HSV VF GTS performance figures.

[GTBenny]

The GTS is as great car in many ways but if I had one I'd be disgusted to know it makes less rwkw than a GT.

Benny.

[duaned]

Originally Posted by GTBenny

The GTS is as great car in many ways but if I had one I'd be disgusted to know it makes less rwkw than a GT.

Benny.

Even with that the case the GTS is still quicker and still the fastest performance car ( in stock form) made in Australia to date!

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by duaned

Even with that the case the GTS is still quicker and still the fastest performance car ( in stock form) made in Australia to date!

so how fast has the GTS gone?

I see plenty of 0-100 and 400m, but dont recall it being fastest

Wasn't there a desert run of the GTF that went 297km/hr

Has the Holden bettered that?

[Uwish]

Originally Posted by Shonky.

so how fast has the GTS gone?

I see plenty of 0-100 and 400m, but dont recall it being fastest

Wasn't there a desert run of the GTF that went 297km/hr

Has the Holden bettered that?

Albeit modded to suit top speed runs. I'm sure the GTS could match or better it

[Motorbreath310]

Originally Posted by Uwish

Albeit modded to suit top speed runs. I'm sure the GTS could match or better it

I reckon (opinion, no facts or data) above 240-ish, it'd run into an aerodynamic brick wall. On account of it being about as aerodynamic as a brick wall.

Depending on your priorities and preferences, you could almost argue that the GTS is too good. Despite having a ~430kw V8, it sounds as if it's support systems seemingly bolster it too well. There's no 'mongrel' to it, like say....an F6

Not always a bad thing, however....

Although the same applies to the lesser HSV's. Haven't been in a GTS, but an N/A LS in a big VE body is not much of a memorable experience. They feel like what they are: a big sedan with a big engine (and great brakes) and nothing more. They aren't exciting.

[Uwish]

Originally Posted by Motorbreath310

I reckon (opinion, no facts or data) above 240-ish, it'd run into an aerodynamic brick wall. On account of it being about as aerodynamic as a brick wall.

Depending on your priorities and preferences, you could almost argue that the GTS is too good. Despite having a ~430kw V8, it sounds as if it's support systems seemingly bolster it too well. There's no 'mongrel' to it, like say....an F6

Not always a bad thing, however....

Although the same applies to the lesser HSV's. Haven't been in a GTS, but an N/A LS in a big VE body is not much of a memorable experience. They feel like what they are: a big sedan with a big engine (and great brakes) and nothing more. They aren't exciting.

Because the Falcon is slippery as **** and as light as a feather..... I guess most ford fans don't have
to much between the ears

[Motorbreath310]

Originally Posted by Uwish

Because the Falcon is slippery as **** and as light as a feather..... I guess most ford fans don't have
to much between the ears

But did you die?

[mtbkym01]

Originally Posted by Uwish

Because the Falcon is slippery as **** and as light as a feather..... I guess most ford fans don't have
to much between the ears

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Motorbreath310

I reckon (opinion, no facts or data) above 240-ish, it'd run into an aerodynamic brick wall. On account of it being about as aerodynamic as a brick wall.

Depending on your priorities and preferences, you could almost argue that the GTS is too good. Despite having a ~430kw V8, it sounds as if it's support systems seemingly bolster it too well. There's no 'mongrel' to it, like say....an F6

Not always a bad thing, however....

Although the same applies to the lesser HSV's. Haven't been in a GTS, but an N/A LS in a big VE body is not much of a memorable experience. They feel like what they are: a big sedan with a big engine (and great brakes) and nothing more. They aren't exciting.

A blown big cube V8 has no "mongrel" to it

[duaned]

Originally Posted by Motorbreath310

I reckon (opinion, no facts or data) above 240-ish, it'd run into an aerodynamic brick wall. On account of it being about as aerodynamic as a brick wall.

Depending on your priorities and preferences, you could almost argue that the GTS is too good. Despite having a ~430kw V8, it sounds as if it's support systems seemingly bolster it too well. There's no 'mongrel' to it, like say....an F6

Not always a bad thing, however....

Although the same applies to the lesser HSV's. Haven't been in a GTS, but an N/A LS in a big VE body is not much of a memorable experience. They feel like what they are: a big sedan with a big engine (and great brakes) and nothing more. They aren't exciting.

I could swear that you are tripping on fresh air!

[HULK_I6T]

Originally Posted by Motorbreath310

Despite having a ~430kw V8, it sounds as if it's support systems seemingly bolster it too well. There's no 'mongrel' to it, like say....an F6

They aren't exciting.

Just the opposite actually... having driven a amg c63, the most remarkable part of the car is how it hooks up, bites and bolts. In my book thats more mongrel as it puts down all its big grunt and quick numbers against the stopwatch

Sitting there spinning on the spot of kicking out sideways really is a thing of the 1970s. This is an archaic trait of performance cars, not really mongrel. These ol school type mongrel cars often get dispatched by your modern family car with much less grunt.

[Falcon SXR8]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Just the opposite actually... having driven a amg c63, the most remarkable part of the car is how it hooks up, bites and bolts. In my book thats more mongrel as it puts down all its big grunt and quick numbers against the stopwatch

Sitting there spinning on the spot of kicking out sideways really is a thing of the 1970s. This is an archaic trait of performance cars, not really mongrel. These ol school type mongrel cars often get dispatched by your modern family car with much less grunt.

IMO mongrel is exactly that 70s thing you described, a car that's hard to control, a car that you would be scared to let your dear old gran drive. The amg you described is just a put your foot down and let the electronics take care of the rest type car, its a modern refined car that gets its power down well, handles well and if any mongrel tries to rear its ugly head its electronic trickery shuts it down.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Just the opposite actually... having driven a amg c63, the most remarkable part of the car is how it hooks up, bites and bolts. In my book thats more mongrel as it puts down all its big grunt and quick numbers against the stopwatch

Sitting there spinning on the spot of kicking out sideways really is a thing of the 1970s. This is an archaic trait of performance cars, not really mongrel. These ol school type mongrel cars often get dispatched by your modern family car with much less grunt.

The AMG is brutal and efficient and exhilarating and seduces you by the relentless surge that makes you abandon and give up your common sense to its charms- but its not mongrel. The C63 makes you feel you are a better driver than you are.

C63 has very good software systems but is not perfect- week ago my brother got stupidly sideways in his AMG C63 with no letup from his right foot when it was all on, me in passenger seat, and the software died in the **** and went into limp mode

It was like max at 25 kph, he was freaking, and I said just pull it up, shut it off, waited 3 minutes, and it was all fine again.

Having driven both the AMGC63 all the way, and the FGX XR8 hard, I have had more sphincter inducing moments in the FGX XR8.

And you know, I love that in the FGX XR8, with traction control off, I have worked out on cold roads better warm up the tyres or else, have worked out its fun to do corners in 2nd on the juice but there is a fine line between fast and sideways with that blinding split second moment that you think you have gone too far-and it is a challenge that is rewarding.

Makes me realize that I better know and improve my driving skills if I really want to play with it.

I drove a Porsche boxster S and was bored- too locked in to the point it was ho hum- for me.

Really depends what you want in a car I suppose, and that's the beauty of machinery.

[nz13boy]

Originally Posted by GTBenny

The GTS is as great car in many ways but if I had one I'd be disgusted to know it makes less rwkw than a GT.

Benny.

Actually, As a GT owner you should be disgusted your more powerful (at the wheels) ford gets its butt handed to it by a less powerful and butt ugly commodore. In every way, shape and form.. If it was still stock of course.

[mr_xlr8]

Originally Posted by nz13boy

Actually, As a GT owner you should be disgusted your more powerful (at the wheels) ford gets its butt handed to it by a less powerful and butt ugly commodore. In every way, shape and form.. If it was still stock of course.

Take this from a guy on his 2nd 335 GTP.
THE GTS IS NOT QUICKER FROM A SET OF LIGHTS AT ALL.
My mate flogged one around a race track too with a tune. Great package no doubt. However mate I would not take it over a GT on performance alone no way.

[sexyxe]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

Take this from a guy on his 2nd 335 GTP.
THE GTS IS NOT QUICKER FROM A SET OF LIGHTS AT ALL.
My mate flogged one around a race track too with a tune. Great package no doubt. However mate I would not take it over a GT on performance alone no way.

I don't see how when two drivers factor into an equation a fair comparison can be made. When I used to track my R6, I would regularly/often beat he 750 and 1000cc crowd on newer and more expensive rides purely based on *ahem* my awesome skill.

I'm sure a lot of these drag times and track times could go both ways if you swapped the crews over.

[mr_xlr8]

Probably should be noted these LSA engines are W2A intercooled. FPV are not.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

Take this from a guy on his 2nd 335 GTP.
THE GTS IS NOT QUICKER FROM A SET OF LIGHTS AT ALL.
My mate flogged one around a race track too with a tune. Great package no doubt. However mate I would not take it over a GT on performance alone no way.

Regardless of which car is fastest, I think the following is worth considering:-

Lets say 2 identical GTP's (car 1 and car 2) with exactly the same performance make absolutely identical perfect launches, and car 1's driver starts just a fractional 3 tenths of a second earlier than car 2.
Then with that situation expect car 1 to be around 1 car length ahead at 60 km/h, about 1.7 lengths in front at 100 km/h, and at the 1/4 mile point about 15 metres ahead. At least 3 car lengths.

On top of that allow for different launch techniques, one lane having more grip than another, different loads in cars, different tyre condition, and a host of other variables, and I think it's reasonable to say that traffic light drags often tell very little.

But they can tell a policeman to chase and pull the cars over to be impounded for a while.

[mr_xlr8]

OK then...let me say it another way, on a particular day, a bloke turned up with a tuned GTS auto and ran 12.8 down the strip, on that same night dl86 went 12.4 in a stock auto, i ran 13 flat in a manual GTP couple this with 2 instances where drivers.of the GTS feel the need to ask "thats not stock ??" At the next lights. My point in all this is the GTS is not quicker then a GT IN real life situations that I have been exposed to.
add the fact that it gets decimated on the dyno makes me want to tell people who are happy to listen that the GTS is not a wow power machine of the showroom floor, certainly not a hell of alot more then the GT Falcons.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

OK then...let me say it another way, on a particular day, a bloke turned up with a tuned GTS auto and ran 12.8 down the strip, on that same night dl86 went 12.4 in a stock auto, i ran 13 flat in a manual GTP couple this with 2 instances where drivers.of the GTS feel the need to ask "thats not stock ??" At the next lights. My point in all this is the GTS is not quicker then a GT IN real life situations that I have been exposed to.
add the fact that it gets decimated on the dyno makes me want to tell people who are happy to listen that the GTS is not a wow power machine of the showroom floor, certainly not a hell of alot more then the GT Falcons.

In making my last post I was just trying to get across the message about how useless traffic light drags can often be, but to be honest I think the HSV is probably the slightly quicker car, with higher average power across it's usable rev range.

I'm neutral, I've got an FG XR6T Auto and I like both the Ford and HSV forced induction V8's.

I think probably the most definitive, transparent, and accurate GTS vs MIAMI test has been done by Jesse Taylor, the editor of EVO AUSTRALIA MAGAZINE and it can be found on the website. Just google HSV v FPV stripped bare.

He compared a manual GTS against a manual GTF (4.34/12.53 sec 0-100/400 metre times for GTS, and 4.46/12.66 GTF).

Nowhere for either side to hide on this test I'd say. Exceptional detail in the article and his driving skills certainly can't be criticised. As far as I know, he got the fastest magazine test time out of a manual RSPEC when he was the Deputy editor of WHEELS.

One point to note is that GPS measured 400 metre test times (that the Magazines publish) can commonly be about 3 tenths slower than Drag Strip 1/4 mile time slips. That's because of the rollout that you can get at a dragstrip. EG my stock FG XR6 T got a 12.731 timeslip at WSID with a second gear launch, but the Racelogic GPS measured 400 metre time on the run was 12.97 seconds. On the next run I used Drive (1st gear) with lower stall revs and got a 12.509 second timeslip, but the GPS measured time was a slower 12.84 seconds.

A lot of people don't take that into account.

[fgpsi]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

OK then...let me say it another way, on a particular day, a bloke turned up with a tuned GTS auto and ran 12.8 down the strip, on that same night dl86 went 12.4 in a stock auto, i ran 13 flat in a manual GTP couple this with 2 instances where drivers.of the GTS feel the need to ask "thats not stock ??" At the next lights. My point in all this is the GTS is not quicker then a GT IN real life situations that I have been exposed to.
add the fact that it gets decimated on the dyno makes me want to tell people who are happy to listen that the GTS is not a wow power machine of the showroom floor, certainly not a hell of alot more then the GT Falcons.

FG F6 is much faster than all of em in real life situations

[nz13boy]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

Take this from a guy on his 2nd 335 GTP.
THE GTS IS NOT QUICKER FROM A SET OF LIGHTS AT ALL.
My mate flogged one around a race track too with a tune. Great package no doubt. However mate I would not take it over a GT on performance alone no way.

A traffic light "race" is hardly a comparable comparison. Way to many variables with differing driver skill levels, driver intentions, driver reactions etc to name just a few.

Same goes for the race track flooging. Put the same driver in two different cars, as Motoring mags etc do, compare the two, and in 100% of reviews I've read, the Gts comes out on top. Numero uno, Number one. No traffic light duels or race track floggings with two (skill level) unknown drivers needed.

Take it from someone who's driven a Vf GTS (a benefit of owning a R35 GTR is everyone wants to "swap") and once owned a 355 gtp and sold it because (in stock form at least) it wasnt as quick as my f6, handled just as crappily as my F6 (although for a Grand tourer, its pretty good, but as a "perfomance sedan" its ordinary in my opinion) and wasnt being used as I genuine thought a supercharged Gt should of been quicker.

Virtually EVERYONE whos compared the GT/Gtf have concluded the the Gts is FASTER, CORNERS BETTER, BRAKES BETTER and obviously better specced. And all this done with less Rear Wheel Kw then the ford.