Motor Sept 2005 - BFYB - Another FPV failure!

[MrSparkle]

Well another BFYB and another predictably poor showing by the FPV models. In the $50-80k segment, out of 9 contenders, the XR8 placed 8th, the GT 7th, and the F6 4th. In fact, the best result for Ford was in the sub-$30k bracket, where the new Focus Zetec overcame the might of it's sole competitor, the new Suzuki Swift e

Lap times for the big FPVs were predictably aweful, the GT getting the best result out of the Blue Oval pack with a 1:13:00. Commendably though, the GT DID beat the SV8 and GTO in it's best lap time, which the F6 and XR8 failed to do. The XR8 got the quickest 400m time of 13.99 while the F6 was fastest to 100kph at 5.71sec.

The biggest embarrassment for the Ford range though was the cornering speed, which frankly was RUBBISH. For those reading along, page 91 has a breakout where Motor diagnoses this as the main problem with Fords and lap times. The F6 and GT carried 104kph through turn 9, while the XR8 did 105kph. In perspective, a Hyundai Tiburon did 106kph, the Renault Sport Megane also 106kph, SV8 Commodore 107kph, Mini Cooper 108kph, and SS Commodore 110kph, with the STi doing 113kph. Uniformly rubbish corner speeds for the Ford range. I, for one, would like to hear the "official" explanation for this from somebody at FPV.

Overall winner was the recently be-diffed STi, and looking at it's solid results it's not a real surprise. It was actually the quickest of the pack around the track which was a bit more surprising.

May post some tables of data if I can be bothered, or if nobody else jumps in and does it! :

[Citric GT]

I'm not surprised.

The only car Ford has ever built (in my lifetime) that could take on the opposition was the T3.

At the same time though, the BA "sports" sedans are an extremely good road car that suit most peoples needs & wants. The GT, F6 & XRs all have good ride quality, good looks and reasonably good handling - which is what most people want, hence the improvement in sales.

Maybe what ford/FPV need to do is have a "handling option" not a GT HO but some kind of option for stiffer springs and better shocks etc...and reasonably priced. This would satisfy the performance focused drivers a bit more and maybe the judges at BFYB!

[Racecraft]

It is no wonder the aftermarket suspension places are making a mint!

[parawolf]

Yeah - FPV suspension is too 'cushy'. What happens is it compresses too far, and upsets the roll center of the vehicle and just generates understeer = low corner speed.

The chassis are good - its just the suspension isn't "TIGHT" enough. Stiffer springs and dampers will go a long way. Then some tyres with a reasonable sidewall, not these crap SP9000 which roll over.

[JPFS1]

It's really not surprising that the Fords are off the pace when comparing cornering speeds. It's obvious that Ford have taken a different approach to the Holden equivalents when it comes to suspension setup and ride quality, the line they have chosen to take has an adverse affect when compared to the others, but it's not everyday that cornering speeds are measured and the cars are raced on a track!

The weight of these cars (fords) also goes against their cornering capability when compared to the lighter cars, the amount of extra momentum pushing the car outwards as the car travels through the corner would require more mechanical grip that the softer suspension tune just can't produce.

What surprises me most from this is the lack of cornering speed from the F6 when compared to the heavier XR8 and GT, that's interesting.

As long as the Ford's are heavier and are tuned for a softer/plusher ride, their cornering will always be down on the Holden counterparts.

[XR6turbo]

To Ford, it is time to kill off the dunlops they are bloody useless! lets get some decent rubber on these cars and stiffen the suspension up a bit please. For the sake of the enthusiasts, i am sick of hearing how the ford/fpv product can't do anything right. They are always just a little slower in a straight line, just a little slower in the corners. How about u make a car that can do the bloody job!

[Polyal]

Guys settle, you cannt seriously believe that a FPV will corner better than an STi? Sparkles I thought you had more common sense than that. True they are not the best figure but how often are these cars taken on a track.

And if they are taken on a track then the owner will no doubt of changed the settings anyway.

Above all these are road cars, and if they had a good track setting then people would complain that they are too harsh on the road.

What we need is a track pack.

EDIT: I was waiting for some mechanical failure....lol :monkes:

[MrSparkle]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Guys settle, you cannt seriously believe that a FPV will corner better than an STi? Sparkles I thought you had more common sense than that. True they are not the best figure but how often are these cars taken on a track.

And if they are taken on a track then the owner will no doubt of changed the settings anyway.

Above all these are road cars, and if they had a good track setting then people would complain that they are too harsh on the road.

What we need is a track pack.

EDIT: I was waiting for some mechanical failure....lol :monkes:

Basically the point I was making, and that Motor were focussing on, was that because of the outright low corner speeds (that's outright, not relative!) the whole lap times were rubbish. That should be a MAJOR concern for a manufacturer who :
1) has "PERFORMANCE" in their name!!!
2) markets themselves as the pinnacle of the manufacturers products, both in terms of prestige and performance
3) is competing with other vehicles in the same price range that substantially flog it for performance
4) also markets themselves with very explicit links to V8 Supercars, and therefore performance on a racetrack

The excuses have been the same for too long, and the dead horse has never been flogged so badly. Why should there be excuses? Why hasn't FPV, over the course of it's conception and implementation, managed to address the performance disparity to all the competition? What does Prodrive think of the perpetual performance handicap? Is it simply an accounting issue, in that they simply can't afford to develop something that delivers on ALL FRONTS of performance? Are they deliberately making slower cars so as not to rile the Harold Scrubys of this world? If other manufacturers can come up with a formula that provides a great drive on the road AND track, why can't FPV? So many unanswered questions and as always, the excuses keep flowing from HQ and from the blind fans.

Now, unless either the definition of performance is different at FPV, or they measure it on a scale that doesn't include it's direct competition (based on segment or indeed price), then they have a few serious questions to answer about their whole approach to making cars. I think it is the latter, personally - and how often have you read a review where an FPV is regarded as "an excellent car in isolation .. but ....".

If they are not going to change their approach, (highly likely), then perhaps they should try and promote the fact that they will be perpetually off the pace, and realign their marketing accordingly.

Perhaps FPV should have been more accurately named FCV - Ford Cruising Vehicles. :alien2:

[DABOSS]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

Basically the point I was making, and that Motor were focussing on, was that because of the outright low corner speeds (that's outright, not relative!) the whole lap times were rubbish. That should be a MAJOR concern for a manufacturer who :
1) has "PERFORMANCE" in their name!!!
2) markets themselves as the pinnacle of the manufacturers products, both in terms of prestige and performance
3) is competing with other vehicles in the same price range that substantially flog it for performance
4) also markets themselves with very explicit links to V8 Supercars, and therefore performance on a racetrack

The excuses have been the same for too long, and the dead horse has never been flogged so badly. Why should there be excuses? Why hasn't FPV, over the course of it's conception and implementation, managed to address the performance disparity to all the competition? What does Prodrive think of the perpetual performance handicap? Is it simply an accounting issue, in that they simply can't afford to develop something that delivers on ALL FRONTS of performance? Are they deliberately making slower cars so as not to rile the Harold Scrubys of this world? If other manufacturers can come up with a formula that provides a great drive on the road AND track, why can't FPV? So many unanswered questions and as always, the excuses keep flowing from HQ and from the blind fans.

Now, unless either the definition of performance is different at FPV, or they measure it on a scale that doesn't include it's direct competition (based on segment or indeed price), then they have a few serious questions to answer about their whole approach to making cars. I think it is the latter, personally - and how often have you read a review where an FPV is regarded as "an excellent car in isolation .. but ....".

If they are not going to change their approach, (highly likely), then perhaps they should try and promote the fact that they will be perpetually off the pace, and realign their marketing accordingly.

Perhaps FPV should have been more accurately named FCV - Ford Cruising Vehicles. :alien2:

I totally agree with your view on this topic, As for owning a FCV ( FPV GT ) I'm happy with the car but , In saying that there's alot R&D that FPV / Ford need to consider in keeping with that FPV - Performance name They need to be more of a Performance car rather then just a family car, Thats why they have the XR range , FPV need to be head to head with HSV not SV8 and SS.

[bazzalong]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

Basically the point I was making, and that Motor were focussing on, was that because of the outright low corner speeds (that's outright, not relative!) the whole lap times were rubbish. That should be a MAJOR concern for a manufacturer who :
1) has "PERFORMANCE" in their name!!!
2) markets themselves as the pinnacle of the manufacturers products, both in terms of prestige and performance
3) is competing with other vehicles in the same price range that substantially flog it for performance
4) also markets themselves with very explicit links to V8 Supercars, and therefore performance on a racetrack

The excuses have been the same for too long, and the dead horse has never been flogged so badly. Why should there be excuses? Why hasn't FPV, over the course of it's conception and implementation, managed to address the performance disparity to all the competition? What does Prodrive think of the perpetual performance handicap? Is it simply an accounting issue, in that they simply can't afford to develop something that delivers on ALL FRONTS of performance? Are they deliberately making slower cars so as not to rile the Harold Scrubys of this world? If other manufacturers can come up with a formula that provides a great drive on the road AND track, why can't FPV? So many unanswered questions and as always, the excuses keep flowing from HQ and from the blind fans.

Now, unless either the definition of performance is different at FPV, or they measure it on a scale that doesn't include it's direct competition (based on segment or indeed price), then they have a few serious questions to answer about their whole approach to making cars. I think it is the latter, personally - and how often have you read a review where an FPV is regarded as "an excellent car in isolation .. but ....".

If they are not going to change their approach, (highly likely), then perhaps they should try and promote the fact that they will be perpetually off the pace, and realign their marketing accordingly.

Perhaps FPV should have been more accurately named FCV - Ford Cruising Vehicles. :alien2:

I have to say, you people make me sick sometimes, i thought we were all ford fans here, but i must be mistaken!
have a look at some thing for me, the figures for cars WRITTEN OFF, whilst the DRIVER was doing something STUPID!
i think you'l find more often than not, its a standard HSV, that some little twerp has gotten in2 and thinks the car will handle like a go-kart!!!!!!!
I believe FORD and FPV make thier cars the way they do so this doesnt happen, yeah you can push the cars, but you know when to stop, but in a HSV, you cant tell. a friend of mine has written off 3 (HSV's) in the last 6 months, and hasnt learnt!!!

what would you rather, a safe family car, that looks good, and goes well, or a dead teenager????
think about it!

[Danny]

If there was a Suzuki swift in the fray, then why didn't they have a Fiesta as a competition?

[parawolf]

BRING ON MY FPV F8 SPRINT concept baby!

[Polyal]

So for once fords marketing has worked. Sales are at a all time high and the cars are not as competitive on track as what the owners may think.

Im sure if FPV could make a track weapon they would. But like any business it comes down to lack of funds. If FPV where rolling in the cash you would probably have seen a hotted up focus and terry by now.

I haven't read the article yet but do they ever talk about road handling in the test (I cant remember). I am not sticking up for them, but if FPV were to make all there cars track biased then they would not sell, and that is what they are about in the end.

If you want 107 k's through a corner instead of 106 then fine, go after market, but dont expect FPV to make a track car any time soon. Performance can be viewed in many ways.

The notion of ford making slow cars deliberitley is silly and you know it. If you want a mass produced sedan to perform on all fronts then buy a M5 or AMG; but it will cost you on the high side of ~$200,000.

Lets remember these cars cost no more than $80,000. Its not hard to make them handle better.

All this would be sorted with a track pack similar to HSV. Then we can win car of the year because of its overall plushness and quality, and then add the track pack to win BFYB.


I think all this fuss over 1-2 kph is herald sun stuff, its the same arguement as the 0-100kph.

[MrSparkle]

Originally Posted by Polyal

I think all this fuss over 1-2 kph is herald sun stuff, its the same arguement as the 0-100kph.

The big picture my friend.. the big picture!

It's not about making a "track weapon", you don't need a hardcore lightweight stripper to get a good lap time. You just need to produce something with a bit more focus on, wait for it, TOTAL PERFORMANCE. It's far from impossible and you don't need an AMG or M-Class Beemer to achieve it.

However, if your definition of "Total Performance" means consistently being slower than the competition then so be it. I can't see the point in being an apologist for them after so many years of unfulfilled promises.

[distortion]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

The big picture my friend.. the big picture!

It's not about making a "track weapon", you don't need a hardcore lightweight stripper to get a good lap time. You just need to produce something with a bit more focus on, wait for it, TOTAL PERFORMANCE. It's far from impossible and you don't need an AMG or M-Class Beemer to achieve it.

However, if your definition of "Total Performance" means consistently being slower than the competition then so be it. I can't see the point in being an apologist for them after so many years of unfulfilled promises.

sorry but i cant remember when ford came out and said 'we promise to be the fastest car for a magazine test... in fact i cant remember ford making any promises of any sort? please feel free to show me the facts as i for one, do not assume to know everything.

lets remember here, not everyone who buys an fpv wants to use it on a track, and if you want to get good times on a track or drag strip, buy an f6 or xr6t, mod it and blow the hell outa hsv.

also, we are comparing cars here that are in different leagues. fpv's cars obey the new rules coming in for 2006, hsv cars dont. lets wait and see till MK3, and the new commy to see what happens... they should be closer in weight and performance.

[billyb35]

Mate get over it.

I have been posting on these and other Ford Forums for about 4 years now and every single model Ford has released in that time has been shot down as a slacker when it comes to performance.

"GT" = Grand Tourer. The people who buy these cars want exactly the performance, COMFORTABLE RIDE and looks that this car provides. They don't want hard as nails STi (or SS for that matter) suspension or a car that is a track weapon.

Once you accept what you love about Ford Performance Vehicles and reject the goal of being associated with the populist car brand which Motor Magazine can get an extra few hundreths of a second down the 1/4 mile; then and only then will you feel satisfied. If you can't do that, BUY A HOLDEN.

[MrSparkle]

Originally Posted by billyb35

Mate get over it.

I have been posting on these and other Ford Forums for about 4 years now and every single model Ford has released in that time has been shot down as a slacker when it comes to performance.

"GT" = Grand Tourer. The people who buy these cars want exactly the performance, COMFORTABLE RIDE and looks that this car provides. They don't want hard as nails STi (or SS for that matter) suspension or a car that is a track weapon.

Once you accept what you love about Ford Performance Vehicles and reject the goal of being associated with the populist car brand which Motor Magazine can get an extra few hundreths of a second down the 1/4 mile; then and only then will you feel satisfied. If you can't do that, BUY A HOLDEN.

So you're backing up what I'm saying then, in that the goal of FPV isn't to build "Total Performance", but "Comfortable Cruiser"? Kinda goes against the whole exercise of marketing and the V8 Supercars dunnit?

I'm quite happy to accept the reality of what FPV produce, and I readily do, but I'm not ready to swallow their "Total Performance" line. They can't have it both ways. Either they keep doing what they do now and change their spin, or change what they do and keep their spin. That's what I'm trying to say.

[XR6turbo]

i will say one thing, the AU2 XR8 is a better balanced car than any of the FPV range! thats an idea of how far back we have gone in performance terms!

[Firefox7]

Originally Posted by XR6turbo

i will say one thing, the AU2 XR8 is a better balanced car than any of the FPV range! thats an idea of how far back we have gone in performance terms!

I might have to remind a few..


Of the unknown rebel with a bog standard Factory AU Series 3 XR8 220...flogged fords finest at the Ford Vs holden day 2004....he won overall...against everyone in it's class..including.....Dick Jonhson in the DJR 320 BA Falcon. A lowly 220 box AUXR8 driven by an unknown driver vs a V8 Supercar legend. And he cained em. I think the car speaks for itself, more than the drivers.....IMO.


Cheers....

[GT0193]

Man ... some T3 guys have got a complex. A "superseded" complex by a superior car. :evil_laug

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Firefox7

I might have to remind a few..


Of the unknown rebel with a bog standard Factory AU Series 3 XR8 220...flogged fords finest at the Ford Vs holden day 2004....he won overall...against everyone in it's class..including.....Dick Jonhson in the DJR 320 BA Falcon. A lowly 220 box AUXR8 driven by an unknown driver vs a V8 Supercar legend. And he cained em. I think the car speaks for itself, more than the drivers.....IMO.


Cheers....

That car finished top 10 overall, so it would have had the works done to it to keep up with some of the other highly modified cars out there. Wait to DJ gets his modified alloy blocked XR8 out there, should be interesting.

[SpoolMan]

Wow so there slow in corners you would expect the lighter and smaller cars to be quicker hardly an embarrassment....
Sales tell the story, FPV record sales last month is what Ford would be worrying about...Let the success story continue BA range has given Ford and there Fans something to smile about...
I Have 2 more converts here at work, they went out and purchased a BA XR6 for there son (was a Toyota Celica driver) Now the old man purchased one (was a hilux and corvette driver). 2 BA's IN 6 DAYS..

[parawolf]

*cough*

FPV F8 Sprint Concept

*cough*

[Steffo]

I expected as much. I've only in my time as a car enthusiast ever seen two Ford products take on and beat their Holden/HSV counterparts in outright performance. The Ford AUIII TE50 and the BA XR6 Turbo.

[rst2000]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

which the F6 and XR8 failed to do. The XR8 got the quickest 400m time of 13.99 while the F6 was fastest to 100kph at 5.71sec.

:

are these new performnace figures for the xr8 & f6 or are they a cut paste from previous performance data from a couple of issues ago???? :

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by rst2000

are these new performnace figures for the xr8 & f6 or are they a cut paste from previous performance data from a couple of issues ago???? :

Thats what I was thinking.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[b2tf]

(yawn). Sales stats tell the real story, not something by Motor. Cant stand those guys.

[mickey t]

Originally Posted by back2thefutura

(yawn). Sales stats tell the real story, not something by Motor. Cant stand those guys.

don't mind if you can't stand us. it's your money, but sales don't tell the real story. if they did, you could assume McDonalds made the best hamburgers in the world, coke the best drink and budweiser the best beer. and kylie (god love her) the best music.

it isn't so.

standing start acceleration means a hell of a lot less to us than it seems to mean to most readers, and we don't tend to use it as a basis on which to judge cars.

mid-corner speed is another matter. it goes to the heart of the depth of a car's engineering. mid-corner speed = roadholding. if your car doesn't have one, it doesn't have the other. handling and roadholding are different things.

we measure this on a track because a) we were doing the same job anyway and, b) it's safer there.

it's not only a measure of a car's grip, it's also a measure of a car's ability to safetly get you out of a problem on the road, its ability to miss things and not crash.

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by mickey t

mid-corner speed is another matter. it goes to the heart of the depth of a car's engineering. mid-corner speed = roadholding. if your car doesn't have one, it doesn't have the other. handling and roadholding are different things.

The rubber selected by the manufacturer has a massive effect on a cars cornerspeed.... ie, take 2 identical cars... fit one with a set of Yokohama A 032Rs, and one with a set of crook old Steelcats.... I can tell you which one is going to have a more than 10km/h higher cornerspeed.... those cornerspeed numbers would all have some level of real meaning if all the cars in the test were running the same tyres (obviously the sizes would differ...but same brand/model/compund).

[MrSparkle]

Originally Posted by mickey t

don't mind if you can't stand us. it's your money, but sales don't tell the real story. if they did, you could assume McDonalds made the best hamburgers in the world, coke the best drink and budweiser the best beer. and kylie (god love her) the best music.

it isn't so.

Good to have you involved in this thread MT!

What you are saying above is so ridiculously true! Funnily enough, it was the same argument that many Ford fans used when the AU was released - many said it was a better car (in XR forms) than the equivalent Commodore models, but in sales it was completely flogged. The argument was staunchly defended by the Red Corner that because the Commodore was more popular, it was therefore better. Now we are hearing the same from the FPV apologists. _

Then again, maybe I've got it all wrong, going on what some are saying in this thread. Perhaps being a car enthusiast means appreciating the fiscal aspects of an automotive manufacturer, rather than the enjoyment of driving a fine vehicle. :yeees: