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

[prydey]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Gotta lol at the muppet on ls1 putting up figures from HPF... They got 282 rwkw from a sc gt and the dude from HPF goes on to say that there's no chance in hell a 5.0 would make over 340rwkw's on a reputable dyno

all i see on that site, is a tuner trying to make a quick buck with the uninitiated. put up a chart that shows a 60kw improvement and watch the suckers get their wallets out. one of the oldest tricks in the book.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by futura

All you need is a non biased experienced tuning shop. Base run on a standard vehicle that everyone knows the power of, followed by the two heavy weights.

There are plenty genuine tuning shops that will be happy to run these two Australian build modern day muscle cars. I can name a number of them up here in Sydney, invite Both wheels and Motor as well as street machine and two engineers, one from each camp just to make things fair and let the figures do the talking. No arguments. Then crown Australia's most powerful car.

All we want is a fair comparison. Is that too much to ask?

There'd still be arguments about things like straps (and rightly so, it does make a difference). The first thing people were hung up on before any results were released was that the GTS looked like it wasn't on as tight as the GTF.

As much as dyno wars disgust me (they're a tuning tool and a higher peak number doesn't necessarily mean a faster car, we all know that) but if you're going to do it, particularly for a big magazine, the least you could do is put some effort in. In Sydney I would have taken them to Jim at Tunehouse, he uses a hub dyno and can control the environment in the dyno room.

http://www.tunehouse.com.au/archives...use-dyno-room/

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

In Sydney I would have taken them to Jim at Tunehouse, he uses a hub dyno and can control the environment in the dyno room.

http://www.tunehouse.com.au/archives...use-dyno-room/

thats ultra impressive.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by futura

All you need is a non biased experienced tuning shop. Base run on a standard vehicle that everyone knows the power of, followed by the two heavy weights.

There are plenty genuine tuning shops that will be happy to run these two Australian build modern day muscle cars. I can name a number of them up here in Sydney, invite Both wheels and Motor as well as street machine and two engineers, one from each camp just to make things fair and let the figures do the talking. No arguments. Then crown Australia's most powerful car.

All we want is a fair comparison. Is that too much to ask?

Exactly....I loved how they fobbed this off by pretending any ole local tuner would do......when in fact they are a massively pro Holden tuner. All they were doing was trying to crown the most powerfull ever Aussie muscle car.......no need for unbiased, reputable, reliable, efficient and believable dyno battle.
So many guys want to just fob this off as pedantic or a useless dyno battle, or something only pub chats care about.....WHATEVER. This is about honest results, about which car holds the most powerfull Australian car title.
If you truly are an Aussie...this matters

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Bent8

If you wanna talk about affordability, instead of spending $95k on a GTS, get yourself a GT-F for $140k
Let us know the result

fixed it for you...

[Nova 8]

Has Holden stated that the current GTS is the most powerful version they are gonna make, let's be honest, it doesn't matter if they do it now or in 2016, if they beat the GTF then they win. That said, has Ford said the GTF is the most powerful car they are gonna produce or just their signature send off to FPV?

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Robos F6

Regardless of the dyno talk at the pub as we know this is just a ****ing contest. I'm still yet to see a GT/GTF beat a GTS same track/ same day by the same tester. I know we are waiting for a auto v's auto comparison, but i still don't think it will beat the GTS. Time will tell.

I've got an open mind, but at the moment the Auto GT-F has a great 348 RWKW Dyno number. However just look at the on track performances that Wheels and Motor have published in their current issues.

1) Wheels. A 12.68 sec 400 metre time at 186.7 kmh in an auto (the 348 RWKW car I believe). Temp 17 degrees, an apparently good launch and 100 kmh to 186.7 took 8.00 seconds. I expected more. Drive got a 12.18 sec 400 metre time at 190 kmh for the HSV and a lower 7.87 second time from 100 to 190.

2) 13.09 to 400 metres at 185.4 kmh for the manual that they tested at the same time and 100 to 185.4 took 8.15 sec.

3) Motor Magazine. Apparently they tested the same Auto at 7 degrees and it could only manage an 8.2 second time from 100 kmh to it's 181 kmh 400 metre end speed.

By contrast at WSID recently my standard untuned FG XR6T auto's time from 100 kmh to 181 was a very similar 8.27 seconds and it's got around 86 RWKW less in its overboost mode. Dragstrip timeslip was 12.731 for the quarter and the car was launched in second gear. 19 degrees temperature.

On the subject of my car. you were very close to the mark when you suggested that I should try to get a 12.3 ( in the "Confusion over VF SS 0 - 100 times" thread, page 4).
On the next run using Drive with a first gear launch the car got a 12.509 second 1/4 mile timeslip.
I was very happy with that, but it's also worth noting that I used a 300 rpm lower stall up on this run and previous GPS data that I have shows that the car can pick up almost 2 tenths in first gear from the higher stall, so there's clear evidence of the power for a 12.3, however I'm pretty sure that the grip wouldn't have been there on the night. Of course believing that your car can get a time and getting the time are two different things.

Whatever the case though your suggested 12.3 number was close, with 12.509 only being 0.11 sec outside of a high 12.3 pass.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by burnz

fixed it for you...

haha, I was waiting for that...

I guess we can agree that when the GT-F went on sale, the RRP was $77,990... that's what most owners paid and that's what counts mate

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I've got an open mind, but at the moment the Auto GT-F has a great 348 RWKW Dyno number. However just look at the on track performances that Wheels and Motor have published in their current issues.

1) Wheels. A 12.68 sec 400 metre time at 186.7 kmh in an auto (the 348 RWKW car I believe). Temp 17 degrees, an apparently good launch and 100 kmh to 186.7 took 8.00 seconds. I expected more. Drive got a 12.18 sec 400 metre time at 190 kmh for the HSV and a lower 7.87 second time from 100 to 190.

2) 13.09 to 400 metres at 185.4 kmh for the manual that they tested at the same time and 100 to 185.4 took 8.15 sec.

3) Motor Magazine. Apparently they tested the same Auto at 7 degrees and it could only manage an 8.2 second time from 100 kmh to it's 181 kmh 400 metre end speed.

Grip grip grip.... throw some P-Zero's on that GT-F and you'll see what it can really do !

The terminal speed (186.7kph) suggests it should do low 12's all day long..

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Exactly....I loved how they fobbed this off by pretending any ole local tuner would do......when in fact they are a massively pro Holden tuner. All they were doing was trying to crown the most powerfull ever Aussie muscle car.......no need for unbiased, reputable, reliable, efficient and believable dyno battle.
So many guys want to just fob this off as pedantic or a useless dyno battle, or something only pub chats care about.....WHATEVER. This is about honest results, about which car holds the most powerfull Australian car title.
If you truly are an Aussie...this matters

All I want to do is to hold Wheels to account at how deceptive they've been. I suspect that the GTF is the most powerful car ever built in this country. Wheels are trying to award that title to another car, by playing silly buggers.

Once a few more GTFs have been run on a chassis dyno we will know for sure. Prior to the GTS the GT335 held the title. Once the GTS came along, it's been pretty even. Now the GT has got a software boost in the GTF I think the title is once again Fords.
Wheels had the opportunity to be one of the first to find out, but they took the low road and stayed in Holdens pocket.

For the record, for everyone else chiming in with other topics and points if the GTF is the most powerful car produced in this country it is not necessarily -
the best car
fastest car drag car
the fastest track car
the most reliable car
the most well appointed car
the cheapest car
etc etc etc

The thread title is what the thread in my mind was meant to be about.

Surely to **** on a Ford forum of all place we can make a statement like this, without someone jumping in every 4 posts and saying "but it doesn't have seat warmers, or it doesn't handle like a GT3 or it is too expensive"

Can't the poor old GT just have this title, farrk

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I've got an open mind, but at the moment the Auto GT-F has a great 348 RWKW Dyno number. However just look at the on track performances that Wheels and Motor have published in their current issues.

1) Wheels. A 12.68 sec 400 metre time at 186.7 kmh in an auto (the 348 RWKW car I believe). Temp 17 degrees, an apparently good launch and 100 kmh to 186.7 took 8.00 seconds. I expected more. Drive got a 12.18 sec 400 metre time at 190 kmh for the HSV and a lower 7.87 second time from 100 to 190.

2) 13.09 to 400 metres at 185.4 kmh for the manual that they tested at the same time and 100 to 185.4 took 8.15 sec.

3) Motor Magazine. Apparently they tested the same Auto at 7 degrees and it could only manage an 8.2 second time from 100 kmh to it's 181 kmh 400 metre end speed.

By contrast at WSID recently my standard untuned FG XR6T auto's time from 100 kmh to 181 was a very similar 8.27 seconds and it's got around 86 RWKW less in its overboost mode. Dragstrip timeslip was 12.731 for the quarter and the car was launched in second gear. 19 degrees temperature.

On the subject of my car. you were very close to the mark when you suggested that I should try to get a 12.3 ( in the "Confusion over VF SS 0 - 100 times" thread, page 4).
On the next run using Drive with a first gear launch the car got a 12.509 second 1/4 mile timeslip.
I was very happy with that, but it's also worth noting that I used a 300 rpm lower stall up on this run and previous GPS data that I have shows that the car can pick up almost 2 tenths in first gear from the higher stall, so there's clear evidence of the power for a 12.3, however I'm pretty sure that the grip wouldn't have been there on the night. Of course believing that your car can get a time and getting the time are two different things.

Whatever the case though your suggested 12.3 number was close, with 12.509 only being 0.11 sec outside of a high 12.3 pass.

sorry to call you out fella, as you are not by any stretch alone, you are just the closest post I found when I scrolled up to find an example, but............

What the hell has that got to do with the topic of which is the most powerful Australian production car???

[hootar]

Originally Posted by 2242100

3) Motor Magazine. Apparently they tested the same Auto at 7 degrees and it could only manage an 8.2 second time from 100 kmh to it's 181 kmh 400 metre end speed.

Apparently Motor used the Prototype vehicle to record the GTF numbers. Not sure what KW it makes!

[MITCHAY]

Do the manufacturers ever quote 'official' ATW figures?

It's not the first time around here and elsewhere that I've heard HSV over quote and FPV under quote.

If I look at both websites they both say X amount of kws in DIN measurement presumably at the engine.

So if they make what they say at the engine then where are the claims coming from about under or over quoting figures apart from ATW dyno runs?

I know that the overboost is not included in the 351kw or 335kw but are people saying that the GTS actually has a lot less than 430kw at the engine?

Are they of the thinking that because of the ATW figures, it can't be making that much power at the engine despite all the variables involved in such tests?

I'm just curious here. There is this and that flying around I'm just wondering where does it come from.

[Auslandau]

Debate everything by all means but lets not get too personal as appreciate that there is bias on the Forums and some are very passionate about their cars. After all, people come here because they own Fords and wouldn't have it any other way.

There is nothing wrong with being a Ford enthusiast. And nothing wrong with being a Motoring enthusiast either so both sides should appreciate everyones point of view.

[GASWAGON]

One problem also is that different dyno's can pull different numbers.....Dyno's themselves need calibrating every now and then.

I am hoping the Wheels dyno tests were done on a recently calibrated dyno.

And as i said in the other thread about this topic.....The GT-F is 1.2 litres less capacity than the GTS......AND still recording similar results.

That to me is a WIN WIN for Ford!!!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Do the manufacturers ever quote 'official' ATW figures?

It's not the first time around here and elsewhere that I've heard HSV over quote and FPV under quote.

If I look at both websites they both say X amount of kws in DIN measurement presumably at the engine.

So if they make what they say at the engine then where are the claims coming from about under or over quoting figures apart from ATW dyno runs?

I know that the overboost is not included in the 351kw or 335kw but are people saying that the GTS actually has a lot less than 430kw at the engine?

Are they of the thinking that because of the ATW figures, it can't be making that much power at the engine despite all the variables involved in such tests?

I'm just curious here. There is this and that flying around I'm just wondering where does it come from.

manufacturers dyno the engines and that will give them a figure they can then use for marketing. Is it the actual engine figure? in some cases, no.

in the case of GTS, mainly its the one eyed blue brigade that scream that it can't possibly be making 430kw at the fly. personally, given the recent dyno results of 330 and 339 from 2 different examples, and the one that ran the 339 is also the one that ran a 12.1@194 in the Drive test, i think the 430 figure is ok. bear in mind that its likely that GM dyno the engine minus ancillaries and if it hits 430kw, then they are well within their rights to use that figure.

the only cars that are a bit vague are the aussie built falcons, mainly the turbo 6's and 8's. perhaps ford did this so that it didn't become an all out KW war with holden, with each trying to better the other with each release? perhaps they did it due to variation in outputs so they picked a medium figure. who knows, but apart from recent performance falcons, most manufacturers list a figure that is reasonably close to representing the flywheel power.

thats my take on it.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Do the manufacturers ever quote 'official' ATW figures?

It's not the first time around here and elsewhere that I've heard HSV over quote and FPV under quote.

If I look at both websites they both say X amount of kws in DIN measurement presumably at the engine.

So if they make what they say at the engine then where are the claims coming from about under or over quoting figures apart from ATW dyno runs?

I know that the overboost is not included in the 351kw or 335kw but are people saying that the GTS actually has a lot less than 430kw at the engine?

Are they of the thinking that because of the ATW figures, it can't be making that much power at the engine despite all the variables involved in such tests?

I'm just curious here. There is this and that flying around I'm just wondering where does it come from.

Have a look here for some stock GTS dyno numbers..

http://www.hsvforum.com.au/showthrea...and-After-Dyno

Five different cars ranging from 307-324rwkw

Based on claimed flywheel output of 430kW, the GTS with the least rwkw has a driveline power loss of 28%

The car with the most rear wheel power only loses 24%

So the average driveline power loss is 26% for the GTS (316rwkw)

Make of that what you will...

[burnz]

Originally Posted by prydey

manufacturers dyno the engines and that will give them a figure they can then use for marketing. Is it the actual engine figure? in some cases, no.

in the case of GTS, mainly its the one eyed blue brigade that scream that it can't possibly be making 430kw at the fly. personally, given the recent dyno results of 330 and 339 from 2 different examples, and the one that ran the 339 is also the one that ran a 12.1@194 in the Drive test, i think the 430 figure is ok. bear in mind that its likely that GM dyno the engine minus ancillaries and if it hits 430kw, then they are well within their rights to use that figure.

the only cars that are a bit vague are the aussie built falcons, mainly the turbo 6's and 8's. perhaps ford did this so that it didn't become an all out KW war with holden, with each trying to better the other with each release? perhaps they did it due to variation in outputs so they picked a medium figure. who knows, but apart from recent performance falcons, most manufacturers list a figure that is reasonably close to representing the flywheel power.

thats my take on it.

you post is probably the most logical and accurate post.

my beef is with the dyno itself,, BHP is 33,000lbs per foot/per minute. not mechanical twisting force, divide by 2 pi "R" dribble..
simply a 21hands draught horse.

so these dyno operator,, do they weight the cars to get weight shifted power?
or a derived number from torque?
ET is gear ratio where torque is MPH weight shifted...

so me and others the proof is terminal speed after the car has been weight..
to simple for some.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by burnz

so me and others the proof is terminal speed after the car has been weight..
to simple for some.

bear in mind, it isn't really that simple either with the modern computerised cars.

with inbuilt driveline protection, there is a good chance your 1/4 mile run is also being nobbled by big brother. the ecu may not let you have full power until you are well in to the run.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by prydey

bear in mind, it isn't really that simple either with the modern computerised cars.

with inbuilt driveline protection, there is a good chance your 1/4 mile run is also being nobbled by big brother. the ecu may not let you have full power until you are well in to the run.

I'm thinking only the 'engineers' know these sorts of details.....WHICH IS WHY THER SHOULD BE ENGINEERS from BOTH Parties at the next Dyno Shootout if that is actually going to happen!!!.

Rant Off!

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Shonky.

sorry to call you out fella, as you are not by any stretch alone, you are just the closest post I found when I scrolled up to find an example, but............

What the hell has that got to do with the topic of which is the most powerful Australian production car???

Sorry mate, I did go off topic in the last part of the post because of who I was replying to, but to me the earlier part was legitimate because so far I've seen a great Dyno figure for the Ford that hasn't at this point been backed up by a great on track performance and I think we all should wait until we see comparison tests. My mind is open at the moment.

[CyberWasp]

So the dumb question of the day. If FPV had been making the GTS what would the kw value have been stuck on the sales brochure?

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

So the dumb question of the day. If FPV had been making the GTS what would the kw value have been stuck on the sales brochure?

530kw???

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by EF_6

One problem also is that different dyno's can pull different numbers.....Dyno's themselves need calibrating every now and then.

I am hoping the Wheels dyno tests were done on a recently calibrated dyno.

And as i said in the other thread about this topic.....The GT-F is 1.2 litres less capacity than the GTS......AND still recording similar results.

That to me is a WIN WIN for Ford!!!

Originally Posted by prydey

manufacturers dyno the engines and that will give them a figure they can then use for marketing. Is it the actual engine figure? in some cases, no.

in the case of GTS, mainly its the one eyed blue brigade that scream that it can't possibly be making 430kw at the fly. personally, given the recent dyno results of 330 and 339 from 2 different examples, and the one that ran the 339 is also the one that ran a 12.1@194 in the Drive test, i think the 430 figure is ok. bear in mind that its likely that GM dyno the engine minus ancillaries and if it hits 430kw, then they are well within their rights to use that figure.

the only cars that are a bit vague are the aussie built falcons, mainly the turbo 6's and 8's. perhaps ford did this so that it didn't become an all out KW war with holden, with each trying to better the other with each release? perhaps they did it due to variation in outputs so they picked a medium figure. who knows, but apart from recent performance falcons, most manufacturers list a figure that is reasonably close to representing the flywheel power.

thats my take on it.

My beef is not with the absolute numbers. I'm prepared to concede that dyno numbers can be well off the mark and not due to attempted fraud or anything sinister. It's an imprecise science (art?)

My beef is with the relative numbers of the two cars in the Wheels debacle

If the GTF made 311rwkw, then I don't believe the GTS legitimately made 330rwkw. Alternatively I don't believe if the GTS made 330, that the Ford only made 311.

Absolute values on a dyno are meaningless, but under controlled conditions comparisons are

[Shonky.]

Double post

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Sorry mate, I did go off topic in the last part of the post because of who I was replying to, but to me the earlier part was legitimate because so far I've seen a great Dyno figure for the Ford that hasn't at this point been backed up by a great on track performance and I think we all should wait until we see comparison tests. My mind is open at the moment.

Fair play mate, sorry for being a twat, I should have found one of the actually guilty posts where people go "sure, it makes more power, but it's still slower round a race track (which is probably true, just not the issue at hand)

[pottery beige]

Kemps creek would sort it out

[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?

[40RDT]

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?

Correct GTS has a better midrange. Go back a few pages you will see the dyno printouts, GTS has more power and torque up until 5500rpm

[2242100]

Originally Posted by hootar

Apparently Motor used the Prototype vehicle to record the GTF numbers. Not sure what KW it makes!

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