You can ignore the last one, because it isn’t sold in The US. I think that this article originated in Canada.
Ya, but you are driving a new car. Which is nice.
Every one of these cars would crush the slowest cars from 1980! And a few would beat the high performance option for the 1980 Mustangs and Camaros! And every one of these cars would get far better mpgs than those 1980s cars, too.
A 10.5 second 0 to 60 is just fine in my area.
Unless you’re on the highway, oozing down the street should be just fine.
BTW, the 1980s 190D MB did 0 to 60 in 18.1 seconds. 
My ‘83 GTI was on the faster side at the time, 0-60 in just under 10 seconds.
That is an excellent point. Plus, in addition to being more economical, they are also safer for their occupants than cars from The Good Old Days.
That being said, when entering an expressway, at this point in my existence, I don’t want anything that is as slow as the cars featured in that article. I can still recall several white knuckle moments when I had to merge into an expressway with my Falcon or my VW Karmann Ghia. I actually avoided expressways as much as possible with those incredibly-slow cars.
The Mitsubishi is sold here as the outlander sport.
I could merge a 24 foot box truck with 10000 pounds of freight so those 10 vehicles don’t seem to be a major problem to me.
My 2023 truck stock is estimated 0-60mph is 7.7-8.2 seconds…
With my tune it should lower it to about 7.4 seconds in the Spicy ECT mode (sport tune for the trans)… And the truck is considered slow compared to other make and model trucks out there… It is still much quicker than my 2009 Vibe/Matrix 5 speed manual at about 9.1 seconds… 
Just for the record, the “official” 0-60 time for the 1960 Falcon was 17.3 seconds, but most owners considered that figure to be… let’s just say… optimistic. I much prefer the 5.5 seconds of my NX.
I’d guess my 140 gross HP (maaaybe 110 HP net) Pontiac would 0-60 in the 15-18 second range.
While lazy off the line with its 2-speed automatic, getting up to speed on an on-ramp was not too bad revving out (maybe 4000 rpm - no tach, so guessing) 1st gear. Highway speed was no problem in the 55 mph days.
All my cars have been 4-bangers, and since my mid 20s I’ve never used more than half throttle.
Who needs power?
Remember the Chevy Chevette? In 1981 you could buy one with a diesel engine.
0 to 60 mph was 21.1 seconds… but it got 55 mpg on the highway.
The 1.6 liter gas engine was 14 to 15 seconds 0 to 60 and got 30+ mpg highway.
That is basically the same as it’s 1/4 times… I think it’s 1/4 miles times was 21.48 seconds at a trap speed of 63.4 mph… 
I paid for the full WOT and the full RPM range, I’m going to use them from time to time… 
That’s Blasphemy to a car guy!!!
Who needs power over 600 HP on the street? is more like it… 
“Do you know how much gas you wasted doing that burnout?”
“Yeah, but look how much smoke we made!” 
I worked at GM with a number of folks who drove Chevettes to work. The GM discount meant you could buy one for pocket change or you could “Detroit Plan” one for 1% a month (about $25 to $30 a month) and get a new one every year. Runs the cheapest fuel and uses very little so it was a bargain commuter.
Then you give them to your kids as their first car. You could buy a decent 7-10 year old runner for about $400 or so. If they wreck them, so what! Buy another.
Because I once owned one, I decided to check the 0-60 times for the 4-cylinder Chevy Citation with manual 4-speed trans, and I found that it was13.2 seconds. While that isn’t fast by contemporary standards, it surely felt fast in comparison to my 1960 Falcon. And, I found that the Citation was rated at 84 HP.
The diesel Chevette sounds like 
% guarantee to get rear-ended on a freeway on-ramp 
