XR8 vs SSV including dyno test

[kypez]

Originally Posted by skoobysGT

And as long as the driver meets your qualifications right?

Seriously.

I see you drive an Auto... sums it up really why you're happy with a one dimensional test...

[skoobysGT]

Originally Posted by kypez

I see you drive an Auto... sums it up really why you're happy with a one dimensional test...

And I had a manual GT...loved driving every minute of it too!!!!

Look..I didn't mean to come across as being nasty mate. And I think this is getting a little too personal with small insults etc

If you think the auto XR8 will be faster around a track then good on you. I'm just going by the 3 reviews so far and to be honest, I did'nt even know they were all autos. I just feel that after every test, there's endless excuses such as bad drivers or bad tyres and now because its an auto not a manual.

Just wish people were less one-eyed and appreciate that both cars have their pros and cons.

sorry if you felt I was being nasty with my response, it seems we all keep going round and round in circles with this.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by skoobysGT

And I had a manual GT...loved driving every minute of it too!!!!

Look..I didn't mean to come across as being nasty mate. And I think this is getting a little too personal with small insults etc

If you think the auto XR8 will be faster around a track then good on you. I'm just going by the 3 reviews so far and to be honest, I did'nt even know they were all autos. I just feel that after every test, there's endless excuses such as bad drivers or bad tyres and now because its an auto not a manual.

Just wish people were less one-eyed and appreciate that both cars have their pros and cons.

sorry if you felt I was being nasty with my response, it seems we all keep going round and round in circles with this.

All good mate. Apologies if I was being nasty. It was more just poking you cause having an Auto suggested you're happy with the results.

I'm not a one eyed fan and am happy to point out the pros and cons for both cars. The SS is easier to drive, clearly everyone that jumps into one seems to pump out great lap times (and comments on the general driving experience) and clearly the XR8 takes a little more driving to get the best out of it (I even said that in the last thread). Heck, the SSV was a lot smoother than the GTF so I cant imagine the XR8 being a car that would be easier to live with on some of our goat track roads. I'd love to be able to soften my suspension on certain roads, something I believe is possible on the SSV.

The Manual ratios favour the XR8 (gearing and final drive) over the SS whilst in the Auto, the SS ratio's are fantastic. It also explains the relative slowness in the 80-120 test of the XR8 with its very tall 2nd gear plus final drive.

The bad tyres is not an excuse and I have said the same. Its what comes out stock that counts.

Drivers is a tough one cause the XR8 does take some driving and its not all that user friendly.

Auto vs Manual - I think this is important cause it does favour the Falcon here as the Auto favoured the SS. Not very impressive 80-120 times and the 0.3 second deficit at Wakefield lends me to think that a Manual XR8 would have the SSV around that track, as the Auto SSV did the XR8.

Just want a fair discussion. Test the manual (as I have) and lets see what the results would be. Its not that long ago that on this forum we'd never accept the times of an auto around a track. (And before anyone says it, our cars are traditional autos, not dual clutch systems)

[graphicgoose]

But if the XR8 was to be a manual than it would only be fair to have the SSV as a manual too...which, going by your logic, would again mean it should be fast around the track?

[kypez]

Originally Posted by graphicgoose

But if the XR8 was to be a manual than it would only be fair to have the SSV as a manual too...which, going by your logic, would again mean it should be fast around the track?

I didnt mean anything else. Manual vs Manual.

If you go through the gearing/final drive, you'll see the Auto favours the SSV and the Manual favours the XR8. So yes, I do expect the SSV to go quicker but I also expect the XR8 to go quicker still.

Edit: By favours I mean that the ratios are better and more track friendly.

[dimka100]

What would be really awesome if the SS Chevy mechanical package was also available in the Australian delivered SS. 6.2 LS3, Electronically adjustable MRC, and proper rear Brembo brakes would certainly make the SS an even faster package.

It ****** me off that Holden Australia simply refuses to sell here the USA delivered package which includes far better interior and mechanical features package while costing a similar coin! And for this reason alone I would not buy the Holden SS until Holden grows up and recognises the Australian consumers!

It’s a shame really as the Chevy SS package is exactly what I want and my wallet is ready.

[dimka100]

Originally Posted by kypez

I didnt mean anything else. Manual vs Manual.

If you go through the gearing/final drive, you'll see the Auto favours the SSV and the Manual favours the XR8. So yes, I do expect the SSV to go quicker but I also expect the XR8 to go quicker still.

Edit: By favours I mean that the ratios are better and more track friendly.

I’m not really sure that nip picking on minor aspects of the way these comparisons (reviews) have been done would alter the outcome of the track results.

I think you keep forgetting that the VF has a huge chassis advantage in it’s perfect 50/50 weight distribution, lower centre of gravity, and an overall noticeably lower weight to the FG (X). Countless racing categories have proved over the years that when it comes to lap times chassis and balance is King, and everything else comes second. That is why the Holden with its significant power disadvantage can comfortably stay ahead of the Ford.

I think the biggest issue with the GT/XR8 (call it what you want) is the terrible front to back weight distribution, added by the heavy and sitting relatively high V8 at the front, and topped off a with a weak suspension setup at the back means you will never have a good track package no matter how good your tyres or gearing might be …

[kypez]

Originally Posted by dimka100

I’m not really sure that nip picking on minor aspects of the way these comparisons (reviews) have been done would alter the outcome of the track results.

I think you keep forgetting that the VF has a huge chassis advantage in it’s perfect 50/50 weight distribution, lower centre of gravity, and an overall noticeably lower weight to the FG (X). Countless racing categories have proved over the years that when it comes to lap times chassis and balance is King, and everything else comes second. That is why the Holden with its significant power disadvantage can comfortably stay ahead of the Ford.

I think the biggest issue with the GT/XR8 (call it what you want) is the terrible front to back weight distribution, added by the heavy and sitting relatively high V8 at the front, and topped off a with a weak suspension setup at the back means you will never have a good track package no matter how good your tyres or gearing might be …

GT is 56/44 vs SSV 52/48 (or there abouts). Also, the LS engine is about the same weight as the XR8 engine as far as I know. The higher engine is true though.

[mcnews]

Those massive heads sitting so high at the front and way out from the centreline just can't be good for chassic balance at all. The 6s point noticably better for sure, I haven't drive the Ecoboost 4 but a good friend of mine says it points so much better again than the other two it is not funny.

[Iggle Piggle]

Think a lot of it also has to do with front overhang, and how much weight each has over and in front of the front wheels.

EDIT: Beat me to it above

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Tezza

Yeah possibly, I'm not to sure. I thought the HSV's were strengthened though to cope with the extra power. Could be wrong though?

The diff ratio goes from 2.92 in the ss to 3.27 in the clubsport (in the auto) which is a lot better, and the ls3 speaks for itself....

Wonder if the HSV ratios will carry over into the SS when they get the LS3 in 2016. Dont the manual HSV's have a different ratio to the SS aswell, 3.45 v 3.73?

[bradles024]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Dont the manual HSV's have a different ratio to the SS aswell, 3.45 v 3.73?

Yes they do

[kypez]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Those massive heads sitting so high at the front and way out from the centreline just can't be good for chassic balance at all. The 6s point noticably better for sure, I haven't drive the Ecoboost 4 but a good friend of mine says it points so much better again than the other two it is not funny.

I had an Ecoboost and can tell you it handled a treat. Sadly the softer suspension of the G6E didnt exploit it fully. R Spec EcoBoost?!

I cant imagine the Cast Iron i6T which is also longer than the V8 can be that much lighter or better behaved. Also has more weight further to the front of the car. As noted with the F6 1815 Kilos vs GTF 1835. But thats Off Topic.

The GT/XR8 chassis isnt a dog in R Spec form. Its pretty good. The Holden is just better and newer.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Wonder if the HSV ratios will carry over into the SS when they get the LS3 in 2016. Dont the manual HSV's have a different ratio to the SS aswell, 3.45 v 3.73?

Doubt it as HSV will still exist unlike FPV. Dont think they'll want the SS too close to the Clubby.

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by kypez

The GT/XR8 chassis isnt a dog in R Spec form. Its pretty good. The Holden is just better and newer.

Quoted for future reference :p

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by kypez

I had an Ecoboost and can tell you it handled a treat. Sadly the softer suspension of the G6E didnt exploit it fully. R Spec EcoBoost?!

I cant imagine the Cast Iron i6T which is also longer than the V8 can be that much lighter or better behaved. Also has more weight further to the front of the car. As noted with the F6 1815 Kilos vs GTF 1835. But thats Off Topic.

The GT/XR8 chassis isnt a dog in R Spec form. Its pretty good. The Holden is just better and newer.

The 6 is much better behaved at the front, night and day really, the six is still heavy yes but it is situated in the centreline perfectly and not up high and far away from the centreline.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by graphicgoose

Quoted for future reference :p

LOL... I've never said otherwise. I was always saying the XR8 would be up to the task with the extra hp!

I reckon they should do a Bathurst test between the two. Now that would be interesting. Something for the chassis fans and something for the HP fans.

Edit: I dont think you'll find a single post of mine rubbishing the Holden... Just that the Ford deserved better representation.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by mcnews

The 6 is much better behaved at the front, night and day really, the six is still heavy yes but it is situated in the centreline perfectly and not up high and far away from the centreline.

I guess so. My EcoLPi with G6E suspension does the 6 no favours. But I'd think the r spec suspension would take care of the issue vs the F6 on standard suspension?

In the ecoboost, they did stiffen up the front end a little vs the 6's.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by kypez

GT is 56/44 vs SSV 52/48 (or there abouts). Also, the LS engine is about the same weight as the XR8 engine as far as I know. The higher engine is true though.

I've done some research on the weight of the GM Small Block motors a while ago and as I recall they were about 195 kg's with a Flexplate and exhaust headers included. The LS 7 was 206 kg's which included it's lightweight clutch, headers and I believe coils,covers, spark plugs and I'm pretty sure the alternator as well.
As far as the Miami is concerned, I recall seeing 240 or in the 240's published.

You mentioned that the Holden's weight distribution is about 52/48 and the XR8 around 56/44.

If you do the sums on how much extra weight that you would have to add above the back wheels of the XR8 to get the same 52/48 distribution as the Holden, it works out at a very significant 143 kilograms, and in my view that would very significantly improve the XR8's power down ability out of corners. Of course the car would suffer at the track in other ways with the extra weight. But I think that goes a long way towards explaining why Commodores have very good power down ability.
Personally I'm inclined to blame the weight distribution of the XR 8 rather than the chassis.
I know that adding a small percentage of extra weight to the back of my XR6T very significantly improves it's power down ability.

I'm inclined to agree that the XR8 may possibly benefit more than the Commodore from being manual instead of Automatic at the track. I'm thinking that an unexpected (Auto) change down in the middle of a corner would be worse for the XR 8 than the Holden. Of course I may be wrong.

[Bent8]

Has anyone stopped to consider the XR8 was never setup to be a die-hard track car (like the Redline) but more of a grand tourer (GT) with some light tinkering of the suspension.

As mentioned, the SSV has better gearing suited for a tight track, a more modern chassis setup for quicker corner entry/exit speeds and much better rubber on all 4 corners.

The auto SSV will reach 98kph at the top of 2nd versus 112kph in the auto equipped XR8.... 3rd gear pushes the difference even further with 152kph (6000rpm) in the SSV and 170kph (6200rpm) in the XR8.

If I was a track junkie and had to choose between these 2 cars. I would most likely pick the Holden but for everything else, the Ford more than does the job... better sounding factory exhaust, more power potential with the factory blower, German made ZF trans and better looks (this is subjective).

Put yourself in the shoes of an XR8 owner whose looking to improve the already impressive performance... their options are suspension and tyres and possibly an intercooler for even more power and consistency.

Maybe $7k all up for all of these.

For the SSV owner, their options to improve performance are really limited to engine output with big bucks to be spent on exhaust/tune/cams or a supercharger kit... let's say $10 - 15k

So while I personally think the XR8 has more potential than the SSV from the factory, I will admit the latter is the better track machine when compared stock for stock.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Has anyone stopped to consider the XR8 was never setup to be a die-hard track car (like the Redline) but more of a grand tourer (GT) with some light tinkering of the suspension..

No you are wrong and making excuses. The chassis is old and they have done what they can to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and done a good job of it, but stop making excuses for its basic design faults inherent in the chassis by saying crap like it is designed as a grand tourer etc, it is grand tourer level because that is about as far as they can take it without a major chassis rework. Of course a better chassis, is also more compliant, more playful and requires less stiff suspension etc. to make work too.... It is win-win-win all round, the Ford chassis is a step behind the current Commodore and thus dynamically is way behind the eight ball, simple really...

[kypez]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I've done some research on the weight of the GM Small Block motors a while ago and as I recall they were about 195 kg's with a Flexplate and exhaust headers included. The LS 7 was 206 kg's which included it's lightweight clutch, headers and I believe coils,covers, spark plugs and I'm pretty sure the alternator as well.
As far as the Miami is concerned, I recall seeing 240 or in the 240's published.

You mentioned that the Holden's weight distribution is about 52/48 and the XR8 around 56/44.

If you do the sums on how much extra weight that you would have to add above the back wheels of the XR8 to get the same 52/48 distribution as the Holden, it works out at a very significant 143 kilograms, and in my view that would very significantly improve the XR8's power down ability out of corners. Of course the car would suffer at the track in other ways with the extra weight. But I think that goes a long way towards explaining why Commodores have very good power down ability.
Personally I'm inclined to blame the weight distribution of the XR 8 rather than the chassis.
I know that adding a small percentage of extra weight to the back of my XR6T very significantly improves it's power down ability.

I'm inclined to agree that the XR8 may possibly benefit more than the Commodore from being manual instead of Automatic at the track. I'm thinking that an unexpected (Auto) change down in the middle of a corner would be worse for the XR 8 than the Holden. Of course I may be wrong.

I thought the Miami was around 210 kilos or there about. The supercharger doesn't weigh 40 kilos and a stock coyote motor is around the 200 mark.

Agreed that whilst a small percentage, it does add up to a bit of weight. Holden were smart with their use of light weight materials around the front of the car. Sadly Ford didn't have the budget/willingness.

[dimka100]

Originally Posted by kypez

I thought the Miami was around 210 kilos or there about. The supercharger doesn't weigh 40 kilos and a stock coyote motor is around the 200 mark.

Actually it is, in one of the threads one of the people explained the differences between a Coyote and a Miami … basically the N/A engine has plastic plenum and other bits, while for the supercharged engine they had to go all metal in order to handle the extra load … so yeah the supercharger setup ended up adding about 35kg at the top of the engine.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by dimka100

Actually it is, in one of the threads one of the people explained the differences between a Coyote and a Miami … basically the N/A engine has plastic plenum and other bits, while for the supercharged engine they had to go all metal in order to handle the extra load … so yeah the supercharger setup ended up adding about 35kg at the top of the engine.

Yeah, I remember reading that. However, when I saw the motor being built, I think one of the guys said it was less than that number. I could be wrong, but I'm sure the guys were saying that its not all that much more. But sure, it does explain the 56/44 bias more. And you're right about the plastic parts swapped out for alloy (think it was to accommodate an intercooler as well at a later stage).

I'd say the Ecoboost is probably closer to 50/50 than any other engine.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by mcnews

No you are wrong and making excuses. The chassis is old and they have done what they can to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and done a good job of it, but stop making excuses for its basic design faults inherent in the chassis by saying crap like it is designed as a grand tourer etc, it is grand tourer level because that is about as far as they can take it without a major chassis rework. Of course a better chassis, is also more compliant, more playful and requires less stiff suspension etc. to make work too.... It is win-win-win all round, the Ford chassis is a step behind the current Commodore and thus dynamically is way behind the eight ball, simple really...

I wouldnt go so far to say he's wrong and making excuses. The Falcon was built to be a family hauler. Not a sports car. The car does a very good job of being a family hauler. Its got a bigger boot than the commodore, 60/40 folding seats (which will add weight for structural integrity), more towing capacity and arguably better/smoother engines especially in the 6 cylinder range. I think the chassis is designed and built around this message and as such, I think the chassis is doing exactly what its meant to.

The upgrades for the sports model have made it a fun tourer type vehicle but I dont think Ford ever thought of Bathurst or any other track when developing the car. I'd say 99.9% of these cars will never see the track. I dont believe people buy a Falcon/Commodore for its ability as a sports car anyway. They want a family car in which they can have some fun.

Only a knucklehead buys a full size family sedan for its sports ability. I know I bought the GTF with the thought I can get 2 baby seats in the back whilst I still have a fun V8 and full size boot, and 60/40 folding seats. All of which the chassis accommodates.

Let's see a Commodore do this:



Or this:

[mcnews]

The chassis is a design that has cut corners and lacked investment to move it forward. And no the Commodore is not a sports car either, just a family hauler with the chassis that is more appropriately developed. Again, to me it just looks as though people are making excuses for Ford not employing proper engineering principles and instead cutting corners and building down to a price. Thankfully though with the advent of the XR8 though that price point has become more appropriate to the level of investment.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by mcnews

The chassis is a design that has cut corners and lacked investment to move it forward. And no the Commodore is not a sports car either, just a family hauler with the chassis that is more appropriately developed. Again, to me it just looks as though people are making excuses for Ford not employing proper engineering principles and instead cutting corners and building down to a price. Thankfully though with the advent of the XR8 though that price point has become more appropriate to the level of investment.

Before we get too far off topic and in trouble, I'll say that the Commodore Chassis fails in the family Hauler area much like the Falcon does sports. They need to keep structural integrity behind the rear seats and thus dont have the folding seats. One could argue that the chassis isnt developed well enough and Holden are making excuses and not employing better engineering. Same argument can be made for all the things I've listed above (towing, V6 that produces less torque than an EcoBoost, etc).

[dimka100]

Originally Posted by kypez

Before we get too far off topic and in trouble, I'll say that the Commodore Chassis fails in the family Hauler area much like the Falcon does sports. They need to keep structural integrity behind the rear seats and thus dont have the folding seats. One could argue that the chassis isnt developed well enough and Holden are making excuses and not employing better engineering. Same argument can be made for all the things I've listed above (towing, V6 that produces less torque than an EcoBoost, etc).

Not sure why you say the Commodore fails in the family hauler area? The Commodore does actually have a bit more room in the cabin, and the boot is a bit bigger plus better shaped. It also has more luxury features, better quality interior, materials, newer design, etc. While I agree with you about the folding seats disadvantage don’t forget that the commodore has a wagon available for families that really need the extra space. As for the engines, yes the Falcon force fed engines have more torque, but that’s not to say the Commodore engines are under-powered (apart from the povo 3.0) and cannot be used for towing.

Nobody is trying to say the Falcons are bad, just that the Commodore has evolved further given the greater development budget in recent times.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by dimka100

Not sure why you say the Commodore fails in the family hauler area? The Commodore does actually have a bit more room in the cabin, and the boot is a bit bigger plus better shaped. It also has more luxury features, better quality interior, materials, newer design, etc. While I agree with you about the folding seats disadvantage don’t forget that the commodore has a wagon available for families that really need the extra space. As for the engines, yes the Falcon force fed engines have more torque, but that’s not to say the Commodore engines are under-powered (apart from the povo 3.0) and cannot be used for towing.

Nobody is trying to say the Falcons are bad, just that the Commodore has evolved further given the greater development budget in recent times.

The boot is 495 vs Falcon 535 litres.

Terri is Fords take on a Falcon Wagon. Terri VS commodore wagon, I think the Terri wins there.

Tow capacity is 2100kg vs 2300kg for Falcon (yes that made all the difference for me towing my car).

V6 engines produce less torque than the EcoBoost, EcoLPi and Petrol i6 (so not limited to force fed engines). Lets not even bring up the 3.0 V6. V8's are also more powerful bar the HSV but thats not a Holden (technically)

And all but rear leg room, the Falcon is bigger in Front leg room, shoulder and head room and Rear shoulder and head room, so no, the cabin is not bigger than the Falcon.

I agree, not saying that commodore is bad, etc. Just saying that each car has its strengths and weaknesses. The SSV has a better setup for tight tracks and I love that Holden have used light weight panels.

For me a family hauler needs to have certain features. To others, it needs other things. Depends on your family I guess.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Has anyone stopped to consider the XR8 was never setup to be a die-hard track car (like the Redline)

You learn something new every day.

I never knew Holden made die-hard track cars.

If that’s the case then they are worth every cent to the weekend racer, just tune them up a bit and go racing.

It’s a pity Ford, FPV and HSV didn't get in and do some die-hard track cars as well, it would save the owners of them from having to spend plenty cash to make them track reliable.

Holden you beauty.