Motor Mag July: XR8 Sprint vs XR6 Sprint vs SSV Redline vs Mustang GT

[arronm]

Moped . PPffftt. I will use my skateboard

[Express]

Originally Posted by kazawaki

Those times are crap,My motorcycle does 0-100 in just under 3 seconds and costs way less but I still get hopefuls in cars trying to take it on and I just shake my head and laugh in my helmet.

Most drivers wouldn’t give a rats how fast a motorbike is in comparison to a heavy sedan.

To them you may win the race but you’d rarely win the war.

[Professor Farnsworth]

The 0-100 times are above what we know the falcons can produce but in all honesty if they bothered to run a zero to sideways test, the xr8 would be bringing home all the silverware.

[Sabantien]

Originally Posted by stazza

Pffft. A journo from a car mag has about as much credibility to me as a **** talking journo on the 6 o'clock news.

Given I've seen so many of their videos where the journo is wearing a Holden/HSV tshirt while doing the tests, makes you wonder.

Not to mention the number of cliches they dribble out, you could almost predict exactly what any article is going to say before it's written, and without ever seeing the car in person. I sometimes wonder if they have.

[adz137]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Why cant they get a 12 out of the sprints ? Didn't they get 12.8 in the regular fgx xr8?

joke

Yep, Motor got a 12 out of the regular AUTO XR8 twice, once by taking off in second gear. Pretty sure both times they also recorded a 4.8 sec 0 to 100 time.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Wheres the dude on here that did 12.5 in his stocker FG XR6 turbo u telling me he would beat all these cars

wtf is going on lol

No turbo has run a 12.5 in standard trim especially using vbox timing equipment.

Comparing times from different days, different conditions etc isn't accurate.

Journo's also generally test cars with very few km on them and many engines get better after about 10000km. They also generally test with half a tank of fuel and often a passenger.

[Grom13]

The journo's that they put in these cars to test quater mile ect are usually pretty good steerers ex drivers from motor sport ect , so they know what their doing better than most. The times recorded so far aren't great but had the same results twice now. If a car can't run constant numbers unless all the planets allian ect what's the point, with claimed 358rwkw the sprint 8 should run mid to high 12's all day long even with some tyre spin ? Plenty of sprint owners out there now, need to put it down the strip and on the dyno to really see where it's at ..

[mick74GT]

Originally Posted by Sabantien

Given I've seen so many of their videos where the journo is wearing a Holden/HSV tshirt while doing the tests, makes you wonder.

Not to mention the number of cliches they dribble out, you could almost predict exactly what any article is going to say before it's written, and without ever seeing the car in person. I sometimes wonder if they have.

I agree that the times they have managed to produce here certainly are not the best but the conspiracy theory talk time and again I think is a bit far fetched..

We've seen countless comparisons like this from various testers, journos, and publications and the results always seem similar. Maybe the articles all read similar for a reason? I can't see how they could have made this latest test any more controlled?

I just can't believe that there would actually be such a conspiracy out there to discredit a brand or vehicle especially knowing this is the last hurrah anyway. There wouldn't be a point

[Tray]

Originally Posted by prydey

Journo's also generally test cars with very few km on them and many engines get better after about 10000km. They also generally test with half a tank of fuel and often a passenger.

It's gonna take me a very long time to reach 10000kms, spending 2/3's of my time in w.a. Plus I've got 2 other cars to love, only managed to get 600kms out of my sprint in 2 weeks lol

[Robos F6]

Originally Posted by Grom13

The journo's that they put in these cars to test quater mile ect are usually pretty good steerers ex drivers from motor sport ect , so they know what their doing better than most. The times recorded so far aren't great but had the same results twice now. If a car can't run constant numbers unless all the planets allian ect what's the point, with claimed 358rwkw the sprint 8 should run mid to high 12's all day long even with some tyre spin ? Plenty of sprint owners out there now, need to put it down the strip and on the dyno to really see where it's at ..

Exactly, going to have put one down the street and see how they go. A prepped drag track has crazy traction compared to the street. Comparing apples with oranges here. But as long as they are all on the same playing field.

[amiers]

As much as I would love a Falcon to be the quickest car I think we all know whatever HSV bring out next year will be the forever fastest Aus built car.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by prydey

Journo's also generally test cars with very few km on them and many engines get better after about 10000km. .

When I got my FGX XR8 it was crazy tight, and when I initially drove it I was disappointed as it was a bit meh...

It was so tight with manual that I stalled it a number of times initially.

The engine kept getting better, and at about 20,000 km it has just hit a new level of supplying sin...

I think we must remember that the Miamis are hand built and are built to tight tolerances, so take longer to provide what they are capable of.

The Commodore engines are built in Mexico and are not hand built to such tight specs, so probably are closer new to what they also will produce fully run in.

[Express]

Originally Posted by asagaai

When I got my FGX XR8 it was crazy tight, and when I initially drove it I was disappointed as it was a bit meh...

It was so tight with manual that I stalled it a number of times initially.

The engine kept getting better, and at about 20,000 km it has just hit a new level of supplying sin...

I think we must remember that the Miamis are hand built and are built to tight tolerances, so take longer to provide what they are capable of.

The Commodore engines are built in Mexico and are not hand built to such tight specs, so probably are closer new to what they also will produce fully run in.

It’s well known it takes about 10,000k for a modern LS engine to loosen up.

There is a noticeable difference in how they rev, the tuners will tell you and so will the owners.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by prydey

No turbo has run a 12.5 in standard trim especially using vbox timing equipment.

Comparing times from different days, different conditions etc isn't accurate.

Journo's also generally test cars with very few km on them and many engines get better after about 10000km. They also generally test with half a tank of fuel and often a passenger.

I believe fgpsi was probably referring to me. I got a (wheelspin free, 18 degree temp & 77 % humidity) 12.509 second timeslip at WSID with my totally stock and untuned 2009 FG XR6 T Auto. Note too that the car wasn't running light and I think that (more often than not), is the secret to getting a good time out of the blown Fords, they've got the power but they often don't have the grip.
But it's true that it would hard to get a 12.5 second Racelogic VBOX, GPS measured time out of a stock FG XR6 Turbo. My Racelogic GPS measured 400 metre time was just over 12.8 seconds (with 0-100 time in 4.62 sec).

A lot of people don't realise that a car can typically get 2 to 4 tenth faster Dragstrip measured times from shallow staging.

That said though, my XR6T clearly does at least have the power to achieve GPS measured 4.37 second 0-100 km/h and 12.57 second 400 metre times. I can confidently say that because I've used their Custom software to work out the potential times by combining data from a previous better (more heavily loaded no wheelspin) launch with the WSID data, no guesswork involved, it can tell you exactly what the car could have done with any combination.
But realistically I would have needed a pretty special tyre and WSID prepared surface combination on the night to get a 12.5 VBOX measured time (which could be a 12.2/12.3 second Dragstrip shallow stage measured time).

Interestingly, on the "Ford XR 6 Turbo.com" forum one member did post a number of 12.3 Dragstrip measured times with good tyres and only an XR8 snorkel/K&N panel filter combination fitted, and I can't see that helping by any significant amount, given the smaller size of the pipe leading out of the airbox, plus the point that my car goes no faster with the standard factory filter removed.

On your point about the journos testing two up, Wheels was doing that, but only up until around 2010 I believe (confirmed by former Wheels Deputy Editor Jesse Taylor in his EVO AUSTRALIA, FPV VS HSV article, see link below). The only other evidence of 2 up testing that I've seen is the recent Motoring.com.au test, where Marton Pettendy got a Racelogic GPS measured 2 up (plus full tank and 30 kg luggage load) 4.6 second time to 100 km/h with a no wheelspin launch, and I think this run shows us just how capable the Turbo Sprint really is. He didn't have to keep doing back to back runs to get a good time.

And I believe the main problem with the Motor tests is that they have gone to a slippery track and tried to get a good time with a light load on board, which probably meant that they had to keep trying to get a reasonable launch and the power quite likelty dropped off after the first 1 or 2 runs.
In the June issue they got a 5.07/13.14 @182.35 result out of an XR8 Sprint Auto and they gave the impression that back to back runs robbed the car of 2-3 km/h. Personally I'm not surprised that they couldn't get grip because the car only had a 1/4 tank fuel load, and I know that certainly wouldn't work with my XR6 T unless it was on an extremely high grip surface.

Even though load potentially slows a car, the blown Fords can perform very well with a full tank and some load in the boot.


http://www.evomagazine.com.au/fpv-v-hsv-stripped-bare/

[Robos F6]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I believe fgpsi was probably referring to me. I got a (wheelspin free, 18 degree temp & 77 % humidity) 12.509 second timeslip at WSID with my totally stock and untuned 2009 FG XR6 T Auto. Note too that the car wasn't running light and I think that (more often than not), is the secret to getting a good time out of the blown Fords, they've got the power but they often don't have the grip.
But it's true that it would hard to get a 12.5 second Racelogic VBOX, GPS measured time out of a stock FG XR6 Turbo. My Racelogic GPS measured 400 metre time was just over 12.8 seconds (with 0-100 time in 4.62 sec).

A lot of people don't realise that a car can typically get 2 to 4 tenth faster Dragstrip measured times from shallow staging.

That said though, my XR6T clearly does at least have the power to achieve GPS measured 4.37 second 0-100 km/h and 12.57 second 400 metre times. I can confidently say that because I've used their Custom software to work out the potential times by combining data from a previous better (more heavily loaded no wheelspin) launch with the WSID data, no guesswork involved, it can tell you exactly what the car could have done with any combination.
But realistically I would have needed a pretty special tyre and WSID prepared surface combination on the night to get a 12.5 VBOX measured time (which could be a 12.2/12.3 second Dragstrip shallow stage measured time).

Interestingly, on the "Ford XR 6 Turbo.com" forum one member did post a number of 12.3 Dragstrip measured times with good tyres and only an XR8 snorkel/K&N panel filter combination fitted, and I can't see that helping by any significant amount, given the smaller size of the pipe leading out of the airbox, plus the point that my car goes no faster with the standard factory filter removed.

On your point about the magazines testing two up, Wheels was doing that but only up until around 2010 I believe (confirmed by former Wheels Deputy Editor Jesse Taylor in his EVO AUSTRALIA FPV VS HSV article, see link below). The only other evidence of 2 up testing that I've seen is the recent Motoring.com.au test, where Marton Pettendy got a Racelogic GPS measured 2 up (plus full tank and 30 kg luggage load) 4.6 second time to 100 km/h with no launch wheelspin launch and I think this run shows us just how capable the Turbo Sprint is.
I believe the main problem with the Motor tests is that they have gone to a slippery track and tried to get a good time with a light load on board, which means they have to keep trying to get a reasonable launch and the power drops off after the first 1 or 2 runs.
In the June issue they got a 5.07/13.14 @182.35 result out of an XR8 Sprint Auto and they gave the impression that back to back runs robbed the car of 2-3 km/h. Personally I'm not surprised that they couldn't get grip because the car only had a 1/4 tank fuel load, and I know that certainly wouldn't work with my XR6 T unless it was on an extremely high grip surface.
Even though load potentially slows a car, the blown Fords can perform very well with a full tank and some load in the boot.


http://www.evomagazine.com.au/fpv-v-hsv-stripped-bare/

With all your mathematical theories , a XR6 sprint will still beat a XR6 Turbo.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Robos F6

Exactly, going to have put one down the street and see how they go. A prepped drag track has crazy traction compared to the street. Comparing apples with oranges here. But as long as they are all on the same playing field.

It's true that a very well prepared race track has great traction compared to a lot of surfaces but don't underestimate how much extra grip a blown Ford can pick up from a full fuel load and say around 20 kg's in the boot which isn't a particularly uncommon real world situation.

My GPS test gear has proved that, and if you check out 1/4 mile calculators you will see that this sort of load shouldn't hurt "potential best" 1/4 mile times and end speeds by much and in the real world the car is likely to post a much better result, as evidenced by Marton Pettendy's heavily loaded 4.6 second 0-100 time in Tasmania.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Robos F6

With all your mathematical theories , a XR6 sprint will still beat a XR6 Turbo.

Yes it certainly should and if anyone gets to test one with enough grip to use all the power it has, then I'm sure the Sprint will give a better performance than my car can manage. Also the 4.37/12.57 potential times aren't my theories, they come from an accurate Racelogic program and measured data. I'm not expecting to get those times, just saying the car clearly has the power and the Sprint should no doubt be potentially better.

Although perhaps by not as much as is suggested by the 370 kW/650Nm VS 270/533 numbers, because Ford never told us what the old Turbo's could really achieve on overboost, and also the Sprint is limited to 550 Nm in 1st gear, plus the point that an XR6 T is a bit lighter.

Keep in mind that I'm not knocking the Sprint.
It's clearly a much better car on many levels including performance.

By the way if you would like a copy of my GPS data, just PM me with an email address and I can send you the files, then you can download the free software and check my cars data for yourself.

[Robos F6]

Originally Posted by 2242100

It's true that a very well prepared race track has great traction compared to a lot of surfaces but don't underestimate how much extra grip a blown Ford can pick up from a full fuel load and say around 20 kg's in the boot which isn't a particularly uncommon real world situation.

My GPS test gear has proved that, and if you check out 1/4 mile calculators you will see that this sort of load shouldn't hurt "potential best" 1/4 mile times and end speeds by much and in the real world the car is likely to post a much better result, as evidenced by Marton Pettendy's heavily loaded 4.6 second 0-100 time in Tasmania.

Weight in the boot does help traction but to what point on the road? A prepped track you will not have any traction issues in a stocky so no use adding weight as it will slow down your ET And MPH.

[arronm]

When I line up for a drag I always tell my passenger to get in the boot

[Patty]

Originally Posted by Grom13

The journo's that they put in these cars to test quater mile ect are usually pretty good steerers ex drivers from motor sport ect , so they know what their doing better than most. The times recorded so far aren't great but had the same results twice now. If a car can't run constant numbers unless all the planets allian ect what's the point, with claimed 358rwkw the sprint 8 should run mid to high 12's all day long even with some tyre spin ? Plenty of sprint owners out there now, need to put it down the strip and on the dyno to really see where it's at ..

What!! Has there already been claims that an XR8 Sprint from the factory has dynoe'd 358rwkw?? Aren't they 345kw (at engine) from factory? Surely this is an exaggeration.

[Grom13]

Originally Posted by Patty

What!! Has there already been claims that an XR8 Sprint from the factory has dynoe'd 358rwkw?? Aren't they 345kw (at engine) from factory? Surely this is an exaggeration.

That's what motor magazine dyno'd it at but with those quater mile times I'm not buying it . Need some owners to run their cars on dyno and strip and get some real world figures ..

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by prydey

No turbo has run a 12.5 in standard trim especially using vbox timing equipment.

Comparing times from different days, different conditions etc isn't accurate.

Journo's also generally test cars with very few km on them and many engines get better after about 10000km. They also generally test with half a tank of fuel and often a passenger.

From memory MOTOR got a G6E Turbo to run a 12.5 when the FG was first released.

[pyrex]

Originally Posted by 2242100

It's true that a very well prepared race track has great traction compared to a lot of surfaces but don't underestimate how much extra grip a blown Ford can pick up from a full fuel load and say around 20 kg's in the boot which isn't a particularly uncommon real world situation.

My GPS test gear has proved that, and if you check out 1/4 mile calculators you will see that this sort of load shouldn't hurt "potential best" 1/4 mile times and end speeds by much and in the real world the car is likely to post a much better result, as evidenced by Marton Pettendy's heavily loaded 4.6 second 0-100 time in Tasmania.

I would not put much faith in that 4.6 time.
The Sprints were tested at Baskerville raceway , which has virtually no flat sections .
They would have had to use the back straight which is seriously down hill.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Robos F6

Weight in the boot does help traction but to what point on the road? A prepped track you will not have any traction issues in a stocky so no use adding weight as it will slow down your ET And MPH.

Yes I've found that weight at the back can make a big difference to a Falcon's launch ability on average road type surfaces, and as I indicated I wasn't able to use maximum stall revs at WSID (it wasn't prepped particularly well, being just a normal mid week off street Drag Racing event). Hence I got a 0-20 km/h time at least 2 tenths off the pace which affects 1/4 mile times by a similar amount.

Interestingly when I tried a few more stall revs on the next run, the car got brief wheelspin and a 3 tenths slower time.
But logically running light is best when there is enough grip to use maximum stall revs without wheelspin, however I think with an XR6 T that is often not the case.
Looking at 1/4 mile calculators I note that adding around 45 kg's to a car like a falcon should apparently only cost about 1 tenth in 1/4 time, but on the other hand I know that even a slight amount of traction loss is likely to cost a minimum of around 3 tenths.
So a full fuel tank plus a bit of weight in the boot can be very worthwhile if it allows a high stall launch without any wheelspin.
I think a lot of people don't realise that when they take everything out of the boot and run on a nearly empty tank.

But I guess that brings me back to the point about Motor. They use a Dragstrip, but unless it's prepped for them on the day they are there (which I expect would be costly) they may likely have had a pretty ordinary surface and in that context I'd say adding weight should have helped.

Keep in mind that Motoring.com (at the same track) also couldn't repeat Marton Pettendy's earlier 4.6 second 0-100 time.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by pyrex

I would not put much faith in that 4.6 time.
The Sprints were tested at Baskerville raceway , which has virtually no flat sections .
They would have had to use the back straight which is seriously down hill.

Keep in mind that only around a short 70 metres is needed for a 0-100 km/h run at this performance level, and in any case my stock XR6 T's Racelogic GPS measured (0-100 km/h) time on the 12.509 (no wheelspin) WSID run was 4.62, so obviously the more powerful Sprint should be capable of a better time on a single no wheelspin run.

[JC]

Originally Posted by kazawaki

Those times are crap,My motorcycle does 0-100 in just under 3 seconds and costs way less but I still get hopefuls in cars trying to take it on and I just shake my head and laugh in my helmet.

Really? Have you actually done it and timed it? Or is that just what a journo got?

I'd give you a go at the lights any time - just to give you a shock! I have cracked heaps of bikes off the lights and they end up zinging past (at way over posted speed limit) to try to prove a point - one guy tried 2 sets of lights in a row but got done both times (to 80) and ended up giving me a thumbs up as he roared off into the distance.

[mr_xlr8]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuOESYSAR_g

Thats me last night at eastern creek in my 2011 GTP auto. Stock tune. Intercooled by KPM. 12.7 the other 4 runs 12.6 flat 1.9sec 60foot everytime...next to me is a LSA clubbie who couldn't break a 12. Went 13.1 in the video...motor eat a dick.

[rjk74]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvb4H5LCm0
Try putting 155kg in the boot, that'll work.

[mr_xlr8]

http://www.torquestats.com/modified/...bmit=Calculate

Entered my times in there at 12.7 and 450 bhp and spat out 4.8 0-60mph which is inline with my previous measurements

[JC]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

http://www.torquestats.com/modified/...bmit=Calculate

Entered my times in there at 12.7 and 450 bhp and spat out 4.8 0-60mph which is inline with my previous measurements

Thanks for that. Seems reasonably accurate. My GTE's best 1/4 mile in March was:

RWD - 590bhp & 2017kg
Power to Weight: 297 bhp/ton
0-60: 4.4
0-100: 9.0
60-100: 4.6
1/4 Mile ET: 12.32
1/4 Mile Terminal: 123
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile ET: 12.12
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile Terminal: 127

(my actual ET was 12.127 @ 119mph, weight @ 4437lb)