Final FPV sparks kilowatt controversy (GT-F vs GTS)

[stazza]

In his first post blownvn says he is laughing at the conspiracy theories etc... but then hints at the possibility of Ford tinkering with the GTF when they stalled Wheels and SM before getting Motor to publish it's results.

But hey, don't question this guy, he pushes in faces. Badass!

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Yep, I reckon they removed the ECU's torque protection for 'motoring' test. I think there's more to it than different day, different dyno. The timing was suggestive too.

Even with different dynos cars don't just jump 37kw and 150Nm overnight.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. I've said my piece.

in other words. you don't know.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by stazza

In his first post blownvn says he is laughing at the conspiracy theories etc... but then hints at the possibility of Ford tinkering with the GTF when they stalled Wheels and SM before getting Motor to publish it's results.

But hey, don't question this guy, he pushes in faces. Badass!

GOLD!!!

[duaned]

Originally Posted by prydey

so why are you accusing Ford of fiddling with the car for the 'motoring' test?? perhaps its just the fact that its a different day and different dyno?

Did you not read his response into the torque results? SM's dyno test at VCM showed the limiting of torque on the Miami as per the factory specifications. Motoring's dyno test showed otherwise.
Bottom line is if both cars are unmolested and are tested on the same dyno at the same time (one after the other) then how can these results be argued?

Some of you are carrying on like little kids in a lolly shop over the 1 potential win you can have over the GTS.

They are both damn good cars but don't let passion get in the way over a good story!

[bradles024]

Originally Posted by blownvn

They actually releasing a new Ford tuning program soon so I don't see that having VCM do the testing over someone like Herrods makes any difference.

Any more info on this?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by duaned

Some of you are carrying on like little kids i

some just enjoy fishing, and the fish are biting exceptionally well lately.

also its fun to highlight inconsistencies to one's stories.

[LoudPipes]

The fanboys stick it to the magazine guys, that should teach them to come here in future.

This’ll just go round and around in circles as arguments about dyno figures always have and always will.

Personally I’m patient enough to wait until there are enough of these cars getting around and if the owners want to brag then they’ll have to put up or shut up.

Gees I don’t even know if there is a stock privately owned GT F on the road yet and the fight is already ferocious.

Seems to me someone is going to be disappointed but I bet it won’t be the owners of either of the cars.

[flooded one]

I don't care if the GTS is actually more powerful then the GT-F to be honest. I do think there is some bias with the test. more so now ,especially the way BlownVN reacted to being questioned. I do think it is strange that there are many 335GTs out there getting around 310-335kw at the wheels and yet the GT-F has more power and yet only gets 311 at the treads?? I could understand if it was a 35 degree day and the GT-F was suffering from heat soak etc.

[stazza]

Originally Posted by duaned

Did you not read his response into the torque results? SM's dyno test at VCM showed the limiting of torque on the Miami as per the factory specifications. Motoring's dyno test showed otherwise.
Bottom line is if both cars are unmolested and are tested on the same dyno at the same time (one after the other) then how can these results be argued?

Some of you are carrying on like little kids in a lolly shop over the 1 potential win you can have over the GTS.

They are both damn good cars but don't let passion get in the way over a good story!

But I thought he said he wasn't interesred in torque figures hence why he chose not to quote them... only until he used Motors figures to drive his argument about theirs being suss.

[SensationFG8]

Blownnv as far as I know there is no "torque protection" in 4th gear, where did you get the info that says it limits torque to 570 in 4th?

Question 2, you say manufacturers give mags tickled cars. Why is it Ford's of private owners generally dyno at or above mag cars and why is it private holdens dyno below mag cars? Perhaps only one team tickles their cars?

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by wildrider

I don't care if the GTS is actually more powerful then the GT-F to be honest. I do think there is some bias with the test. more so now ,especially the way BlownVN reacted to being questioned. I do think it is strange that there are many 335GTs out there getting around 310-335kw at the wheels and yet the GT-F has more power and yet only gets 311 at the treads?? I could understand if it was a 35 degree day and the GT-F was suffering from heat soak etc.

If I was the owner of a 335GT, I’d be rejoicing.
It’s Ford that needs to answer some of these questions, not the tuners or the magazines.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

If I was the owner of a 335GT, I’d be rejoicing.
It’s Ford that needs to answer some of these questions, not the tuners or the magazines.

I question wheels magazine. the GT-R spec that they tested got the impressive 0-100km/h time of 4.57 sec. they had a link to it for a while and that got deleted. they also claim the GT-F is the fastest FPV and it was a either 4.6 or 4.7 sec 0-100km/h time. then claim it was .2 seconds faster then the R-spec. So it does make me wonder. At the end of the day I don't particularly care too much, thou in saying that. I do often think their is some biased reviews when it comes to comparing Ford to Holden

[hootar]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Manufacturers have a history of handing magazines cars that have been tickled up to make themselves look better.

In this case I think they never expected us to dyno the car, then they panicked. Then I reckon they handed the car off to another publication to get the results they wanted. The timing was very convenient, they managed to delay Wheels just enough to get "their" figures out.

We'll see what the retest delivers.

That's an interesting quote from a person representing SM. That could open up a few law suits. From all car makers.

It's great to have a bit of banter etc as the old ford v holden war strikes a passion in most of us. It filled in a dull Sunday arvo.

I wonder what the managers at street machine might think of blownvn comments. I know there was a bit going from both sides but Is that a professional way for one of their employees representing SM to behave? And do they endorse his comments.

Apart from the initial spat i don't see wheels or ford playing this out in public. They have the decency to show respect for each other and try to work it out behind closed doors.

[stazza]

Mate don't push your luck. You're lucky you're saying this behind your computer screen. Dude would absolutely push your face in so hard.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

Blownnv as far as I know there is no "torque protection" in 4th gear, where did you get the info that says it limits torque to 570 in 4th?

No specific mention of what it might be limited to in 4th gear - but it is the figure mentioned in the official press release for GT-F: http://www.fordforums.com.au/vbporta...52&postcount=1

This electronic management has also ensured that while power is improved, no extra load has been placed on the drive-line or the engine components themselves, ensuring continued durability.
As a result of this fine tuning, maximum torque remains at 570 Nm of torque from 2,500 – 5,500 rpm. However, peak torque is produced for as long as possible throughout the full engine rev range, making the new GT F sedan even more responsive on the road or for track days.

But given that motoring.com.au seems to be the only source of trusted information they suggest GT-F can go as high as 650Nm: http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/l...4-review-44046

What the engineers (lead by FPV engine calibration guru, Bernie Quinn) have done is used new 'tools' such as alternative throttle pedal maps (different maps for different gears) and better integration of the Falcon's Bosch 9.0 DSC stability control system to allow the Miami V8 to give closer to its best across a wider range of real world conditions. This in turn allowed them to calibrate the engine to hold existing maximum boost pressures (and therefore maximum torque -- beyond 569Nm and up to 650!) across a wider rpm range.

So I can understand the scepticism around the GT-F result of 721Nm. It is a fair bit higher than "up to 650Nm", which is the highest quoted figure I can find for GT-F torque.

When 'standard' (for want of a better term) 335 dyno at 310-330rwkw, what sort of torque figure do they give. How much higher than the publicised 570Nm do they go?

[BHDOGS]

After reading this i have a hard time believing this guy really works for sm alot of things being said that id call bullshit on myself.

[SensationFG8]

The standard 335's get 650+ Nm readings from memory.

I was under the impression "torque limiting" only applied in 1st gear.

The numbers they have managed to produce for the gtf are inferior to the 335, pretty sure that's what people are calling them out on. I couldn't give a stuff what the gts does.

[Iggle Piggle]

Sometimes these things happen.

What are some of the lowest readings that have come from dyno runs by trusted sponsors on here?

I know they are few and far between, and for every low run there are a multitude of much higher runs that seem to be the norm - just saying I am pretty sure even the most reputable and trusted tuners on here have had 335s dyno at less than what people think is average.

It is something that can happen with no foul play and no malice intended - not often and not always, but can happen. Doesn't mean that figure is right, but doesn't mean it didn't happen either.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

The standard 335's get 650+ Nm readings from memory.

I was under the impression "torque limiting" only applied in 1st gear.

The numbers they have managed to produce for the gtf are inferior to the 335, pretty sure that's what people are calling them out on. I couldn't give a stuff what the gts does.

didn't someone from FPV/Ford mention this when the GT-F was launched?? I'm sure I read that when it was launched

[flooded one]

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/fp...ery-82306.html

nevermind is mentioned here after a quick google search.

[SensationFG8]

Sure these things happen, given the history of this engine in 335 guise when the manufacturer disputes it surely the appropriate thing would be to retest to confirm the result? Statistically this is an outlier on a 335, on a 351 it would ring alarms if I was testing.
It seems strange that a competent person would fail to question the result and not attempt to work out if something was wrong with the setup. Also given the outlying result it would prompt me to highlight the things I checked that could cause a difference. There seems to have been no due diligence here beyond "yeah we've seen that before even though we mainly do holdens."

Perhaps the problem is its a Holden shop and they are use to over quoting power and they don't question such a low figure.

[Bonn]

As for torque, I'd believe 650+ or even 700+ Nm, as the N/A 315 GT was measured at 613Nm by Modern Motor vs '317' GTS (- what a joke that was!!!!) and clobbered it.

[commonrails]

One things is for sure I won't be buying a wheels mag or any of it's associated mags for the plane trip to the Ireland in september!

[Bent8]

Anyone who thinks the GT's only have 570Nm should realise the naturally aspirated Coyote 5.0 peaks at 529Nm (and I know they run a more aggressive cam)

There is no way in hell adding a 1.9L supercharger at 8psi is only going to get you an extra 40 odd Nm of torque at the flywheel.

650Nm is a more realistic figure, anything above that would probably depend on ECU torque tags to protect the driveline.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Anyone who thinks the GT's only have 570Nm should realise the naturally aspirated Coyote 5.0 peaks at 529Nm (and I know they run a more aggressive cam)

There is no way in hell adding a 1.9L supercharger at 8psi is only going to get you an extra 40 odd Nm of torque at the flywheel.

650Nm plus is a more realistic figure, anything above that would probably depend on ECU torque tags to protect the driveline.

Fair points, and Ford's admission in early June that the GTs were really making more than their advertised power was a necessary as Thorpie admitting just now that he is gay.

The 721Nm does seem suss if there are things in place to protect the driveline, but maybe this is is all intended to take our attention away from the missing Malaysian airlines plane. Or maybe GT-F does not have such protection, or has been set to a higher tolerance.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Manufacturers have a history of handing magazines cars that have been tickled up to make themselves look better.

Well maybe HSV should get their press department to go over all their customer cars. Because most struggle to achieve 325 rwkw. Anywhere anytime any dyno. They've been as low as 290's.

There is nation wide data available on the 335 and it's fair to say they average around 330rwkw. So the question is more 335 vs 351. How does the new 351 tune produce a lesser result. Makes no sense.

Add in VCM as the tester, a firm that contracts to HSV, and it's easy to smell a rat. Yep just like Holden folk would if it was sent to Herrods. But it wasn't was it.

There is a long 15+ years history of Ford vs Holden comparisons where the journos have said the Ford stopped and steered better but Holden wins because it's faster. Then comes the 335 it's faster. But the Holden win because it's the better all round cars. The contradiction cannot be more stark.

Lean over to your neighbours cubicle read what they've written.

At the risk of you "pushing my face in" . Your mags SM / Wheels / Motor have been very anti Ford for a very long time. Your overly defensive position only confirms this to me.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by blownvn

I'm not the one that printed the figures, Motoring.com.au did. They're the one claiming 348rwkw and 721Nm.

I'm saying I reckon it's bullshit.

But if you want to have this argument then fine. Look at our dyno video. In the top left hand corner you will see a torque figure that climbs with the dyno graph. It says the torque stays around the 570Nm mark (+/- a couple Nm) for the whole run.

Motoring.com.au are claiming 150Nm more. That's a massive difference. how does a car limited to 570Nm via its factory tune make 721Nm?

Here's a question for you then if the gt only make's a max of 570nm then why when they released the S/C 5.0 did fpv upgrade the zf with "New 7 plate clutch pack and 4 planet planetary gearset for improved torque capacity" when the old one was rated for 600nm

[HO 3]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Yep, I reckon they removed the ECU's torque protection for 'motoring' test. I think there's more to it than different day, different dyno. The timing was suggestive too.

Even with different dynos cars don't just jump 37kw and 150Nm overnight.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. I've said my piece.

Yeah it may be as simple as the car carrying the wrong tune originally, ie the 335 tune and not the correct new 351 tune.

Cheers Mick

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by commonrails

One things is for sure I won't be buying a wheels mag or any of it's associated mags for the plane trip to the Ireland in september!

WHEELS.......

Look at the F6s last comparo........the journo had the hide to say it was 'out braked' in the mountains - it was running the 4/1 Brembos - the spec sheet in the article had it running the 6/4s. Truth is the bloke new nothing about the F6s 'braking' department....... the pics and specs just didn't match up. It's not that important but faaaar*, he's an Aussie motoring journo who got the specs wrong on one of Oz's greatest cars...........in it's last ever comparo, bloody un Australian if you ask me.

He (James Whitbourne) obviously didn't know you could option the F6 with 6/4s because he mentioned the options one would want to option on the Volvo/Audi to increase performance - while also paying homage to the Volvo's 'powerful six-piston Brembo front calipers'. He also had the hide to say the F6 'came up short on polish' and 'we're genuinely going to miss the big fella'.........HA........wonder if he was 'polishing' a Euro while typing that.

He did get one thing right though..........the Volvo/Audi couldn't touch it on the 'straights'.

Fair dinkum if a WHEELS motoring journo can't even get an article right on a car that's been around for years and has more than earnt its respect in the motoring world then what hope has the GT-F got.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by blownvn

I guess it's time for me to weigh in. I've read most of the comments and had a good laugh at some, especially at the conspiracy theory people who think that this is some kind of attack on Ford Australia.

Here's how all this came about. As most know I work for Street Machine and I've been a member here for years. I play with Fords, Holden and Chryslers, if it was said that I favoured any brand it would be Chrysler but I'll play with anything.

At Street Machine we share office space with Wheels, Motor and Unique cars, and I sit on the other side of the cubicle wall from the Wheels guys and the subject of the dynoing the GTS and GT-F came up. The Wheels guys asked me to recommend a workshop and I said VCM Performance.

Why? Because's it's a roomy and tidy workshop with an easy to access dyno and they're friendly guys. I've filmed there before and it looks good on video. No other reason.

Wheels were only going to get dyno figures for print but I suggested we film the whole thing and my boss Simon suggested I film it and we share the footage for a simultaneous release across Wheels and Street Machine because we have two different audiences.

So the guys rang Mario at VCM on my advice and he was happy to do the test there. We drove the cars there and because the Ford has no intercooler we decided to put it on the rollers second to give it some cool down time.

There was no fanfare, no conspiracy, just roll the cars on, test, and roll them off and film the results. Here's the Street Machine video in case you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tME5so6VbqU

As you see the GTS made 330rwkw on it's first run and it made 327rwkw on it's second run. Now I've filmed ALOT of dyno runs in the past and I saw nothing funky at all, and generally, in my experience, we'll see that the HP at the rear wheels will roughly equal the KW at the flywheel +/-5%. So when the GTS made 442.5rwhp on a claimed 430kw I didn't think that was unusual.

Then we ran the GT-F on the rollers. No one expected the GT-F to beat the GTS but we felt that if it got within 20kw that would be a respectable result given the claimed 351kw. Now we all know about the "transient overboost" (stupid name) which provides up to 404kw. I was at the GT-F launch at You Yangs and I asked the engineers flat out if the car made any more boost under that condition and they admitted that it didn't. It's all in the timing based on intake heat - basically if the intake temps are too high you don't get the full output. It's as simple as that.

Anyway we thought that if it made over 310rwkw or 415rwhp that would be a respectable result. First run was 308.8rwkw and the second run went 304.5rwkw and we knew it was only going to get worse if we kept going, so we let the GT-F cool down in the dyno room for 10mins or so with the dyno fan on full blast. In the true spirit on the dyno test we probably shouldn't have but we wanted to see if the FPV could get over 310rwkw.

After the cool down we ran the car up again at it made the 311.3rwkw figure that everyone seems to have a problem with. So we went with the best figures of both. Maybe we should have averaged the figures, but that wouldn't help the FPV either. But we felt the Ford had performed quite well in the circumstances and having a separation of just 19kw or 25hp at the wheels showed the cars were going to be close in performance.

At this point we decided to wait until Monday the 7th to release the results, which was our first mistake. We should have just gone straight back to the office, edited the footage to suit our respective audiences and let fly.

Then someone gave Ford a heads up on the results and the phone lines between Ford and the Bauer media office basically caught fire. Ford were not happy and to be honest I don't really understand their problem. Yes they didn't make as much as the HSV GTS, but it was a lot closer than anyone who knew dynos thought it would be.

Look at the facts:

1) Both cars were auto
2) Both cars were driven straight to VCM and run as is
3) You can't compare different brand dynos. Every business has their dyno set up differently and there's variation across brands. The only way to make a fair comparison is same day, same dyno
5) Ford has underclaimed the supercharged Miami V8 from Day 1 and this just confuses people
6) The FPV has quad cams, but is only 5-litres and has no intercooler
7) The HSV might be a pushrod V8, but it has 6.2-litres and an intercooler

If Ford/FPV wanted the GT-F to be the big dog of Australian performance they should have put an intercooler in the bloody thing. We all know what a difference that makes to them.

At the launch I asked why with the GT-F being the last GT Falcon and everything that went with that was it only 351kw? They said that 351 was an iconic number and they wanted to honour that, which is fine, but I said 427 is an iconic number for Ford guys as well and it would have put it more in line with the HSV GTS. There was a lot of heming and hawing and foot shuffling because they knew their car didn't have the power of the HSV GTS.

But now they're claiming it makes as much as 351rwkw? Give me a break.

So anyway, as we prepared to release our videos Ford threatened and pleaded with Wheels for the results to not be published (we didn't field any calls form Ford at Street Machine, maybe because Simon was in QLD). This went right to the top of the food chain at Ford. I can't say too much about all that, but there were at least a dozen calls back and forth by my reckoning.

Ford claimed there must have been something wrong with GT-F-014 to make such a "low figure" and they claimed they tested it themselves and claimed they made somewhere close to 351rwkw. We at Street Machine were happy they we had given both cars a fair go and wanted to go ahead with the video Monday night, but Wheels wanted to hold back because there was more talks planned with Ford. So we decided to sit on it.

Talks between Wheels and Ford continued on Tuesday morning and then about midday Motoring.com.au went to print with "their results" (suspiciously convenient) which we've all seen. So we hit the go button with both our videos. Wheels went first, and we were a couple hours later with ours because no-one was in the SM office to click go.

Naturally the results differ because different dyno and different cars, but both results used the same GT-F-014 and somehow they managed 348rwkw where we managed 311rwkw, which is a huge difference in anyone's language.

Why the difference? Well look at the torque figures that Motoring.com.au are claiming. They claim 721Nm for the GT-F when we all know that Ford have torque limited the GT-F (and all the previous Miami powered cars) to 570Nm. Did Ford turn the torque protection off in the software before handing the car to Motoring.com.au for their "independent test"? Who knows?

It makes you wonder.

At the end of the day I have no dog in this fight, we only test Fords and Holdens occasionally at SM, but what started a simple, "Hey, what do you reckon they make on the dyno?" turned into a massive **** fight.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, without bringing brand loyalty into it, will an unintercooled 5-litre make as much power as an intercooled 6.2-litre? If Ford wanted to win this battle they just had to build the right car (ie: intercooled with 400kw+), we all wanted to see it.

Hi Blownvn
Were the cars taken to their cutout revs, if so then I think your Dyno numbers are just about spot on.
I understand that Dyno Dynamics say that a car like a Commodore loses about 50 kW between the engine and the wheels and yet we normally see RWKW numbers that are a lot more than 50 kW lower than manufacturers claimed flywheel numbers.
Why so?
Well, IMO it mainly comes down to tyre slip, and keep in mind that every percent of speed lost is a percent of power lost. So if both of these cars reached their rev limits, then on the maximum gear speed data that I've seen, plus what I can glean from the videos, I believe that the HSV was probably making around 372.3 kW at the treads and the GTF around 352.1 kW.
Add 50 kW to each car and it's 422.3 FWKW for the HSV and 402.1 for the GTF at the flywheel. Actually I suspect the loss figures would probably be a bit higher for these heavy hitters, so let's say 55 kW.

At that rate it's 427.3 kW at the flywheel for the HSV and 407.1 for the GTF.

On the slip issue, I've noted that some Dyno operators don't seem to want to believe that cars can still get tyre slip when they are well tied down. Personally I've found that when my cars engines have been taken to their cutouts and the rollers haven't reached the speeds that the wheels have been turning at, then some operators will say that the discrepancy must be caused by distortion in the tyres and hence their would be no power loss.

However it's worth keeping in mind that the distance around the outside of a tyre can fractionally increase when it's on a roller (I've checked that out myself with an old tapemeasure) so that works in the opposite direction and can hide a fraction of the tyre slip.
I've commonly seen 10% or more speed missing on my cars Dyno sheets.

If Ford are tying their cars down properly and they have very good rollers (better than most) then I can see how they can get around 351 kW out of their cars.

Personally I'm thinking that no one is fudging, the only culprit is tyre slip.