Well, compared to the 1980 Ford Mustang Cobra the Prius is 0.1 second slower 0-60. That's right. They will both greatly exceed the highest posted speed limit.
Having more than a trifle experience drag racing bugs I beg to differ. Any car with at least good tires put bugs away like fly paper.
Again, having owned a 1980 Mustang Cobra and a Prius C I differ immensely. My Stang cracked 8 sseconds easily and the Prius C has a hard time breaking 10.
Acceleration is a problem only if you make it a problem. Don't know about you but driving a 660 hp McLaren in traffic is a lot more fun than driving the Prissy but then 10 mpg isn't . The Prissy is as good a gofer car as ever invented. And tho I've had my Prissy on track to demostrate the improvement in handling with a few showroom stock racing tricks the Prissy can be very entertaining but 100 mph on the back straight vs 155 is pretty dull.
"1980 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 11.2 " -- Ford 0-60 Times & Ford Quarter Mile Times | Ford Cobra 5.0 Mustang, 2012 Focus, Fiesta, F250, Ford GT, 2013 Taurus SHO, GT500 0-60, and Classic Ford 0 to 60 stats!
Because 1st gear is only good until 10 mph... so yeah... duh... that has been said already... but man that 1st gear is strong.
Here's a site that lists the factory specs. The 2.3L Turbo is rated at 9.4 seconds, the 4.2L V-8 at 12.4 seconds.
The ref you gave covers EU and Asustraian vehicles. The 4.2L is not US; even my 5.0 79 Indy Pace car had 180 hp before we nascared it to 320. my '80 as C&D said took 8.2 seconds 0-60.
Huh? It says this right on the page: Specs of Ford Mustang Cobra 2.3L Turbo, model year 1980, version for North America U.S.
It isn't what? It isn't a mustang? It isn't as fast as the website says? It's faster than the website says... context.
The reason CR has more realistic acceleration times is simply because they start with engine at idle and mash the throttle; most car mags wind the engine up to 3 or 4 thousand rpm and drop the clutch or release the brake pedal. Drag race starts with tires spinning are not of much value because of the variations in traction, pavement, and the like so if you truly want to evaluate a vehicle's acceleration check the 60 mph to 100 times. Or the 60 to 1/4 mile times if 100 is a stretch (like Prius C). The Priuc is slow by comparison with most cars but on the other hand most cars aren't driven like they are on track so the Prius C does just fine. PS if the 60 to 100 is 10 sec or so it is at least above average; super cars get down to 5 secs or less. And if its 60 to 1/4 mile note the speed at the quasrter-mile post; its not unusual for many small cars to take 10 sec from 60 to 80 mph. Fast cars take 6 seconds or less to rack up greater than 100 mph. Acceleration in traffic is much a matter of timing rather than actual acceleration rate and of course distance perception. Even Prissys, working traffic properly, can get ahead of even super cars.
Size doesn't matter... truly. If you are ignorant enough about your abilities to get "run over" then you will have the same problem when you are in a SUV. Remember, there is always something bigger out there.
i'm thinking if an f-350 rear ends a smart car, that smart car is going to move - i'm going to go out on a limb and say that it will move more than an f-350 being rear ended by a smart car; that leads me to believe that size does matter.
Ok, we can play the if game... "if" an Australian Road Train rear ends a F-350 the F-350 is going to move. I'm just saying that if you don't know how to drive, it doesn't matter what you drive. But thanks for being specific and not reading the post.
i understand your point now; i agree w it to a certain extent. but the fact is that some cars are safer than others, and size (in addition to other factors) does matter.
