Road V Race V8 Shootout

snappy · 26-03-2009, 03:26 PM

In this months Wheels magazine they have done a comparison
Between :
FPR , HRT , F6, GT-P , W-427, GTS They were all manuals in the comparison and the recorded the times using a V-Box , So same day ,same track, same temp.
(0-100km/h) times

F6 = (5.65)
GT-P = (6.19)
GTS = (5.64)
W-427 = (5.17)
HRT = (4.58)
FPV = (4.44)

(80-120kph)
F6 = (3.14)sec
GT-P = (3.58)sec
GTS =(3.57)sec
W-427 = (2.96)sec
HRT = (1.83)sec
FPV = (1.56)sec

(120-160kph)

F6 = (4.10)sec
GT-P =(4.87)sec
GTS =(4.99)sec
W-427 =(3.48)sec
HRT = (2.31)sec
FPV = (2.01)sec

(0-400m) Times

F6 = (13.79 @ 179km/h)
GT-P = (14.29 @ 168km/h)
GTS = (13.77@166km/h)
W-427 = (13.34 @180km/h)
HRT = (12.15 @209km/h)
FPR = (11.8 @216km/h )

HRT is a ride car with a extra seat.
Also the track was wet.

4Vman · 26-03-2009, 04:28 PM

Why does wheels mag always test on a wet track??????????

snappy · 26-03-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Why does wheels mag always test on a wet track??????????

Its funny isn't were in the longest lasting drought we have ever had and they still manage to find a wet track.
But at the end of the day they all have to run on the wet track but it does put the ford's at the biggest disavantage because of skinnier treads.

The gt-p still getting killed cause of torque tags and skinner treads . Rolling acceleration times aren't bad though . But hard to put the same price tag as the f6 though . Totally different class of car

vztrt · 26-03-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

The gt-p still getting killed cause of torque tags and skinner treads . Rolling acceleration times aren't bad though . But hard to put the same price tag as the f6 though . Totally different class of car

I'd love to see the cars run over 1000m as the terminal speed of the GT compared to the GTS is interesting.

AUXRVIII · 27-03-2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

Its funny isn't were in the longest lasting drought we have ever had and they still manage to find a wet track.
But at the end of the day they all have to run on the wet track but it does put the ford's at the biggest disavantage because of skinnier treads.

The gt-p still getting killed cause of torque tags and skinner treads . Rolling acceleration times aren't bad though . But hard to put the same price tag as the f6 though . Totally different class of car

Can you please explain the torque tags bit, I had once asked a calibration engineer about these and he gave me a blank look and had no idea what they were and said there wouldn't have any such thing.

Wally · 27-03-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Can you please explain the torque tags bit, I had once asked a calibration engineer about these and he gave me a blank look and had no idea what they were and said there wouldn't have any such thing.

I would assume it's the same as PLC talk, only in this instance it's a tag point in the ECU that looks for agressive engine behaviour and back things off?

itchy brother · 26-03-2009, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Why does wheels mag always test on a wet track??????????

It's something they learnt from the 5th gear team! lol

ZA-289 · 26-03-2009, 04:32 PM

Woot! go FPV!

**Peuty** · 26-03-2009, 04:34 PM

I should think that the FPR car would be the fastest, what with the HRT ride car being heavier and all.

4Vman · 26-03-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peuty

I should think that the FPR car would be the fastest, what with the HRT ride car being heavier and all.

The ride cars are normally limited to 7000 rpm too for engine preservation. All things being equal they should be almost identical in performance in all areas. This test just shows that other variables come into play like traction.

Kieron · 26-03-2009, 04:41 PM

Havn't read it all yet, but I thought they said the track was slippery due to sand and a recent drag meeting made the main straight slippery?

snappy · 26-03-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieron

Havn't read it all yet, but I thought they said the track was slippery due to sand and a recent drag meeting made the main straight slippery?

Might off . Not sure now lent the mag to my neighbour.
But i thought i read the wet in down to wash off or somthing . Not that imortant take -.4 /-.6 seconds off it will give you a reasonabel figure of the achieved times.

prydey · 27-03-2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieron

Havn't read it all yet, but I thought they said the track was slippery due to sand and a recent drag meeting made the main straight slippery?

makes more sense. no way known that was a wet track given those times. even a damp track would've had times way slower than those.

i haven't read the article but interesting to note that the 8's were all quicker than the 6t on the track. normal order of things has returned.

flappist · 27-03-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

makes more sense. no way known that was a wet track given those times. even a damp track would've had times way slower than those.

i haven't read the article but interesting to note that the 8's were all quicker than the 6t on the track. normal order of things has returned.

When you do read it will explain all about what they did and why they got the results with each vehicle. The pics of the wet track tend to give a bit credibility to the "wet track" statement.

Look for the pages with the R8 and GT-P, they are missing from my copy, it has a GT and GTS instead.

XR6_190 · 26-03-2009, 05:25 PM

It didn't make sense to me, the 2 V8 race cars was fine, and I can understand the reason for the 2 FPV's, but what is with the 2 high priced HSV models? Why would you compare a $67,000 GT to a $78,000 GTS, not to mention the W427. Now we all know the GTS is going to be quicker than an R8, (in the same way that we all know that a F6 is going to be faster than a GT), so why not make it a fair race, GT V R8, F6 V GTS, and HRT V FPR?

The way that Wheels have done it really made FPV look slower than they really are in my opinion

snappy · 26-03-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6_190

It didn't make sense to me, the 2 V8 race cars was fine, and I can understand the reason for the 2 FPV's, but what is with the 2 high priced HSV models? Why would you compare a $67,000 GT to a $78,000 GTS, not to mention the W427. Now we all know the GTS is going to be quicker than an R8, (in the same way that we all know that a F6 is going to be faster than a GT), so why not make it a fair race, GT V R8, F6 V GTS, and HRT V FPR?

The way that Wheels have done it really made FPV look slower than they really are in my opinion

I think the one that came out looking the worst is the w-427 can any justify the best part of 100k .

XR6_190 · 26-03-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

I think the one that came out looking the worst is the w-427 can any justify the best part of 100k .

Yeah, but will it stop Wheels from going on about it being Australia's only supercar? And will it stop them from comparing it to another Ferrari or something.

JC · 29-03-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

I think the one that came out looking the worst is the w-427 can any justify the best part of 100k .

It's the fastest of the "Street" cars, and only marginally slower than the purpose built race cars; what a failure!

:

4Vman · 29-03-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

It's the fastest of the "Street" cars, and only marginally slower than the purpose built race cars; what a failure!

:

Yes.. that one had me perplexed as well....

Scott · 29-03-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

It's the fastest of the "Street" cars, and only marginally slower than the purpose built race cars; what a failure!

:

Well, to be fair to snappy, the W427 was as far ahead of the F6 as the F6 was ahead of the GT. None of these times are close to the purpose built racecars.

GT to F6 0.5,
F6 to W427 0.45,
W427 to V8SC 1.54

Not a lot of mumbo for an extra $100k.

4Vman · 29-03-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

Well, to be fair to snappy, the W427 was as far ahead of the F6 as the F6 was ahead of the GT. None of these times are close to the purpose built racecars.

GT to F6 0.5,
F6 to W427 0.45,
W427 to V8SC 1.54

Not a lot of mumbo for an extra $100k.

Huh? that's if all you're looking for in a car is 1/4 times... thankfully most of us look a bit deeper.. what about the lap times and acceleration times? ...

Torquen · 26-03-2009, 07:15 PM

interesting, allways wanted to know what a V8 supercar would do 0-100 & 1/4 mile times. Would have been good to see them try the F6 with an auto to, id say it would ony b a touch slower than the W427

**Grunter** · 26-03-2009, 08:09 PM

Unless the tested vehicles had a passenger and a full tank of full, these tests are invalid.

Torquen · 26-03-2009, 08:11 PM

going to be hard to have a passenger in a V8 supercar with only 1 seat

XR Martin · 26-03-2009, 08:58 PM

GT-P was quicker around the track than the F6 though

4Vman · 26-03-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

GT-P was quicker around the track than the F6 though

Was there lap times too?? why weren't they included too?

XR Martin · 26-03-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Was there lap times too?? why weren't they included too?

Ask the original poster ;)

70.32 F6
70.23 GT
66.69 W427
69.13 R8

Scott · 26-03-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Ask the original poster ;)

70.32 F6
70.23 GT
66.69 W427
69.13 R8

Bloody close though a wet track is a great leveller. Anyone know what tyres were on the R8?

mcnews · 26-03-2009, 09:40 PM

And all completely spankable by anyone with a 15k 600cc motorcycle :-)

Scott · 26-03-2009, 09:32 PM

What is interesting (though it has an obvious answer) is that the GT-P has line-ball performance with the GTS once they get away from from the line - infact it would not only catch but pass one in a longer run.

Also good to see it run within half a second of the F6 out of the box.