Post-hoc interpretability methods are critical tools to explain neural-network results. Several post-hoc methods have emerged in recent years, but when applied to a given task, they produce different results, raising the question of which method is the most suitable to provide correct post-hoc interpretability. To understand the performance of each method, quantitative evaluation of interpretability methods is essential. However, currently available frameworks have several drawbacks which hinders the adoption of post-hoc interpretability methods, especially in high-risk sectors. In this work, we propose a framework with quantitative metrics to assess the performance of existing post-hoc interpretability methods in particular in time series classification. We show that several drawbacks identified in the literature are addressed, namely dependence on human judgement, retraining, and shift in the data distribution when occluding samples. We additionally design a synthetic dataset with known discriminative features and tunable complexity. The proposed methodology and quantitative metrics can be used to understand the reliability of interpretability methods results obtained in practical applications. In turn, they can be embedded within operational workflows in critical fields that require accurate interpretability results for e.g., regulatory policies.