Falcon GT vs. HSV GTS-R - Wheels Review

AWD Chaser · 08-01-2008, 12:50 PM

Hey guys. Found this and thought it might be worth a read - great pics too

Ford Falcon GT (EL 1997) vs. HSV GTS-R (VT 1997)

Link 1 - The comparison review
Link 2 - Building the EL GT

If you want Hi-Res links, just PM me your email address and I'll send them over to you (About 2Mb per page - JPG)

Steffo · 08-01-2008, 01:08 PM

Wow... they did 8.08 to 100 and 15.76 down the 1/4 in a car that should be doing 6.9/14.9.

:

Bossxr8 · 08-01-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Wow... they did 8.08 to 100 and 15.76 down the 1/4 in a car that should be doing 6.9/14.9.

:

Motor got 14.9 out of the EL GT.

Rob · 08-01-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Wow... they did 8.08 to 100 and 15.76 down the 1/4 in a car that should be doing 6.9/14.9.

:

They did state that they were aware that the car performed better with around 20,000km under its belt... perhaps the car was brand spanking?

Figures are only a guide, remember, not to be taken as gospel.

T3ts50 · 08-01-2008, 02:55 PM

Wheels are pretty useless when it comes to acceleration times. GTS-R also got 14.2 from Motor.

4Vman · 08-01-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3ts50

Wheels are pretty useless when it comes to acceleration times. GTS-R also got 14.2 from Motor.

Wheels always test with a passenger and half a tank of fuel, so an extra 100kg's + over what Motor test with which means they'll always have slower times than Motor.

MAGPIE · 08-01-2008, 03:36 PM

Who thinks one car has aged substantially better than the other

T3ts50 · 08-01-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Who thinks one car has aged substantially better than the other

I like both of them and wouldnt mind either in the garage.

Bossxr8 · 08-01-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Who thinks one car has aged substantially better than the other

The GTSR still looks as crap now as it did when it was released to me. The ultimate bogan dream car.

Disciple · 08-01-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Who thinks one car has aged substantially better than the other

They both look like old buckets of crap.

ELGT4me · 08-01-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disciple

They both look like old buckets of crap.

Shouldn't you be @ dinner with 12 of your friends?

:

Steffo · 08-01-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Wheels always test with a passenger and half a tank of fuel, so an extra 100kg's + over what Motor test with which means they'll always have slower times than Motor.

Yeah but 0.8 sec over the 1/4 and 1.1 sec to 100km/h from 100kg extra? Methinks there was some bad driving on their behalf.

ELGT4me · 08-01-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Yeah but 0.8 sec over the 1/4 and 1.1 sec to 100km/h from 100kg extra? Methinks there was some bad driving on their behalf.

A hot, humid day & a FULL tank of fuel & a passenger might account for their "bad" driving. Both cars were way off manufacturers claimed performance times.

:

Steffo · 08-01-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELGT4me

A hot, humid day & a FULL tank of fuel & a passenger might account for their "bad" driving. Both cars were way off manufacturers claimed performance times.

:

Their bad driving is consistant though. Wheels were the guys that were doing 14.6 in the F6 Typhoon, 15.0 in the BA GT and various other super bad times...

Hally · 08-01-2008, 08:51 PM

The thing that really stands out for me reading those articles, is how much better value cars are for the money these days.

Taking into consideration that in 97/98 the GT was $70k, look what you get for that amount these days from FVP or HSV, which not only smashes them in performance, but also includes lots of extra safety and equipment. That doesn't even take into consideration increases in the average weekly wage over the last ten years.

Out of curiousity, what would have an XR8 of the same year cost brand new?

ELGT4me · 08-01-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hally

The thing that really stands out for me reading those articles, is how much better value cars are for the money these days.

Taking into consideration that in 97/98 the GT was $70k, look what you get for that amount these days from FVP or HSV, which not only smashes them in performance, but also includes lots of extra safety and equipment. That doesn't even take into consideration increases in the average weekly wage over the last ten years.

Out of curiousity, what would have an XR8 of the same year cost brand new?

Fair comment, option up leather interior ,270 Build numbers exclusive body kit & for its day premium Yokohama tyre package. Remember the only options were transmission, tow package, sunroof & phone kit. (I think when your phone rang, it came through the premium audio system) Why would you want that?

:

Bossxr8 · 08-01-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hally

The thing that really stands out for me reading those articles, is how much better value cars are for the money these days.

Taking into consideration that in 97/98 the GT was $70k, look what you get for that amount these days from FVP or HSV, which not only smashes them in performance, but also includes lots of extra safety and equipment. That doesn't even take into consideration increases in the average weekly wage over the last ten years.

Out of curiousity, what would have an XR8 of the same year cost brand new?

2 reasons. The limited build numbers compared to todays FPV's and the amount of work they did to the EL GT. There's a lot more difference between an EL GT and an EL XR8 than their is between a BF GT and a BF XR8.

DBourne · 08-01-2008, 04:24 PM

i love reading parafanalia(spelling?) regarding the EL falcon from back in 96-98. makes me all warm in the tummy that i own one... though id have a much better feeling if i had an el GT *drool*

Rev28K · 08-01-2008, 04:36 PM

And the GTS-R's exclusive XU-3 yellow paint was actually the shade of yellow that Holden used for the Victorian taxis – the HSVs went through the paint booth at the same time as the taxis.

4Vman · 08-01-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev28K

And the GTS-R's exclusive XU-3 yellow paint was actually the shade of yellow that Holden used for the Victorian taxis – the HSVs went through the paint booth at the same time as the taxis.

Maybe that's where the "taxi" comment originated from about FPV's/HSV's...?

:

**Polyal** · 08-01-2008, 08:35 PM

As much as I cant stand VN-VS, I dont mind the GTS-R for some reason. Id also gladly take an EL GT.

Falcon Freak · 08-01-2008, 09:51 PM

I remember HSV had dozens of the yellow GTS-Rs in their Clayton holding yard for many months as the car wasn't selling very well at that time.

FF

Powdered Toast Man · 08-01-2008, 10:12 PM

Even the interior of the GTS-R has yellow highlights, god awful. And that wing!

Give me a Senator fitted with the 215Kw stroker (I know it's less powerful) rather than B1. But I'm not a big fan of the interior of the VN-VS, looks to disjointed and 80's, and even the outside of the VR/VS is dating faster than the EF/EL.

Holden did a great job with the interior of the VT IMO compared to them.

I'd take the EL GT over a commy anyway, but I prefer the look of the EB GT. I went for a ride in an EL GT back in about 1999. My uncle's boss had borrowed his company 4WD for the weekend so my uncle had his bosses car, a blue manual EL GT. Very nice car!!

Poetic Justice · 09-01-2008, 07:50 PM

This is a discussion re: EL GT v VS GTS-R, not EL GT vs Evo 10 or whatever it may be...

Leave the bickering out

Werd. · 09-01-2008, 08:54 PM

They look .
I'd rather a stocker. Sure they'd be great in a museum, but on the road you'd this it's a riced up junk bucket.

4Vman · 09-01-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werd.

They look .
I'd rather a stocker. Sure they'd be great in a museum, but on the road you'd this it's a riced up junk bucket.

Any chance on an english translation of that?

Dezza · 09-01-2008, 08:59 PM

I love the look of the EL GT. They look incredibly mean and have an awesome interior. As for EVOs, I respect that they are incredibly fast, but they look like crap. IMO the best looking cars are low, long and wide. The GT fits that bill. The EVO looks tall, short and skinny

XR_Strider_GuY · 10-01-2008, 01:33 AM

This article brings back memories and in the hey days of V8's being mostly about torque over out and out horse power. The GT has 420Nm of torque with a difference of 70Nm between 1500rpm to 5250rpm.

The GTS-R is even more impressive with 507Nm at 3600rpm (albeit the blue printed option engine), widely regarded as one of the most torquey new era V8's around. The 700odd cc advantage shows no matter how good the GT is the GTS-R has the power and torque advantage.

Ofcourse being a Ford man at heart I would take the GT if I had to own one of these future classics, but geez reality, I wouldn't knock back either. I have been in a series 1 VT GTS which has a similar engine to the GTS-R and it was a nice ride indeed with plenty of bottom end lazy v8 oommmphhh. I would like to go in an EL GT one day.

Oh, something out of the ELGT I think they should of used on the later model performance falcons is the excellent hydratrak diff.

drew`SEVNT5 · 13-01-2008, 08:29 PM

wow....I had forgotten how visually challenged (ie: sinfully ugly) these models are (let alone the EB, which was only slightly better).

Thank christ Ford fast-car design has moved on....no use having a sporty chick whos face is like a busted pie(ie: may perform well, but christ, shes ugly)

Bossxr8 · 13-01-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

wow....I had forgotten how visually challenged (ie: sinfully ugly) these models are (let alone the EB, which was only slightly better).

Thank christ Ford fast-car design has moved on....no use having a sporty chick whos face is like a busted pie(ie: may perform well, but christ, shes ugly)

ie. Jana Rawlinson