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

[Sorted]

The Aussie horsepower king has been identified. And we're as surprised as anyone...

http://www.motoring.com.au/news/spor...ampaign=buffer

Prepare for an Internet meltdown. The dyno figures are in and it's official, Ford Performance Vehicles' GT-F out-powers the Holden Special Vehicles GTS.

The forums have been raging since Ford unveiled the last ever FPV, the GT-F. Although it claims 351kW, the FPV engineers said then and there that the supercharged V8 Falcon was good for more. And clearly they weren't telling fibs…

Holden Special Vehicles GTS was launched in 2013 and on the spec sheet significantly out powers the Falcon with 430kW vs 351kW.

But now we've settled the argument. Or at the very least ignited a new one.

Same day, same dyno, same conditions... And the figures are in.

Ford Performance Vehicles GT-F
348.6kW at the rear wheels
721Nm at the rear wheels

Holden Special Vehicles GTS
339.6kW at the rear wheels
751Nm at the rear wheels

And yes, we are as dumbstruck as anyone.

Let the comments begin... And stay tuned for more on our Ultimate Aussie Muscle Car shootout.

Both autos, both had multiple runs. Nine runs in the FPV because we wanted to check it, double check it, and 4 runs for the HSV. As is convention, the runs were undertaken in fourth gear for both bruisers

[Whitey-AMG]

More KW but less torque. Even Stevens then.

[Nikked]

Don't ask Wheels about their test...


Needless to say, the HSV was on top...

[fgpsi]

Meltdownzzzzzz brooooooo

[fgpsi]

Wheels are full of poo

Bloody might aswell be official hsv magazine

[theboxmike]

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

[mik]

No one could ever complain either of these cars haven't got enough grunt, very impressive both cars.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Don't ask Wheels about their test...


Needless to say, the HSV was on top...

Ok so bogans don't use the internet and buy magazines ........

[Trump]

The big question now is, will the GT-F be able to put all that power down to the road and make the most of the prodigious power and torque?

[nstg8a]

Lol at the dyno owner saying it's consistent with past gt's and gts's... He doesn't mention they are also used by HSv to test their own vehicles.

I don't think any s/c gt on this forum has dynoed that low has it?

Even ford says that's the number they would expect from a heat soaked 335 or a heat soaked 351 that had fuel issues

[fgpsi]

Will Dowling and the fat guy from carsguide still go out of their way now to say the GTS is Australia's most powerful car every opportunity they get ?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The big question now is, will the GT-F be able to put all that power down to the road and make the most of the prodigious power and torque?

no.

there are many other issues when it comes to the track. HSV has more grip, better launch control, and possibly a driveline that needs less 'protection' from the ecu.

from a rolling start, from about 80km/h on a nice day, i'd expect it to be much much closer, and possibly a good outcome for the ford.

[Trump]

Unless Ford have pulled a rabbit out of the hat and fitted better shocks and tyres, and diff bushes that don't fail in a light breeze, I sadly agree with you prydey.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Will Dowling and the fat guy from carsguide still go out of their way now to say the GTS is Australia's most powerful car every opportunity they get ?

They have been up to now, and of course they still will.

Power = kW. Torque is not power.

Maybe they might change their wording to "fastest" to get around this.

[blackf6]

Cool as. But never really cared. GT is better than wearing a nappy and being a dibber dobber.

[lari au]

5.0 litre beats 6.2 litre. Fantastic little motor!!!

[cool65]

Brazil gets beaten 7-1 & now this, the world loves the underdog.

[XR6T0Y]

If you want a good laugh, head over to "Wheels Australia" on Facebook and see what all the peeps are saying.

About time (motoring) the FPV is finally not biased against

[sprint347dave]

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

Torque is king !

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

Tricky suspension , better tyres = better power down.

[rancidpunx]

Like a F6 the GTS has a butt load of Torque. Power wins arguments but Torque wins races.

[MITCHAY]

Well it will be interesting to see how many pages this racks up but as someone who never reads either, if the Wheels dyno stinks like poo then so does this one in my opinion.

For a start the GT-F had 9 runs to reach it's peak power compared to the GTS with 4 and it conveniently makes around what the FPV engineers says after disputing the other dyno.

In any case the GTS is consistent with 330 and 339 compared to 311 and 348 and the GT-F peak power is transient and could possibly explain why they did 9 runs to reach it.

I'd expect the GTS to gobble up more in the drive train. Someone with more knowledge could probably elaborate more either for or against that argument.

Both are awesome cars but I find it hard to overlook this.

[dragons90]

They said they did the 9 runs to make sure it was consistent.
Mosts 335 gt make over 310RwKw

[prydey]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

my opinion.

For a start the GT-F had 9 runs to reach it's peak power

it had 9 runs, correct, but where does it say it achieved peak power on the 9th run?

being non intercooled, i'd hardly think the results will continue to improve the more flogging it gets.

but you are right. one result is in fords favour, the other is not, so naturally we gravitate toward the one that is in fords favour.

having said that, there is also history to take in to account. the 335 has been around for some time now, and if you look at the history of its dyno results, there is a clear trend that a stock 335 is pushing north of 300 on pretty much every dyno in the country. most are over 310. logic dictates the GT-F should be north of that at a bare minimum.

[dragons90]

I love that fords getting burred up over the wheels dyno, hopefully it makes them bring out the intercooled motor and completely out power the gts.

[futura]

Most stock GT335s make anywhere from 315 to 335 at the rear wheels depending upon transmission choice and kms. Add Fords new 351 tune for the 351 GTF and 348.6rwkws is easily achievable.

[futura]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Well it will be interesting to see how many pages this racks up but as someone who never reads either, if the Wheels dyno stinks like poo then so does this one in my opinion.

For a start the GT-F had 9 runs to reach it's peak power compared to the GTS with 4 and it conveniently makes around what the FPV engineers says after disputing the other dyno.

In any case the GTS is consistent with 330 and 339 compared to 311 and 348 and the GT-F peak power is transient and could possibly explain why they did 9 runs to reach it.

I'd expect the GTS to gobble up more in the drive train. Someone with more knowledge could probably elaborate more either for or against that argument.

Both are awesome cars but I find it hard to overlook this.

Ok, can you tell me what run number 348.6 was achieved? If you cannot answer this question, you certainly not in a position to be commenting about the number of runs used to get this number.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by dragons90

They said they did the 9 runs to make sure it was consistent.
Mosts 335 gt make over 310RwKw

Originally Posted by prydey

it had 9 runs, correct, but where does it say it achieved peak power on the 9th run?

being non intercooled, i'd hardly think the results will continue to improve the more flogging it gets.

but you are right. one result is in fords favour, the other is not, so naturally we gravitate toward the one that is in fords favour.

having said that, there is also history to take in to account. the 335 has been around for some time now, and if you look at the history of its dyno results, there is a clear trend that a stock 335 is pushing north of 300 on pretty much every dyno in the country. most are over 310. logic dictates the GT-F should be north of that at a bare minimum.

Originally Posted by futura

Ok, can you tell me what run number 348.6 was achieved? If you cannot answer this question, you certainly not in a position to be commenting about the number of runs used to get this number.

It may or may not be relevant what run it was. Maybe I should have expanded on that a bit more. If these tests are under the same conditions then logic dictates they should run both the same amount of times and that being 9.

If you're trying to prove consistency and/or highest peak for the GT-F then why would you not do the same for the GTS.

I'm just trying to take a more objective view rather than the usual argument that tends to play out.

[BHDOGS]

As i suspected another ford victory.