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

[2242100]

Originally Posted by jasen

Found this over at PF.
http://www.performanceforums.com/for...TS-versus-GT-F

That's interesting and it explains why the HSV that Drive tested got to 190 kph at 400 metres compared to the 186.7 kph that Wheels got in the current issue from the Ford, and that's in spite of the HSV apparently being around 40 kg's heavier.

Looking closely at the Dyno graph, it seems that the HSV is stronger below peak revs as well as having more power at the end.

The first HSV tests made it look to me that the car was well short of it's claimed power,but this Dyno result plus the Drive 400 metre end speed have changed my mind.

[LoudPipes]

The difference between a 19”and 20”rim can be negated by the wall height of the tyre you fit.
Example a 20” tyre will usually have a lower profile than a 19” tyre leaving the rolling diameters to be almost identical.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by teak81

Does RAY38L stand for Ray 3.8 ltr ?

that is correct. in my defense it was over 9 years ago when i joined and these days i don't care so much for brand rivalry.
I come to this forum because its the only car forum that still has decent discussions going on.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Peter B - CV8

I'm a bit confused (easily done...). Was the dyno result of 330rwkw for the Ford achieved during temporary "overboost" - or is this the normal output than can be expected at all times ??

I believe it was 330 kW for the HSV and 311 kW for the Ford.
As far as overboost is concerned, I have a standard untuned FG XR 6 Turbo that doesn't get nursed and it's overboost is normally available unless the engine and/or the transmission gets a hard time immediately before a test. If that happens then acceleration slows by at least 10%.
Not surprising as it gets up to around 18% of overboost.

[Sorted]

So if this is Fact then why the issue of rwkw?

Auto GT-F 1835 kg, 187 kph trap speed.
Auto GTS 1842 kg, 189 kph trap speed.

FPV GT-F 5.0 S/C Auto - (note run number 7)


HSV GTS 6.2 S/C Auto - (note run number 2)

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Sorry but I can't remember. 20 inch rims and tyres will generally weigh more as you've suggested so I guess you get more losses from the centifugal forces required to spin the extra weight up. Youv'e also got far bigger rear brakes on the GTS and anything that adds to rotational mass will reduce the dyno result.

If the car being dyno'd only makes 300 odd horsepower, you will probably notice a difference in rear wheel outputs but I highly doubt a (factory claimed) 577hp blown V8 is going to be affected by larger wheels or brakes..

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Sorted

So if this is Fact then why the issue of rwkw?

Auto GT-F 1835 kg, 187 kph trap speed.
Auto GTS 1842 kg, 189 kph trap speed.

FPV GT-F 5.0 S/C Auto - (note run number 7)
image

HSV GTS 6.2 S/C Auto - (note run number 2)
image

the GTS is 1937 KG ballpark 2T with driver.

[Batmobile]

Originally Posted by Sorted

So if this is Fact then why the issue of rwkw?

Auto GT-F 1835 kg, 187 kph trap speed.
Auto GTS 1842 kg, 189 kph trap speed.

FPV GT-F 5.0 S/C Auto - (note run number 7)
image

HSV GTS 6.2 S/C Auto - (note run number 2)
image

Interesting to see the flywheel torque on the GTS declining..Looks like there is a gap between it generating the power and then being able to feed it down the line to the rear wheels. This
is probably why on the engine stand they had been able to claim 430fwkw .
Forum members in the know will be able to explain this I am sure. I will sit tight.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by jasen

Found this over at PF.
http://www.performanceforums.com/for...TS-versus-GT-F

Gotta laugh some days.

So last week one of the Wheels guys popped his head over the partition and asked me to recommend a place where they could dyno a new HSV GTS and an FPV GT-F. After just doing a blower install story at VCM Performance, and being impressed with their facilities, I recommended them. Then I asked if they were going to film them.

"We weren't but I guess we should", was the answer.

So I decided to go along and video the whole thing with a view that Wheels would do "their" video and Street Machine do something different.

We drove both cars (both autos) to VCM last Thursday and put them on them on the dyno. The GTS went first and made 330rwkw, which gave the GT-F the best chance to cool down. Then the GT-F ran 311rwkw and we were impressed. The HSV made about what we expected and the Ford made more than we expected. It was about as honest and simple of a dyno test I've ever seen, and the idea was that we would both edit our vids and post them at the same time on Monday.

Then Ford got wind of the result and they weren't happy. So Wheels delayed, and we were told to hold off as well. The phone calls continued all through today as well - I can't reveal the contents of those calls, I'd probably get fired. Let's just say Ford were VERY unhappy. Ford reckons the GT-F should have made more.

Then mysteriously a rival publication went to print with very different figures today (hmm, wonder how that happened) and the decision was made to pull the trigger on our results. Then everyone lost their minds!

Personally I don't see the drama. We all know Ford has underquoted the Miami-powered GT for years. The GTS made about what you'd expect and the Ford made lots more than we expected. Ford should be happy, everyone should be happy, but nope. Apparently everyone believes that an unintercooled 5-litre should make more power than an intercooled 6.2-litre.

You can't post that on a Ford Forum, that'll have the punters in an absolute lather.
Isn't it funny that we have the dedicated press car GT-F 001 manual making close to 350 rwkw's and then a non-press car GT-F-014 auto only making 311 rwkw's,
Nearly 40 rwkw's lower for an auto non-press car !! He're we're comparing two non press car auto's GTS and Gt-F and the HSV beats the Gt-F by 19 rwkw's.
Which test do we believe ? Direct Auto to Auto transmission comparison and non press car to non press car seems to me to have more credibility.
Not only that but I can't help wondering why would Ford get their panties so twisted about this seeing as they claim all the GT-F's are sold ?

Something isn't right.

[fgpsi]

Yes we all know you're a GTS fan boi Rodger

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Rodge

You can't post that on a Ford Forum, that'll have the punters in an absolute lather.
Isn't it funny that we have the dedicated press car GT-F 001 manual making close to 350 rwkw's and then a non-press car GT-F-014 auto only making 311 rwkw's,
Nearly 40 rwkw's lower for an auto non-press car !! He're we're comparing two non press car auto's GTS and Gt-F and the HSV beats the Gt-F by 19 rwkw's.
Which test do we believe ? Direct Auto to Auto transmission comparison and non press car to non press car seems to me to have more credibility.
Not only that but I can't help wondering why would Ford get their panties so twisted about this seeing as they claim all the GT-F's are sold ?

Something isn't right.

there are no press cars. cars 001 and 014 will later be auctioned off along with 500 (i think).

car 001 is a manual and is blue.
car 014 is auto and is smoke.

the GTF used on the dyno's is the same car, no 014.
the GTS used by motoring.com.au is the same one that Drive used to run the 12.1 400m.
the GTS vcm used was a different one again.

credibility rodge - you don't have a lot when you post things like that.

[Rodge]

Its GT-F 001 that's been doing the rounds though, regardless of whether you want to call it an official press car or not that's what it's being used for, until its auctioned off.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Its GT-F 001 that's been doing the rounds though, regardless of whether you want to call it an official press car or not that's what it's being used for, until its auctioned off.

wrong again. GT-F 001 is a blue manual.

the dyno car is the auto GT-F 014.

facts. you're missing them.

[myts50]

Awesome too see the rivalry has not died down about time the red brigade were shut down imagine the power output if it had 351 cubes!!

[Rodge]

GT-F 001 manual, yes I know its the blue one dynoed up at close to 350 rwkw's by one mob, (that's the one people on other forums are calling the special press tune).

GT-F 014 Auto got only 311 rwkw's by another outfit and that's the result Ford got their panties in a real twist about and tried to censor the result.

Those are the facts so far.

[Smoke Pursuit]

No Rodge the blue one hasn't been dynoed, only build 14 the Auto.

[rancidpunx]

Rodge only the Smoke coloured one, 014, has been dynoed. It made 311 with Wheels and 348 with Motoring.

Edit: Brent beat me to it.

[futura]

Originally Posted by Rodge

GT-F 001 manual, yes I know its the blue one dynoed up at close to 350 rwkw's by one mob, (that's the one people on other forums are calling the special press tune).

GT-F 014 Auto got only 311 rwkw's by another outfit and that's the result Ford got their panties in a real twist about and tried to censor the result.

Those are the facts so far.

What about the motoring dyno run of 348.6 rwkw?

[Rodge]

I need another beer

[Smoke Pursuit]

300 c forum not keeping you busy?

[BHDOGS]

A resounding win for the ford the gts truly is old news

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Rodge

GT-F 001 manual, yes I know its the blue one dynoed up at close to 350 rwkw's by one mob, (that's the one people on other forums are calling the special press tune).

GT-F 014 Auto got only 311 rwkw's by another outfit and that's the result Ford got their panties in a real twist about and tried to censor the result.

Those are the facts so far.

oh dear.

i won't say anymore as you've already been corrected enough.

i will add that your timeline is also a bit out.

wheels dyno'd the GT-F first. Ford got wind of the results and weren't happy as they knew the car had more in it. they requested the results not be published until further testing, hence the delay on the wheels site. motoring.com.au then stepped up and ran their own tests (with the same GT-F, but different GTS) which returned a much more favourable figure. wheels then decided to go to press with their figures to beat them to the punch, despite their discussion with the manufacturer. in their haste to get the 'scoop' they have ended up with egg on their face.

now they are trying to play the victim and throw doubt on the higher reading.

the thing they don't realise is that many ford fans aren't annoyed that it didn't win the first test. they were annoyed at the apparent lack of awareness about the ford product, and the trend that has been set to date with the miami engine. a standard GT will dyno north of 300 on nearly every dyno in the country. this was the issue.

[Windsor220]

Surely Ford engineers would have a fairly good idea what sort of power to expect at the rear wheels. If it was a fair way off I dont blame them for saying something.

[mcnews]

Just admit it Rodge, you are spewing you bought your yank tank and wish you had a GT-F and like normal when you don't have something you are justifying it being worse. Like you did with F6 being better than supercharged GT for ages, then you bought a GT and the F6 is terrible... Now you have a 300C everything else is crap and you feel the need to come in here and fight the good fight for HSV..... Seriously.....Why.......... You may be able to fool yourself, it is easy to fool a fool, but you can't fool us.... And you know I am certainly no one-eyed fanboy, but really just coming in here to poor hate on the GT-F is getting very tiresome. It is like me wasting my time going on to a Holden forum to talk crap about the GTS, thankfully I have better things to do in life.

[mik]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

The difference between a 19”and 20”rim can be negated by the wall height of the tyre you fit.
Example a 20” tyre will usually have a lower profile than a 19” tyre leaving the rolling diameters to be almost identical.

i would guess that a 20 inch rim would be heavier than a 19 inch inch rim regardless of the outside diameter of the tyre, probably not a huge amount in it, but all these things add up..

[1TUFFUTE]

Common we all know rodge is a good bloke....just gets on a train of thought sometimes......same as me, I get way to passionate and end up arguing for pages defending ford about something. it's all good.

And thanks prydey for clearing that timeline up.....I was seriously getting lost

I'm loving that ford is defending its pride with the power readings

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

And thanks prydey for clearing that timeline up.....I was seriously getting lost

I'm loving that ford is defending its pride with the power readings

Yep, loving that Ford are standing up for the product. Should've done that far more often.

[furiousgibbon]

Originally Posted by Sorted

So if this is Fact then why the issue of rwkw?

Auto GT-F 1835 kg, 187 kph trap speed.
Auto GTS 1842 kg, 189 kph trap speed.

FPV GT-F 5.0 S/C Auto - (note run number 7)

HSV GTS 6.2 S/C Auto - (note run number 2)

these dyno graphs are pretty clear. GT-F may have pipped the GTS in peak power, but the torque delivery of the GTS is much stronger. It would feel significantly more powerful across the rev range, but the GT-F would feel as though it's getting stronger as the revs climb. I prefer the latter as it has a more urgent feel and revving it out would be more rewarding, but for day to day use, the GTS would feel better.

The lack of an intercooler on the GT/GT-F really kills it for me, I wouldn't want to see dyno runs done in the middle of summer... on the flip side, the GTS looks kinda nasty, and I'd expect more from its additional displacement/fuel consumption. I wouldn't own either of them, I'd pick up a GT, water/air intercooler, exhaust, remap, coilovers and have enough money spare to fuel it for the next 5 years. Anyone buying a car to store it and sell it at a profit later should have that car taken off them.

[ford man xf]

If the GT-F is making around 340rwkw, what would that equate to flywheel kw wise?

[tranquilized]

The bias from so many fan boys on this forum is absolutely hilarious, but embarrassing at the same time. As soon as Rodge comes out with some perfectly reasonable points he's savaged by the blind faithful.

The heavier duty the driveline, the more power it'll suck. I clearly remember mates cars back in the day that ended up considerably slower after they'd installed a 9" diff. The GTS figures are right on the money for what you'd expect from 430kw at the flywheel.

As for Wheels magazine, is it their fault the GT-F they had on the day was putting out less power? Did it have a technical issue? The same car produced near 350rwkw's later on so obviously something was done to the car by Ford to improve it's numbers.

It's all such a non-issue anyway. Who really gives a ***k? They are both great cars and we should be proud of the quality of the last of the line Aussie muscle.