like this?

 

[4WD]

339 mph in 3.8 seconds is what a funny car can do … not many road cars can do 60 in 3.8 …

 

[Inked]

Not a car and not on Earth but certainly fast as well as entertaining…….

 

[Shel_B]

What good does this car do you in traffic and do you really want to drive something like this?

View attachment 123797

There's a lot more to driving than being in traffic. On the highway passing power is very useful, as is having the juice in mountains and at high elevations. A "Camry" can only do so much. While I don't care for the steering "wheel," I do like, and find useful, the power of a Tesla.

 

[OVERKILL]

I know back in the sixties one of the most feared sleepers was the Pontiac Catalina 2+2 421 Super Duty with a four speed. 1962-1966. They'd pull 13.8 quarter miles and 3.9 second 0-60 times. Remember this was in a 4,400 pound car with skinny bias ply tires.

Those numbers don't work, lol. A 13.8 doesn't give you a 3.9 second 0-60, 3.9 seconds is well into the 12's and 0-60 is more about coming out of the hole (traction) which 60's and 70's cars were notoriously bad for due to the tires of the day. This was also reflected in 1/4 mile times, which, if you were struggling to get out of the hole and still managed to do it in 3.9 seconds, you'd be low 12's or into the 11's with a wickedly high MPH.

Looking it up, the car, at its fastest, was actually 5.4 seconds 0-60 (much more realistic):
1962 Pontiac Catalina (MT)
421ci/405hp, 4spd, 4.30, 0-60 - 5.4, 1/4 mile - 13.9 @ 107mph

Later years didn't do as well:
1964 Pontiac Catalina (MT)
421ci/370hp, 4spd, 3.42, 0-60 - 6.6, 1/4 mile - 15.7 @ 93mph

1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 (CL)
421ci/376hp, 4spd, 4.11, 0-60 - 7.2, 1/4 mile - 15.5 @ 95mph


Then we have:
1969 Dodge Charger R/T (MT)
440ci/375hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.1. 1/4 mile - 13.9 @ 101.4mph

1969 Dodge Charger 500 (HR)
426ci/425hp, 4spd, 4.10, 1/4 mile - 13.48 @ 109mph

1969 Dodge Charger 500 (CL)
426ci/425hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 5.7, 1/4 mile - 13.92 @ 104.5mph

1969 Mustang Boss 429 (HPC)
429ci/375hp, 4spd, 3.91, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.34 @ 107mph

The big HEMI's (Dodge and Ford) were definitely the highest performing stock offerings of the late 60's.

 

[earlyre]

What good does this car do you in traffic and do you really want to drive something like this?

View attachment 123797

it seems a bit like a modern interpretation of K.I.T.T.'s dash/steering yoke..

now where's the laser seatbelts?

Passive Laser Restraint System

The Passive Laser Restraint System is a harmless laser beam that helped protect Michael Knight and any passengers from the shock of sudden impacts and hard stopping, especially after Super Pursuit Mode. It is speculated that this is a primitive form of an inertial damping device. Although the...

knight-rider.fandom.com

 

[DuckRyder]

421ci/405hp, 4spd, 4.30, 0-60 - 5.4, 1/4 mile - 13.9 @ 107mph

Wonder what that was turning through the traps?

 

[MRC01]

339 mph in 3.8 seconds is what a funny car can do … not many road cars can do 60 in 3.8 …

I've done 0 to 160 in under 3 seconds. But it was off the deck of an aircraft carrier.

 

[JeffKeryk]

The "right now" torque of our Model 3 never gets old. And it's not the fast one....

 

[OVERKILL]

Wonder what that was turning through the traps?

She'd be singing!

 

[wlk]

Not a car and not on Earth but certainly fast as well as entertaining…….

GO!!!!!!

 

[Shel_B]

Looking it up, the car, at its fastest, was actually 5.4 seconds 0-60 (much more realistic):
1962 Pontiac Catalina (MT)
421ci/405hp, 4spd, 4.30, 0-60 - 5.4, 1/4 mile - 13.9 @ 107mph

Later years didn't do as well:
1964 Pontiac Catalina (MT)
421ci/370hp, 4spd, 3.42, 0-60 - 6.6, 1/4 mile - 15.7 @ 93mph

1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 (CL)
421ci/376hp, 4spd, 4.11, 0-60 - 7.2, 1/4 mile - 15.5 @ 95mph

Those were close to the exact years that I ran a few races in stock classes, and the times you posted for the Pontiac are as I remember them, albeit 60 years later.