MOTOR Feb 2015: XR8 vs SSV Redline + XR6T vs SS

[Sioso]

XR8 Auto
0-100 5.09
400m 13.15 @177.95km/h
80-120 2.78
Winton lap time = 1:44.7

SSV Redline Auto
0-100 5.72
400m 13.90 @167.56km/h
80-120 3.60
Winton lap time = 1:43.2

XR6T Manual
0-100 5.50
400m 13.78 @168.85km/h
80-120 3.20
Winton lap time = 1:46.5

SS Auto
0-100 6.03
400m 14.17 @165.47km/h
80-120 3.73
Winton lap time =1:46.5

They gave the overall win to the SSV Redline………What a surprise.
I would like to see these vehicles tested in the U.S or Europe and see if they come to the same conclusion, it’s hard to believe the tests are completely objective when one company spends a whole lot more on advertising packages in the same magazine that is comparing them.
Then again I’ve never driven an SSV Redline so maybe it is better than I imagine.

[galaxy xr8]

That’s a pretty average 0-100 and 1/4mile time for the SS auto, some earlier model Falcons could push that time.

[mik]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

That’s a pretty average 0-100 and 1/4mile time for the SS auto, some earlier model Falcons could push that time.

yes indeed , isnt that close to the time an of an sv6 or xr6 or a 4 cylinder eco boost would do the quarter ???

just once i would love to see them do a test on a big track instead of a small track with lots of turns .

[Werd.]

Originally Posted by FGX310

XR8 Auto
Winton lap time = 1:44.7

SSV Redline Auto
Winton lap time = 1:43.2


They gave the overall win to the SSV Redline………What a surprise.

Yeah probably because it's 1.5 seconds quicker around the track. That is not a small margin. Could be down to tyres though.

[arronm]

It mirrors the times at wakefield. SSV redline slightly faster there. Longer track wider gap.

This really now does show the handling advantage of the commodore.

Would have been an interesting 1/4 mile if the turbo was auto

[Windsor220]

So what are the differences between a standard SS and a SSV redline? Over 3 seconds a lap apart.

[arronm]

Better suspension and brakes.

[nstg8a]

Those 400m times are bullocks.

According to that my dead stock fg1 xr8 would hammer the SSV and xr6t down the 1/4... And be only .5 behind the fgx

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by arronm

Better suspension and brakes.

Wider rear tyres over the SS-V, forged alloy wheels which are lighter and competitive mode for the steering too.

[Mighty Reds]

All the times seem slow but the SS is slower than an LS1 commie.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by FGX310

XR8 Auto
0-100 5.09
400m 13.15 @177.95km/h
80-120 2.78
Winton lap time = 1:44.7

SSV Redline Auto
0-100 5.72
400m 13.90 @167.56km/h
80-120 3.60
Winton lap time = 1:43.2

XR6T Manual
0-100 5.50
400m 13.78 @168.85km/h
80-120 3.20
Winton lap time = 1:46.5

SS Auto
0-100 6.03
400m 14.17 @165.47km/h
80-120 3.73
Winton lap time =1:46.5

They gave the overall win to the SSV Redline………What a surprise.
I would like to see these vehicles tested in the U.S or Europe and see if they come to the same conclusion, it’s hard to believe the tests are completely objective when one company spends a whole lot more on advertising packages in the same magazine that is comparing them.
Then again I’ve never driven an SSV Redline so maybe it is better than I imagine.

What were the times to 60 kmh? Perhaps they were slow because of poor grip and did they say anything about hot weather?
IMO it certainly seems that there must have been no overboost working on the Fords and the Commodores seem to have gone off the boil as well.

We've seen 189 kmh at 400 metres from an RSPEC Manual in a WHEELS test, Rancidpunx got a similar end speed in his Auto RSPEC, that's about 11 kmh up on the XR8.

I got 180.04 at 400 metres out of my untuned stock XR6T Auto at WSID, that was also about 11 kmh more than their manual XR6T and the Drive.com.au Auto Commodore SS was over 8 kmh faster than this SS, with the Redline being about 6 kmh behind the DRIVE car.

I know weather plays it's part but these are really very big differences I think.
I'm not overly surprised by the Redlines lap speed though, they seem like a good track car.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I'm not overly surprised by the Redlines lap speed though, they seem like a good track car.

Just goes to show how much a sorted chassis is worth around the track compared to more power. Reminds me of the little Suzuki GTI that would show up the falcadores in production car racing back in the day...

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by b0son

Just goes to show how much a sorted chassis is worth around the track compared to more power. Reminds me of the little Suzuki GTI that would show up the falcadores in production car racing back in the day...

Dunno about the Holdens but the XR6 in particular was hobbled with weight penalties, lower rev limit and open diff so the Camrys and Magnas could be competitive.

[Sioso]

Originally Posted by 2242100

What were the times to 60 kmh? Perhaps they were slow because of poor grip and did they say anything about hot weather?
IMO it certainly seems that there must have been no overboost working on the Fords and the Commodores seem to have gone off the boil as well.

We've seen 189 kmh at 400 metres from an RSPEC Manual in a WHEELS test, Rancidpunx got a similar end speed in his Auto RSPEC, that's about 11 kmh up on the XR8.

I got 180.04 at 400 metres out of my untuned stock XR6T Auto at WSID, that was also about 11 kmh more than their manual XR6T and the Drive.com.au Auto Commodore SS was over 8 kmh faster than this SS, with the Redline being about 6 kmh behind the DRIVE car.

I know weather plays it's part but these are really very big differences I think.
I'm not overly surprised by the Redlines lap speed though, they seem like a good track car.

0-60
XR8 = 2.6
SSV-R = 2.87
SS = 3.03
XR6T = 2.75

All runs at Heathcote 28 degrees

[SM1DY]

The new FG X can't run a 12sec qtr?

Am I on Punk'd?

[AndyXR6T]

Slowest XR6T run I've seen. Who drives these friggen things? Mavis the 92 year old hyundai driver?

[mik]

Originally Posted by AndyXR6T

Slowest XR6T run I've seen. Who drives these friggen things? Mavis the 92 year old hyundai driver?

No, Mavis would be faster.

[MITCHAY]

I've driven a VE SSV Redline and I was surprised about how good they handle and brake for a barge. But 1.5 secs over a car that has 70+kws on it around a track is impressive.

They all seem slow in the 1/4 though.

[Chopped]

I reckon all of those acceleration times are about .5 sec off what they would normally do. Must have had traction issues.

Big difference between the SS and SSV lap times!

[arronm]

Stock SS, would have no brakes real quick.....


I wouldnt even bother taking a car to a track with sh it brakes

[fgpsi]

These idiots cannot drive

[bradles024]

Don't they do the runs with a passenger and air con on? If they're all done the same way it's still a good comparison even if they are slower than usual.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by bradles024

Don't they do the runs with a passenger and air con on? If they're all done the same way it's still a good comparison even if they are slower than usual.

WHEELS were doing runs 2 up, but as their former Deputy Editor (Jesse Taylor now Editor of EVO AUSTRALIA) revealed, they stopped that practice.
I've never heard any suggestion that MOTOR were testing 2 up.

[tweeked]

Having been at a session where they record their times - I can tell you they can drive. BUT, they only run 3-4 runs to get a time, they only allocate a quick timeslot for performance runs.

Remember - they are a magazine - it is all about the photos.

We keep hearing people moan on this site endlessly, but the times they get are indicative of what the cars do in the real world. If a car is that difficult to get off the line, then they are likely to have a poor time. Face it, the FG series is stuck in 90's chassis technology, with power that is probably more that the chassis can handle. That is the fault of the car not the tester.

I cannot steer anywhere near as well as the mag writers, but I reckon I can launch my car better than all of them.

On the other hand, I drove Elites GTS in NA form (Manual on street tyres) at the drags one night, and ran 12.69 first run. It was sooooo much easier to launch with way more stock traction.

[M&Ms]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Having been at a session where they record their times - I can tell you they can drive. BUT, they only run 3-4 runs to get a time, they only allocate a quick timeslot for performance runs.

Remember - they are a magazine - it is all about the photos.

We keep hearing people moan on this site endlessly, but the times they get are indicative of what the cars do in the real world. If a car is that difficult to get off the line, then they are likely to have a poor time. Face it, the FG series is stuck in 90's chassis technology, with power that is probably more that the chassis can handle. That is the fault of the car not the tester.

I cannot steer anywhere near as well as the mag writers, but I reckon I can launch my car better than all of them.

On the other hand, I drove Elites GTS in NA form (Manual on street tyres) at the drags one night, and ran 12.69 first run. It was sooooo much easier to launch with way more stock traction.

Amen to that. I bet if the testers ran the cars for hours on end they'd shave off 0.3 - 0.5 secs off each, but, in the end, it's all relative.

How many times do you hear of people on this forum complain that during their first ever outing to a drag strip they could only manage a 15 second pass in their XR6 Turbo or XR8, and go home ashamed, yet you hear of more experienced drivers running 14s in NA XR6's.

IMO, the most relevant times are rolling start and lap times, then acceleration times; they give you a more realistic view of how the car will drive.

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Face it, the FG series is stuck in 90's chassis technology, with power that is probably more that the chassis can handle. That is the fault of the car not the tester.

Probably a bit of an exaggeration there

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Probably a bit of an exaggeration there

I really wish it was. But spend some time in an M car and then you realise how a rear drive can put bit power down. The poor mans lsd that the Fpvs have had to make do with are 70s stuff.

Having said that, to me it makes driving these cars so much more rewarding. Anyone can be fast in a BMW M car. But when you get it right in a Ford with big power, you really can have a moment

[2242100]

Originally Posted by tweeked

I really wish it was. But spend some time in an M car and then you realise how a rear drive can put bit power down. The poor mans lsd that the Fpvs have had to make do with are 70s stuff.

Having said that, to me it makes driving these cars so much more rewarding. Anyone can be fast in a BMW M car. But when you get it right in a Ford with big power, you really can have a moment

I've got to admit that I haven't had anything to do with BMW M cars so I wouldn't feel qualified to disagree with you if I hadn't seen the following 0-60 kmh times in the February 2014 issue of MOTOR.
Audi RS6............2.06 seconds, no surprise given it's 4WD.
BMW M5............3.15 sec, the slowest.
HSV GTS............2.53 sec, the fastest 2WD.
Jaguar XFR-S......2.82 sec.
Mercedes...........2.93 sec.
What's also interesting is the quote below from the article.

"Whinge time: if a test driver with more than two decades' experience can't come within a half-second second of makers' claims - that's you specifically, Merc and BMW - on a rubbered-up drag facility with near countless attempts, how's your average non-pro owner going to come near tapping these cars' so-claimed potential under anything like normal conditions?"

So in this case they apparently did a lot of runs but I do know that time is often tight for them as you indicated. Also I agree that they aren't bad drivers.

Personally I'd like to see them put some ballast in the boots of cars when grip is poor. I know from experience that a relatively small percentage of weight behind the back wheels can give a very good grip yield without slowing the cars rolling acceleration down much. More chance of getting a good launch on the first 400 metre run as well as the full overboost.

As I've indicated before, XR6 T and GT rolling acceleration times that I've been seeing are well off what I know these cars can achieve in a first 400 metre run, and that's the pace that they (and no doubt the XR8) should normally have in every day real world driving. I've read comments about how fast they are, but the times look slow to me.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Face it, the FG series is stuck in 90's chassis technology, with power that is probably more that the chassis can handle. That is the fault of the car not the tester.
.

All depends how you look at it. At the media launch of the FGX-XR8 the engineers when questioned on this replied "it's given them plenty of R&D time to get it right".

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Having been at a session where they record their times - I can tell you they can drive. BUT, they only run 3-4 runs to get a time, they only allocate a quick timeslot for performance runs.

Remember - they are a magazine - it is all about the photos.

We keep hearing people moan on this site endlessly, but the times they get are indicative of what the cars do in the real world. If a car is that difficult to get off the line, then they are likely to have a poor time. Face it, the FG series is stuck in 90's chassis technology, with power that is probably more that the chassis can handle. That is the fault of the car not the tester.

I cannot steer anywhere near as well as the mag writers, but I reckon I can launch my car better than all of them.

On the other hand, I drove Elites GTS in NA form (Manual on street tyres) at the drags one night, and ran 12.69 first run. It was sooooo much easier to launch with way more stock traction.

So after 10 years with the same chassis they still don't know how to launch them

And why are the acceleration times for the Ssv and ss different? There's no extra power. If it's tyres then why is the rolling test still faster in the Ssv? You don't need grip there?
Always soooo much inconsistency with these journos. AND I havnt read the article but I'll bet there's more(size included) Holden pics as ussual.