FPV DECIMATED the HSV!

[Rodge]

I'm not sure what is so hard for people to understand about the GTS running a heavy duty driveline and huge 9 1/2 inch diff losing more power loss through the driveline...seriously how hard is this for the average punter to get their head around. That and I saw 800nm's of torque at midrange revs for the GTS on the Mainline dyno chart that briefly appeared in that video and perhaps more importantly it was making over 700 nm's of torque very early in the rev range !!

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

How does the torque compare?

Showing the torque and power curves would have been nice instead of just giving a peak power number

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I'm not sure what is so hard for people to understand about the GTS running a heavy duty driveline and huge 9 1/2 inch diff losing more power loss through the driveline...seriously how hard is this for the average punter to get their head around. That and I saw 800nm's of torque at midrange revs for the GTS on the Mainline dyno chart that briefly appeared in that video and perhaps more importantly it was making over 700 nm's of torque very early in the rev range !!

Shh, your making sense.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I'm not sure what is so hard for people to understand about the GTS running a heavy duty driveline and huge 9 1/2 inch diff losing more power loss through the driveline...seriously how hard is this for the average punter to get their head around. That and I saw 800nm's of torque at midrange revs for the GTS on the Mainline dyno chart that briefly appeared in that video and perhaps more importantly it was making over 700 nm's of torque very early in the rev range !!

More than made up for considering GTS is intercooled and GTF is not.
End of the day, GTF makes more peak HP. GTS makes more under the curve .
GTS will be a quicker car point to point. It has more torque down low. It should considering it is a litre in capacity larger.
Wouldn't be too much in it though, would depend on reaction time as both have demonstrated very quick 0-100 and 0-400 and rolling acceleration times.
As a dyno exercise for peak HP , its the GTF that wins. What's so difficult to swallow about that ?

[futura]

Originally Posted by b0son

The run was done to ensure maximum overboost, no? So the reality is it doesn't decimate the GTA at all in the real world, because you cant guarantee that you will get the right conditions most of the time.

Your absolutely right it doesn't decimate the GTA, but Decimates the GTS

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Pretty much, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Problem is, it took the presence of a Ford engineer to get that number, whats the average joe gonna do when his GTF is run on the dyno in the engineers absence???

The first tests weren't fudged, the problem is to get the maximum from the vehicle you need to be a bit more educated than a dyno tuner who does it for a living.
Enter Ford engineer and it all comes together.

None of it will matter anyway because history shows that these two will find their way around Mt Panorama together at some stage, its the Aussie way and all the killerwasps in the world wont count for **** then.

The results in the first test weren't in line with what the GTS and 335 GT make let alone the GT-F.
What about the motoring test no ford engineer there and I believe the gt-f was consistent over the 9 runs they did.
I still don't believe wheels story about the loose straping of the GTS, why waste dyno time strapping a car loose to run it up then stop and restrap it, it isn't like the gts makes a unknown amount of power he should know how tight it needs to be.

[EgoFG]

Just saying ... 'cause no one else cares

HSV <> Holden
FPV = Ford

A better comparison would have been the FT-F to the top performance Holden.

Walkinshaw is in a different market and can tap into different resources.

If you want apples to apples then GT-F against SS-V Redline.
The prices are prolly a lot better match too !!

[Rodge]

As a dyno exercise for peak HP , its the GTF that wins. What's so difficult to swallow about that ?

I have no problem and don't need to swallow it as you put it.
In ideal conditions that exist from time to time when the SC GT-F can make maximum over-boost, for a short period of time before it gets too hot or after it has been warmed up and isn't too cold the GT-F is capable of making slightly more peak power right at the top of the rev range on a dyno due to its more efficient driveline. My wife performs very well in absolutly ideal conditions too, but they don't occur very often

If that's your only measure of which is the better car that's your perogative.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I have no problem and don't need to swallow it as you put it.
In ideal conditions that exist from time to time when the SC GT-F can make maximum over-boost, for a short period of time before it gets too hot or after it has been warmed up and isn't too cold the GT-F is capable of making slightly more peak power right at the top of the rev range on a dyno due to its more efficient driveline. My wife performs very well in absolutly ideal conditions too, but they don't occur very often

If that's your only measure of which is the better car that's your perogative.

Quiet day at the SRT forum?

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Rodge

If that's your only measure of which is the better car that's your perogative.

That is not my measure - you are reading what you want into it - or not reading at all.......
I specifically stated that GTS would be quicker point to point.
I also made a statement that as a "DYNO" exrecise - the GTF would win.
If you entered both cars into a DYNO competition - the GTF would win - simple. Not my cup of tea - but there are many out there that do attend DYNO comps.
It also shows the potential of the GTF engine in relation to how hard it can work. HP is the measure of an engine's potential to work. The Torque is what puts that potential to work. Under the curve - the GTS clearly has an advantage - it translates to its on road ability. I am not doubting the GTS ability. Its spec sheet testifies ........ no it demands that it should be the better performance package.
The surprise here is how close the GTF comes to it. The DYNO test that Wheels did and re did was a good bit of academic fun.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by kypez

Quiet day at the SRT forum?

How'd ya guess

[Patty]

I actually don't know a hell of a lot about the new 5.0 engine, but why isn't it intercooled as standard?

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Patty

I actually don't know a hell of a lot about the new 5.0 engine, but why isn't it intercooled as standard?

HSV didnt allow it..

[b0son]

Originally Posted by futura

Your absolutely right it doesn't decimate the GTA, but Decimates the GTS

If picking on a typo is the best you can do, your position clearly is tenuous.

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by Patty

I actually don't know a hell of a lot about the new 5.0 engine, but why isn't it intercooled as standard?

$$$ would be my first guess but you'd think the over boost thing would cost more than a intercooler.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Patty

I actually don't know a hell of a lot about the new 5.0 engine, but why isn't it intercooled as standard?

It would have broken the car IIRC. They supposedly made an intercooled version but the chassis wasn't up to it? Something to that effect.

The GTHO that almost was..... they could have beefed up the chassis, done a limited run of a few hundred and charged whatever they liked to cover the cost, and would have sold every. single. one.

:(

[tweeked]

Technically, In order to decimate it would need to have beaten the GTS by 43 kw, if you take the true meaning of the word literally.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by Patty

I actually don't know a hell of a lot about the new 5.0 engine, but why isn't it intercooled as standard?

To give you an idea of how much more potential the 5.0lt has compared to HSV's LSA is the throttle body being restricted to only 60% from factory. The engine massively over delivered during development. Even in 335 form its a match for the LSA in RWKWs. It only lags behind when it comes to torque delivery with 1.2lts less capacity. The reason behind no intercooling includes costs and head room for updates later but also its another way to hold the power back. As much as we all love our Falcons, the rest of the car is just not up to task of housing the Miami in Ford eyes when it comes to warranty. Ford were at 430kw with the little old 5lt a long time before HSV even thought about the LSA. There is just no development money to build a car to hold it, the game has changed and Ford are not in a position to catch up.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

It isn't decimated. But it is a win in that test. I agree actual race wins is a better gauge of the faster car. Get 'em out at a drag strip and have the same driver run each 10 or more times and see what the bests are. Both Autos and both cars on the same day at the same track with the same driver.

Even if they do that the 'losing' side will still whinge. Probably why nobody bothers.

And you know what....they do this PROPERLY.....THEN they can change their advertising to the "quickest" or "fastest" Aussie muscle car. Instead of the false "most powerfull"
I'd be ashamed if my 430 badged hsv was even closely matched on a dyno by a "351" badged car that cost far less!!!
Same at the drag strip. If it's not more then half a second with that big 430 badge and all those tech goodies and superior tyres then I'd be pretty shy about it!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by dragons90

The results in the first test weren't in line with what the GTS and 335 GT make let alone the GT-F.
What about the motoring test no ford engineer there and I believe the gt-f was consistent over the 9 runs they did.
I still don't believe wheels story about the loose straping of the GTS, why waste dyno time strapping a car loose to run it up then stop and restrap it, it isn't like the gts makes a unknown amount of power he should know how tight it needs to be.

Ohh I loved that ole chest nut....I bought that up elsewhere plenty of times....just to check the credibility of a tuner that does pretests without proper straps on a dyno

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

To give you an idea of how much more potential the 5.0lt has compared to HSV's LSA is the throttle body being restricted to only 60% from factory. The engine massively over delivered during development. Even in 335 form its a match for the LSA in RWKWs. It only lags behind when it comes to torque delivery with 1.2lts less capacity. The reason behind no intercooling includes costs and head room for updates later but also its another way to hold the power back. As much as we all love our Falcons, the rest of the car is just not up to task of housing the Miami in Ford eyes when it comes to warranty. Ford were at 430kw with the little old 5lt a long time before HSV even thought about the LSA. There is just no development money to build a car to hold it, the game has changed and Ford are not in a position to catch up.

It really is a simple big picture.....
If ford wanted too they could have BLOWN hsv away even more then they allready had with the turbo6s....but that would have meant spending stupid amounts on cars that's lives where about to be over. Hence the debt Holden is in vs half the debt ford is in.
Oh and who was it AGAIN trying to squeeze more money out of the government THIS week despite allready getting twice that of fords in the last ten years?

But don't worry...they went out with a vf bang!!

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by futura

Do you know who I am?

Are no. Who?

[stazza]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I'm not sure what is so hard for people to understand about the GTS running a heavy duty driveline and huge 9 1/2 inch diff losing more power loss through the driveline...seriously how hard is this for the average punter to get their head around. That and I saw 800nm's of torque at midrange revs for the GTS on the Mainline dyno chart that briefly appeared in that video and perhaps more importantly it was making over 700 nm's of torque very early in the rev range !!

This guy.

So how much power exactly does a car lose through a huge 9 1/2" diff and driveline?

Without an engine dyno how can you say the GTS makes more power at the engine? You're just speculating, and I highly doubt you're qualified enough to draw an accurate assumption on how much power it would lose through the drive train.

Why does this concern you so much when you own neither of them anyway?

[701let]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

Yeah but it is still 19rwkw that the GTS is supposed to have. It is supposed to have more power than the GT F and it doesn't. As others have pointed out this is an issue HSV fans and owners will have with the car, and while it isn't a 'decimation' in terms of measured performance, the real damage goes to their pride.

Edit: I can understand it. I'd be salty if I believed the marketing and paid a premium for a car that was supposed to be the most powerful Australian built car and dyno testing showed that the rival marque's cheaper, smaller-engined alternative actually puts out more at the wheels.

Mate is it 19 rwkw across the rev range or 19kw at some peak above 5000 rpm somewhere (and 30 odd kW less across the rest of the rev range )?

Every 1/4 and 0-100 time whether wet or dry, manual or auto you name it the gts is quicker. Even on the videos where the gt gets out of the hole better the gts still pegs it back and goes past. Torque.

Again good on ford for what they have achieved but honestly I don't think any hsv owner is going to have a bruised ego or whatever

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by 701let

Mate is it 19 rwkw across the rev range or 19kw at some peak above 5000 rpm somewhere (and 30 odd kW less across the rest of the rev range )?

Every 1/4 and 0-100 time whether wet or dry, manual or auto you name it the gts is quicker. Even on the videos where the gt gets out of the hole better the gts still pegs it back and goes past. Torque.

Again good on ford for what they have achieved but honestly I don't think any hsv owner is going to have a bruised ego or whatever

Correct no bruised ego at all just a less powerful car

[Falcman0o7]

I've never known a holden to be OVERATED!

You got caught out his time! SUCK IT UP!

The little 5.0 is KING.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by stazza

This guy.

So how much power exactly does a car lose through a huge 9 1/2" diff and driveline?

Without an engine dyno how can you say the GTS makes more power at the engine? You're just speculating, and I highly doubt you're qualified enough to draw an accurate assumption on how much power it would lose through the drive train.

Why does this concern you so much when you own neither of them anyway?

I actually spent many hours of research on this when I owned my SC FPV out of technical interest and a big diff like that can lose quite a few percent in driveline losses. its not an exact science..but then again its highly durable with its own cooler and will last longer. ZF is a highly efficient gearbox compared to most but they're not bullet-proof, especially the input shaft.
Interesting that they chose to do this comparison with two automatic cars.
I wonder what the result would have been if they'd both been manual versions and both engines fully run in, rather than the GTS engine only having done 1800 km's...

Unlike most on here I don't have any issue with HSV claiming 430 kw's at the crank and understand 25-26% driveline losses are not unusual in certain circumstances while in others 18-20% are not unusual either.

[stazza]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I actually spent many hours of research on this when I owned my SC FPV out of technical interest. ZF is a highly efficient gearbox compared to most.
Interesting that they chose to do this comparison with two automatic cars.
I wonder what the result would have been both manuals and both engines fully run in.

How much actual research did you spend on a GTS personally, having owned a GT335 I'm guessing you wouldn't have spent nearly as much time with a GTS?

Have you compared your results on the GT335 and then with a Miami on an engine dyno to confidently say you are right on the money with your scientific calculations on exactly how much power the ZF sucks up? Have you compared the ZF against the gearbox in the GTS to come up with some hard figures, or is it just speculation? What kind of research did you do? Are you qualified to do in depth accurate research?

A quick google search on the LSA quoted engine output is 565hp. If the HSV got ~410rwhp, that's a loss off 22% or so. Drivetrain doesn't seem that power hungry after all really?

[BHDOGS]

Ofcourse you dont your a big holden boy toy.

[Rodge]

Its a black art and steeped in a lot of theory and mystery.
I searched a lot of interesting literature on the subject...there's an awful lot to it.
Even the size of the wheels can have quite a significant effect on rwkw's due to the extra centrifugal force required to rotate a bigger mass.
Tyre slip is another huge area and the size of the diff and losses therein can vary widely.
Transmission losses can vary significantly and as mentioned the ZF is extremely efficient whereas the heavy duty unit is the GTS less so.

I think there's quite a bit in this the following area's
1. IIRC The GTS engine had only done about 1800 km's so was fairly green whereas the GT-F engine had about 8,000 km's on it so was probably fully run in. I think this factor alone could account for 2-3 % as a best guess of the power discrepancy.
2. GTS is running 20 inch wheels = more centrifugal losses from greater rotating mass
3. GTS transmission is best guess 2% less efficient than the ZF box
4. Bigger diff probably soaks up another one or two percent at least

Add it all up, you do the maths but seeing as we're talking about a less than 6% peak power difference between the cars on the Mainline dyno all Im saying from a technical perspective it would be good to see them reevaluate this test with 2 manual cars that have both done about the same km's to see the difference then.

Then there's the fact that the GT-F was a dedicated press car from the outset...not saying the engine was blueprinted or had a special tune but one can't rule that out seeing as they knew it would be a press car but the fact that its been belted really hard as a dedicated evaluation vehicle from the get go is possibly to its advantage in this comparison.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by stazza

How much actual research did you spend on a GTS personally, having owned a GT335 I'm guessing you wouldn't have spent nearly as much time with a GTS?

Have you compared your results on the GT335 and then with a Miami on an engine dyno to confidently say you are right on the money with your scientific calculations on exactly how much power the ZF sucks up? Have you compared the ZF against the gearbox in the GTS to come up with some hard figures, or is it just speculation? What kind of research did you do? Are you qualified to do in depth accurate research?

A quick google search on the LSA quoted engine output is 565hp. If the HSV got ~410rwhp, that's a loss off 22% or so. Drivetrain doesn't seem that power hungry after all really?

You might want to re-check your maths there mate. Using your figures the driveline loss is 27.4% (565 x .726 = approx. 410)
Obviously I've looked into this a lot closer than you