FPV GT-F outpowers HSV GTS The Aussie horsepower king has been identified & we are surprised as any1

[fgpsi]

Originally Posted by Robos F6

Well sounds like the GTF can produce a higher RWKW than GTS on the odd occasions but it still can't beat it at the strip. Maybe the GTS has alot more midrange?

Who said it can't beat it ? They've only done manual vs auto

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by Bent8

If you wanna talk about affordability, instead of spending $95k on a GTS, get yourself a GT-F for $80k, then spend the other $15k on mods (500kW KPM tune, coilovers, P-Zeros etc) and then invite your friend with his GTS to a track day...

Let us know the result

By the way, the 348rwkw result was not a fluke >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNwsz6RSB4s

Why did you quote me and then talk about affordability? i never said anything about that all i said is fords budget couldn't even stretch to decent tyres

[hootar]

Originally Posted by 2242100

They've got GTF 014 in the photo at the dragstrip and that was the same car that Wheels ran on the Dyno.

Yes that's the impression they are trying to give. Maybe?? GTF014 is photo shopped in?? Because above the photo and under the times is the statement
" note: GTF numbers recorded using prototype vehicle"

It's all in the fine print!

Why have they done that and why didn't they state that and give a reason in the main article? I don't know. Just adding to more of the mystery surrounding these tests etc. Also why didn't they test auto v auto.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by ray38l

Why did you quote me and then talk about affordability? i never said anything about that all i said is fords budget couldn't even stretch to decent tyres

My point was for the price of a factory GTS, you can have a GT-F that will absolutely blow it away on the track !

And I'm sure if Ford had charged $95k for the GT-F, they would have fitted it with some track-worthy rubber as well..

[CAMS290]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

Kemps creek would sort it out

With one of the Gazzard brothers behind the wheel.

[hootar]

Originally Posted by CAMS290

With one of the Gazzard brothers behind the wheel.

But not Jacko the dumb buggar?

See Car Survivor Australia mag have done tribute to the movie

[Buttnekid]

If they want to baseline things at the strip it should be control tyres

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by Bent8

My point was for the price of a factory GTS, you can have a GT-F that will absolutely blow it away on the track !

And I'm sure if Ford had charged $95k for the GT-F, they would have fitted it with some track-worthy rubber as well..

Fair point, but then although you are comparing cars that have cost the same coin you are then comparing a modified car to a stock car. It could also be said for the price of a GT-F you could have a GT that would absolutely blow the GT-F away on the track.

In fact, for the price of a GT-F or a GTS, there are a huge amount of cheaper cars that could be purchased then modded with the difference in price that would then be more potent than the two more expensive stock cars.

Pretty sure this is simply about which is more powerful at the rear wheels in factory state - run what you brung. This means no allowance for GTS having possibly heavier 20 inch wheel and beefier drivetrain.

Same as when it eventually comes to track results, be it drags or with corners, it will be which is the quicker vehicle in factory state, with no allowance for if this car had stickier tyres and bigger brakes and different suspension and so on. Or if it had control tyres.

I agree that if Ford charged $95k they could have fitted better tyres - they could have done it for less than that when you take off the price of the Dunlops then add the price of the better rubber. Can't understand why they didn't put on better tyres when bang for buck it would have been the easiest way to increase performance even further above and beyond the GTs and R-Specs that came before it, and I doubt any of those that bought would have baulked at the couple of grand extra.

I've read on here previously that some view the Dunlops as a further means of protecting the drivetrain - at a certain point they lose traction rather than put stress on components. I reckon it has more to do with a contract Ford would have with Dunlop, who knows - all I do know for sure is that Dunlops are standard fitment to GT-Fs, so any comparison of stock vehicles will have the GT-F wearing Dunlops. Don't hate on Holden or HSV for having better tyres, be disappointed with Ford for not doing the no-brainer and fitting decent rubber as standard to the GT-F.

I don't go for the whole "saving the owner money when it comes time to replacement". When the expensive factory tyres are shagged the owner can stump up large coin for the same again or can always go the cheap route and grab some Dunlops.

[ray38l]

^also considering most GT-F's will be parked up most owners will probably never even need to replace the tyres anyway.

[futura]

Originally Posted by ray38l

^also considering most GT-F's will be parked up most owners will probably never even need to replace the tyres anyway.

Quite the opposite I will be replacing the factory fitted Dunlop's for some Michelin super sports to get the best grip out of my car. You will find most owners will be replacing the tyres for better grip and storing the original tyres.

[Wolfinsheepsclothing]

I'm not sure most will be parked up as most buyer's on this forums are going to use them, one members even removing the engine and putting in a build one

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by Buttnekid

If they want to baseline things at the strip it should be control tyres

Could do that - that would show us which is fastest if things were different - but why?

Could also run them in stock trim to see which is fastest in the spec they roll out of the factory, which is probably a more relevant comparison.

If you wanted to compare a GT to an R-Spec at the drags, would you fit the wider rears from the R-Spec to the GT as a control item?

Not sure I understand the logic in changing spec then comparing rather than comparing factory spec. Same conditions, same track, same driver, same fuel, same day/time, same temp etc is fair enough, but it is not a parity formula.

I reckon GTS will have the goods around a circuit, but I reckon it is going to be line ball when it comes to the quarter...yet it sounds like GT-F fans are already throwing in the towel at the drags.

[hootar]

I find it interesting that those who have not bought one are telling those who have bought one what they will be doing to their GTF.

They must be Consultants!

For the record, I put the $$ down and I'm driving mine. New tyres and mags going on, originals put in the shed. I'm pretty sure that at the traffic lights or drag strip Mr GTS isn't going to get out and call me a cheat for not having Dunlops on.

[701let]

Originally Posted by hootar

I find it interesting that those who have not bought one are telling those who have bought one what they will be doing to their GTF.

They must be Consultants!

I put the $$ down and I'm driving mine. New tyres and mags going on, originals put in the shed. I'm pretty sure that at the traffic lights or drag strip Mr GTS isn't going to get out and call me a cheat for not having Dunlops on.

I'm pretty sure you can put whatever tyres you want on it, slicks even, and mr gts is going to be ahead of you at whatever dragstrip or traffic lights you choose. You seem informed enough to realise it's more than a simple set of stickier tyres that make that car what it is.

Let the gt f bask in the fact that it has the title of highest peak power. That until proven otherwise is the truth . Good for fpv great way to bow out

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by hootar

I'm pretty sure that at the traffic lights or drag strip Mr GTS isn't going to get out and call me a cheat for not having Dunlops on.

Of course he won't as that does not sound like an official comparison of factory spec vehicles carried out by a motoring publication. Whatever time you run you would no doubt claim to be a time run by a stock GT-F on street tyres.

In what you describe you wouldn't call him a cheat (nor he you) if one or both of you have pulley upgrade, tune or any other mods. What you describe is two individuals putting their much loved vehicles head to head - not an official comparison of two factory spec vehicles.

And never said you or any GT-F driver would not drive their car.

[hootar]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

And never said you or any GT-F driver would not drive their car.

And I didn't say you did. I'm surprised that you took an offense to what I wrote and felt the need to reply.

[jimmyxr6t04]

This thread is really getting off topic so... I look forward to the day i line up a GTS on the street at the lights... Gonna rev that sweet boss 335, and let him hear the KPM exhaust pop and crackle. Really get us fired up! Then i'll take off like a grandma, hopefully he'll do the same and we'll high 5 each other at the next set of lights.

[Paull]

Originally Posted by Buttnekid

If they want to baseline things at the strip it should be control tyres

I dis-agree. This is all about a factory standard comparison. That is, as the cars come off the factor floor: on the same dyno, on the same day under the same conditions. Same goes for everything else on the car, namely factory standard tyres.

[06txr]

It's only opinion, but agree they should be using the same tyres. Most cars will not have the same tyres in maybe a few years or less. I feel to test acceleration, suspension (how well it keeps the tyre on the road) etc, both cars should have equal advantage of grip from the tyre. I for one would be very very interested to see. If one tyre struggles to put power down, than it is not going to show the potential of the engine which is what we are doing right? Everyone keeps saying the Dunlops are an average tyre.

I know we are comparing against the GTS, but it is interesting to note the Spec R 335 did a 0-100 in 4.6 and 12.6 @ 189 vs the GT-F of 4.7 and 12.7 @ 186 respectively. Seems the R-Spec is Manual too.
Tractive issue? different ambient? different track? All variable & hard to compare.

The GT-F makes maximum torque from 2500 - 5500 where as the 335 was from 2200 - 5500. surely is not max torque being available 200 rpm earlier?

Becomes hard to measure the 80-120 cause of the different methods used between the 2 cars. Manual vs Auto?

Didn't the GTS have the same 2.4 sec from 80-120?

I guess what I am saying is it seems the R-Spec would have had a better chance than the GT-F against the GTS according to Wheels? I don't have the table for the GTS as I am not a Holden fellow. Has it been posted here before?

I smell a rat.

[stazza]

I would bet wheels got a **** result on the GT-F just to stir us Ford boys up. There is no way in hell why it should have gotten a slower time than the R-Spec. Even if it did beat the GTS there's no way they would admit it. Making it appear even slower than the R-Spec just cements that fact.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by 06txr

It's only opinion, but agree they should be using the same tyres. Most cars will not have the same tyres in maybe a few years or less.

Some GTS will be tuned in a few years or less - some already are. May as well put a tuned GTS up against a GT-F for the purpose of a fair comparison.

In a few years or less there will be plenty of GTS and GT-F that will go head to head in the hands of private individuals, and I reckon it won't just be the tyres that are different to factory spec when that occurs. But a comparison of one new car against another is generally if not always done in factory spec, otherwise it is a pointless comparison - unless the idea is to see what could have been the case, even though it isn't the case.

If a motoring publication was to put different tyres on a Holden/HSV because it left the factory with lesser tyres than the Ford/FPV it was being compared to, no one on here would call shenanigans?

Maybe wait for the two to go head to head down the quarter before saying the GT-F would have won with the same tyres as the GTS - who is to say that it won't win with the tyres that it has?

[2242100]

Originally Posted by hootar

Yes that's the impression they are trying to give. Maybe?? GTF014 is photo shopped in?? Because above the photo and under the times is the statement
" note: GTF numbers recorded using prototype vehicle"

It's all in the fine print!

Why have they done that and why didn't they state that and give a reason in the main article? I don't know. Just adding to more of the mystery surrounding these tests etc. Also why didn't they test auto v auto.

I'd be surprised if the press have driven any cars other than 001 and 014. Apparently HSV originally only had one manual and one AUTO press test car.

Actually I believe they have recently built another Manual that Evo Australia was driving last week. Expect to see something on that car soon, at least on the website.

[Chopped]

I think both cars should be exactly 100% identical and then we can see which is faster....oh wait....

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by 06txr

It's only opinion, but agree they should be using the same tyres. Most cars will not have the same tyres in maybe a few years or less. I feel to test acceleration, suspension (how well it keeps the tyre on the road) etc, both cars should have equal advantage of grip from the tyre. I for one would be very very interested to see. If one tyre struggles to put power down, than it is not going to show the potential of the engine which is what we are doing right? Everyone keeps saying the Dunlops are an average tyre.

I know we are comparing against the GTS, but it is interesting to note the Spec R 335 did a 0-100 in 4.6 and 12.6 @ 189 vs the GT-F of 4.7 and 12.7 @ 186 respectively. Seems the R-Spec is Manual too.
Tractive issue? different ambient? different track? All variable & hard to compare.

The GT-F makes maximum torque from 2500 - 5500 where as the 335 was from 2200 - 5500. surely is not max torque being available 200 rpm earlier?

Becomes hard to measure the 80-120 cause of the different methods used between the 2 cars. Manual vs Auto?

Didn't the GTS have the same 2.4 sec from 80-120?

I guess what I am saying is it seems the R-Spec would have had a better chance than the GT-F against the GTS according to Wheels? I don't have the table for the GTS as I am not a Holden fellow. Has it been posted here before?

I smell a rat.

image image

It was 17 degrees when they drove the GTF and was tested at the Ford Proving grounds which is at a high altitude than the Sydney Raceway.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

It was 17 degrees when they drove the GTF and was tested at the Ford Proving grounds which is at a high altitude than the Sydney Raceway.

I just looked up MapMyRide and apparently the proving ground ranges from 98 to 112 metres, whereas I'm pretty sure that I've seen WSID listed in Motor at 78 metres. That may be not quite right, but I know it's close to that. So there's not much in it.
However I understand that 9 degrees of temperature can affect power by nearly 2 percent and I believe that the RSPEC was driven by a lighter driver.

That said though, I still think the GTF should have been faster.

[Parfrey]

I rarely believe magazine test times for this reason. They normally have a passenger/ wet road/ a hot day/ someone who can't drive a manual/ boot full of cement.

Quickest private stock GTS seems to be around 12.0-12.1

Quickest stock GT 12.2, with a few under 12.5.
If the GTF has a bit more go it should be very even in the real world.
The GTS will be easier to achieve a good time in due to having better treads stock.

As for the KW.. a proper evenly done dyno test could see 330 from the GTS and 340 from the GTF?
IMO all this is great for the GT/F, more people will know how much power they actually have and what a great engine its got.. even if it is 1.2L smaller!

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

It was 17 degrees when they drove the GTF and was tested at the Ford Proving grounds which is at a high altitude than the Sydney Raceway.

Ones a testing track, the others a prepped dragstrip!

Let's see them Both on the same day on a fully VHT prepped strip!

[fgpsi]

Gave it to a Holden mate last night no end... My main comment was "no intercooler and the GT-F still had more power" !!!!!

to say he was annoyed is an understatement

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Parfrey

I rarely believe magazine test times for this reason. They normally have a passenger/ wet road/ a hot day/ someone who can't drive a manual/ boot full of cement.

Quickest private stock GTS seems to be around 12.0-12.1

Quickest stock GT 12.2, with a few under 12.5.
If the GTF has a bit more go it should be very even in the real world.
The GTS will be easier to achieve a good time in due to having better treads stock.

As for the KW.. a proper evenly done dyno test could see 330 from the GTS and 340 from the GTF?
IMO all this is great for the GT/F, more people will know how much power they actually have and what a great engine its got.. even if it is 1.2L smaller!

Here here

[351capri]

Originally Posted by theboxmike

Well what do you know as usual Holden/HSV overstating there power figures? Surely not never!

all day , every day .... HOLDEN