FPV v HSV: stripped bare (GTF vs GTS performance) EVO MAGAZINE

[Sorted]

Linky:-
http://www.evomagazine.com.au/fpv-v-hsv-stripped-bare/

The Only Comprehensive detailed performance test as of today
GTF vs GTS - No BS and no hidden facts - it is all here



The Facts:-

Originally Posted by futura

HSV GTS / FPV GT F

0-20 0.52 /0.54 (GTS -0.02)
0-40 1.34 /1.38 (GTS -0.04)
0-60 2.25 /2.29 (GTS -0.04)
0-80 3.27 /3.32 (GTS -0.05)
0-100 4.34 /4.46 (GTS -0.12)
0-120 6.00 /6.06 (GTS -0.06)
0-140 7.51 /7.59 (GTS -0.08)
0-160 9.66 /9.66 (GTS=GTF)
.
0-400m 12.53 @190km/h / 12.66 @ 189km/h (GTS -0.13)

* Figures taken from EVO magazine.

There’s been plenty of controversy surrounding the HSV GTS and FPV GT F lately. Most of it stems from claimed power figures and how these have translated to rear-wheel kilowatt figures during dyno testing by media publications. evo Australia has no desire to add to that controversy, instead we’ve concentrated on extracting the best possible acceleration times for both cars.

Of course, acceleration times also have the potential for controversy, but before you throw out claims of bias, I implore you to read the what, who, where and how of our test. If you’re still unhappy, or have any questions, contact us at facebook.com/evoaustralia or contact@evomag.com.au and we’ll do our best to answer your queries or complaints.

You can see the full numbers at the bottom of this story, but the headline figures are: HSV GTS 0-100km/h in 4.34 seconds and 0-400 metres in 12.53 seconds at 190km/h; the FPV GT F recorded 4.46 seconds to 100km/h and 12.66 seconds for the standing 400 metres at a terminal speed of 189km/h.

What
What
Both cars were fitted with six-speed manual transmissions. The FPV GTF had a fraction over 8000km on the odo when we started performance testing, while the HSV was considerably newer with just over 1800km on the odo.

Who
The testing was conducted by yours truly. Prior to joining evo Australia 15 months ago, I was deputy editor of Wheels for seven years, and for the five years prior to that I was editor and deputy editor of Motor. With this in mind, I’ve performance tested every Australian-built performance car since late 2001, except the HSV W427, which I’ve never driven. My best effort in a Ford/FPV product prior to this test was a 4.57sec 0-100km/h and a 12.64sec quarter mile at 189km/h in an FPV GT R-Spec manual tested for Wheels magazine (October 2012). My best effort in an HSV or Holden product was a 4.44sec 0-100km/h and 12.57sec 0-400m at 185km/h in an automatic HSV GTS (evo Australia 004).

Where
evo Australia conducts many of its performance tests on a private road/airstrip on a farm in central-western NSW. As such, we cannot take photos or video at this venue to protect the privacy of the generous owner. Perhaps this element will spark the conspiracy theorists, but there’s nothing in it beyond respecting the privacy of the owner. The property is located at approximately 660 metres above sea level. The surface of the strip is coarse-chip tarmac, concrete, then coarse-chip tarmac. Launches were conducted on both the concrete and coarse-chip tarmac sections with the concrete providing better grip. The strip appears level (certainly more so than the one per cent drop of a drag strip). Testing was conducted in only one direction.

How
evo Australia conducts its performance testing with driver only. I cannot speak for how other publications presently conduct their performance testing, but the R-Spec I tested for Wheels magazine was just with driver (there had been a policy shift to just driver from around 2010). For context, at the time of testing the FPV for Wheels in 2012 and the HSV for evo Australia last year, I weighed 75kg. Presently I weigh 67kg. Do I think those 8kg makes any difference in cars that weigh more 1800kg? Of course not, but we’re trying to make these numbers as transparent as possible. No standard equipment (spares, floor mats etc.) was removed from the vehicles.

The test was conducted over a two-hour period in order to allow the cars to dissipate any heat soak from back-to-back runs. The HSV completed four full runs and three aborted runs (of which more later) before parking for approximated 35 minutes with the bonnet up. The FPV completed four full runs and three aborted runs before sitting with the bonnet up. The HSV then completed four full runs and one more aborted run. The FPV then completed four more complete runs and no aborted runs. The HSV recorded its fastest time on run three of the first session, while the FPV recorded its best time on run two of the second session.

The starting ambient temperature (taken from an average of the external temp gauge in the cars and my phone) was 7.9 degrees. Over the two-hour period, the temperature rose to an average of 9 degrees.

According to their fuel gauges, both cars started the performance testing with a fraction more than half a tank (I do not recall the fuel load of the FPV GT R-Spec I tested for Wheels but this my have been noted in the copy – see the October 2012 issue of Wheels).

Both the HSV and FPV feature launch control but neither worked particularly well. Both cars trimmed too much power through first and, especially, second gear. The fastest times were recorded with launch control inactive and ESC switched off. Both cars completed eight runs, though both cars also had several aborted runs (four for the HSV, three for the FPV). One aborted run for the HSV was due to too much wheelspin off the line. All other aborted runs for both cars were because I missed the shift from second to third. Please note that shifts involved a complete lift off the throttle and use of the clutch (no flat-shifting).

My technique to get powerful rear-drive cars off the line is to gently walk them off the line (using between 1800-2200rpm) before applying more and more power through first gear. I’m not suggesting this is the only way to do it but it works best for me. Daniel DeGasperi (currently at www.caradvice.com.au and formerly of Wheels) has had success launching cars with considerably more revs off the line.

Of the eight completed runs for each car, only two each were close to the best times published below. Most runs for both cars netted 0-100km/h times of around 4.7 seconds and 0-400 metres of 12.8-12.9 seconds. Regardless of times, the terminal speeds for both cars were consistently between 188-190km/h. It should be noted that the FPV’s quarter mile time is 0.02 seconds slower than the time I recorded in the R-Spec for Wheels, but the GT F recorded an identical terminal speed. I’m speculating here, but perhaps I managed a better 2-3 or 3-4 shift in the R-Spec (which may account for the difference in time).

In my experience, the HSV is fractionally easier to get off the line cleanly. This doesn’t indicate a lack of grip from the FPV (both cars run 275 rear tyres) but simply because I find it easier to modulate the throttle in the HSV through the critical phase of first and second gear. A different driver with a different technique may produce a different result.

The 0.12-second advantage the HSV wins over the FPV to 100km/h is only improved to a 0.13-second advantage over the 400 metres, and the HSV crosses the line just a single km/h faster (190 plays 189). Without wishing to add fuel to the dyno fire, these numbers appear to back claims that the cars are very similar in power.

Whether you bleed red or blue, you must admit these are seriously impressive performance figures for sub-$100K cars.

- Jesse Taylor, Editor, evo Australia