Interesting point in CarSales article!

SVTVNM · 02-02-2010, 12:27 PM

Much of this info we have heard, and speculated about for awhile now it's nothing new, But this article states FPV have finally had to stick wider rubber under the back of the upcoming Falcons to put the power down, If so about time.

If our 'cousins' at car-buff magazines Wheels and MOTOR are right (and there's no indication that they're pushing a furphy), we are about to witness the biggest changing of the guard in the local power war in Ford and Holden history.

Holden and its performance division Holden Special Vehicles are about to find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being on the ropes. It will be an unfamiliar feeling for the Lion, whose V8s have roared loudly and proudly for the better part of the past three decades with a distinct power and performance advantage.

Not since the mighty Falcon GTHO Phase III in 1971 has Ford properly had the upper hand. But the tide is well and truly about to turn.

In case you missed the latest covers of Wheels and MOTOR, Ford Performance Vehicles is about to unleash a supercharged V8 that won't just eclipse the power of the finest from General Motors, it will likely knock it into another ballpark.

It's little wonder the news has leaked six months ahead of the car's anticipated June launch (when new emissions regulations will render Ford's old 5.4-litre redundant as the company ushers in an all-new supercharged 5.0-litre).The Ford guys have been waiting for this moment for almost 40 years.

It is a big call to get so excited about a car that no-one outside Ford has driven yet, but the numbers paint a very clear picture. The estimated power from the new supercharged V8 is 325kW. That may equal the HSV GTS, but it's a fair bet that FPV is down-playing this number and the real figure is much higher.

Then there's the small matter of a rather large torque number. The estimated 600Nm of torque (the maximum the ZF six-speed auto can handle) should deliver a level of performance we've not ever seen in a locally made performance car.

Given that Ford has this week announced 1971 Bathurst winner Allan Moffat as a brand ambassador, it's pretty safe to speculate that the GTHO will make a comeback in its 40th anniversary year next year. We're tipping Ford will push the power numbers to around 375kW and 650Nm (the maximum grunt the six-speed manual can handle). This will truly be a collector's item.

Both FPV and HSV have tried over the years to build cars that can take on the Germans, but the new generation GT is likely to be the closest yet to becoming Australia's answer to the AMG Mercedes. A 0 to 100 km/h time in the mid to high four second bracket is a distinct possibility -- and not just in the hands of Ford engineers. Even hack journos should be able to get good times out of the new supercharged FPV GT.

What's not been widely reported is that FPV has found so much power that it has designed wider rear wheels (9.5 inch wide to match those on the latest HSVs) to put more rubber on the pavement.

The new engine is lighter than the old 5.4 donk, so it should be a better balanced car. Here's hoping Ford engineers haven't underdamped the suspension like they have on every vehicle to wear an FPV badge so far. Then, finally, the Holden versus Ford fun can truly begin.

If we really are nearing the end of an era of V8 performance cars and petrol, I couldn't think of a better way to go. The next couple of years are going to be fantastic for Australian performance car fans -- because HSV isn't going to take this lying down.

HSV upper echelons say that the company does not regard FPV as a real rival. It will say that its records show that few people cross the floor from one brand to the other and such rivalry only exists in the minds of the media and the fans -- but not buyers. But if HSV is attracting new and presumably less loyal people to its brand (because they are keen to try new cars) then there is in fact an increasing risk some HSV customers may walk into an FPV showroom to take one of these new supercharged Falcons for a test drive. Who knows, they may just be impressed enough to place a deposit on a car?

Perhaps that's why HSV is playing with a couple of supercharged engines from the ZR1 Corvette and the Cadillac CTS-V? Okay, we don't know it for a fact, but we firmly believe the supercharged 6.2-litre V8 engines are already here and about to be fitted to engineering mules.

HSV will no doubt respond to this FPV arrival, but it will take at least two years to complete development.

HSV has already begun talking about performance cars not just being about straight-line speed and 0 to 100km/h times. This is very true. HSV also rightly says performance cars are also about how a car looks, handles, stops, feels and sounds.

The funny thing, though, is that this is exactly what FPV's predecessor, Tickford Engineering, used to say to us pesky journos when trying to distract us from Ford's power deficit. Oh, how the tune has changed.

So FPV will be kicking its heels in the air for at least the next two years.
By which time FPV will have been able to celebrate the Falcon's 50th anniversary in style this year -- before celebrating the 40th anniversary of the GTHO next year.

And amid all the celebrations HSV will remind us all that it is not in a power war with FPV. A torque war? Now, that's a different matter….

buggo · 02-02-2010, 12:55 PM

Sounds promising, mid 4's are flying. wonder how the 400m will look, may even beat the F6

**Luke Plaizier** · 02-02-2010, 01:37 PM

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2010...-rejoice-18145

By Joshua Dowling?!!! Must be getting a bit frosty in hell....

Cashless Holden must be holding less 'Junkets' than usual to keep guys like this on their side.

Lukeyson

eb2fairmont · 02-02-2010, 01:59 PM

Not Jez Spinks though.

**Bluehoon** · 02-02-2010, 02:08 PM

I cannot believe it!

:

If Josh Dowling is starting to praise and sing hope hell really has frozen over, or Ford really is winning the media over...

**Falcon Coupe** · 02-02-2010, 02:28 PM

Basically he's saying Blue is the new Red.

Airmon · 02-02-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehoon

I cannot believe it!

:

If Josh Dowling is starting to praise and sing hope hell really has frozen over, or Ford really is winning the media over...

Nah not yet. I'll be sure hell has Frozen over when I see an you in a GT Ben. That will be the true test.

:

FalconXR6 · 02-02-2010, 02:50 PM

The only thing that makes this article interesting is that old mate Joshua Dowling wrote it.
I can imagine him typing with his right hand being forced by his left to write those words.
Other than that, it's all just speculation at this point in time.

But here's hoping that FPV will land a killer blow come FG II.

gtfpv · 02-02-2010, 02:56 PM

i'd better start building a 3rd garage for the up coming GTHO.

BrisVegas · 02-02-2010, 03:02 PM

man, wouldn't it be great to grab a modern GTHO for a weekend toy / investment.... I can see in my lifetime that such cars will go the way of the dinosaurs. I'd love to be able to keep a piece of history like that. Better go buy a lotto ticket.

Chilliman · 02-02-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Basically he's saying Blue is the new Red.

Jezz Spinks or (Jizz Spanks as I like to call him) seems to be the new journo on the scene - I hadn't heard of him before the latest round of 'Falcon goes FWD' articles? He probably didn't get the memo 'Blue is the new Red' - GOLD!!!

Jason[98.EL] · 02-02-2010, 03:31 PM

Quote:

HSV has already begun talking about performance cars not just being about straight-line speed and 0 to 100km/h times. This is very true. HSV also rightly says performance cars are also about how a car looks, handles, stops, feels and sounds.

The funny thing, though, is that this is exactly what FPV's predecessor, Tickford Engineering, used to say to us pesky journos when trying to distract us from Ford's power deficit. Oh, how the tune has changed.

That part of the whole thing says it all

Ford/FPV are taking it to the others big time

Jason

ea90gl · 02-02-2010, 04:03 PM

As good as it sounds I'd still prefer the GTHO nameplate to RIP and I'm sure many would agree. And it's probably been mentioned a million times but if a GTHO was to be released it must be a sort of vehicle that will remain competitive for decades to come, not some hi po special that becomes outclassed within a few years. Oh racing pedigree would help too. As for the article great to see a change within the writing which has long been overdue, but although Holden V8's have had the upperhand for some time now Dumbling still makes it seem like all performance Fords from the last few decades have been rather limp wristed which definately wasn't/isn't the case.

brodfloyd · 02-02-2010, 04:17 PM

I wouldn't get too excited ladies and gentlemen.

If this is a Josh Dowling article, then it will be based solely on rumour, misinterpretation, sensationalism and myth. Re-read the article, where is any sources/evidence named? Its all rampant speculation.

The only difference is that instead of using his powers for evil, he is trying to use them for good.

I'd be surprised if even 20% of this article turns out to be true, (Supercharged Coyote V8 has been confirmed). The rest unfortunately, take it with a grain of salt.

Dont get me wrong, i'd love it to be true. But if Josh Dowling cannot research/write an accurate "down with ford" article, how is he going to achieve exactly the opposite???

Case in point: It took ford only 2 years to design and build the coyote v8 from basically scratch and put it in the mustang, so why is it going to take HSV the same time or longer to engineer an already developed supercharged production engine into a commodore??? Logic holes, they are everywhere.

Josh Dowling is not a very good human being. If you are reading this Josh, do me a favour, stop being alive.

cosmo20btt · 02-02-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brodfloyd

I wouldn't get too excited ladies and gentlemen.
Josh Dowling is not a very good human being. If you are reading this Josh, do me a favour, stop being alive.

A little bit harsh I think? Maybe he's seen the light, I don't know how ever credit being given to FPV for making some good moves, doesnt matter who it comes from it will look favorable upon Ford in the media.

Swordsman88 · 02-02-2010, 05:11 PM

Though a bit harsh, brodfloyd has a point. I think as avid enthusiasts (who are right into stuff going on in the market esp ford) we give way to much credit to some of these journos RE their knowledge and skill both as investigators and as writers.

It is pretty obvious they are often 'biased' depending on who shows them favour or pays the bills (something Josh seems to have demonstrated with his recent move in employment from drive to carpoint...). However, they are also easilly led since many are well and truly muppets. Whehter it is their non motoring journo routes coming out or not, it is clear alot of these 'experts' are not very well informed. This is the same guy who in an interview with John Cadogan said....'i didn't realise' that most cruise control systems don't use brakes to control set speed.... AH...NO ************! He also made numerous other errors both technical (references to the launch system on HSVs) and market related (HSV is NOT the first in the world to use brakes to control cruise speed you muppet!!!).

FFS even if you believe josh downling was never 'holden biased' it is clear he had a alot of contacts at GMH and was being used as much as he was using them. In return for 'oportunities' like going along on the Global Green challenge in a maloo ute it is implied he write favourable stories. Whether the receptoin has dried up at GMH i don't know....Perhaps he want's to be the first guy to drive the new GT.....time to switch camps early hey??

But at the end of the day i think he is just another of the 'get on the bandwagon' journos. This may prove to help ford has they continue to launch superior product to Holden (a return to the 1980s??) whether it be V8, eco cars, base six pots etc. If you read the actual reviews the Ford's often win but the journo has to put a 'BUT" in there to save GMH. As the perception for Ford improves in the marketplace and the media that will go away and it will be JUMP ON HOLDEN time. Not because they hate them but because it is now fashionable. As the recent Falcon going FWD saga showed once one journo breaks with the pack and makes an error (that is you Jizz Spanks....) they get jumped on by their colleagues like a canibilstic hunta.....

I think that amongst the mainstream media the 'aussie holden' will continue to get good backing but amongst the motoring journos their time has come. These guys can't delude themselves forever....Ford is getting a positive rep and Holden is going backwards.... Whether that atcually comes through in their stories is another thing but if Dowling is anything to go by it is looking bad for Holden....

jpd80 · 02-02-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brodfloyd

Case in point: It took ford only 2 years to design and build the coyote v8 from basically scratch and put it in the mustang, so why is it going to take HSV the same time or longer to engineer an already developed supercharged production engine into a commodore??? Logic holes, they are everywhere.

The coyote was not designed from scratch, it uses the 4.6 Mod V8 deck height and bore spacing,
allowing an existing engine machine line used reduces delivery time by around 12 months.
I know it's going into the revamped Essex factory in Canada but the machinery set up is
basically the same as used in the previous 4.6 engine lines at Romeo and Cleveland

mik · 02-02-2010, 05:58 PM

good post Swordsman.

Bakis · 02-02-2010, 06:05 PM

let the GTHO name be, make the new one a Sprint

**TUF_302** · 02-02-2010, 06:13 PM

Bugger!, now if you light em up it will cost more lol!

ford man xf · 02-02-2010, 06:41 PM

I hate the fact that if they do a GTHO it will be supercharged, its just doesn't sit right...

Swordsman88 · 02-02-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

The coyote was not designed from scratch, it uses the 4.6 Mod V8 deck height and bore spacing,
allowing an existing engine machine line used reduces delivery time by around 12 months.
I know it's going into the revamped Essex factory in Canada but the machinery set up is
basically the same as used in the previous 4.6 engine lines at Romeo and Cleveland

Hmm, kinda right. Yes it shares the mod v8 deck height and bore spacing but that was a design limitation RE production plant....that is not a 'existing tech' carry over. There was no advantage in development time saved in doing this (not signifnicant any way) it was just a limitation. Other parts of the engine were carrried over and/or used as a basis for design but hardly any engines are ever 'totally new'. IF they dont' pinch stuff off the existing engine they base it off current 'best practice' in the industry...including stripping down your rivals engines....Ford's decition to use existing plant equipement for the engine while still meeting its targets was smart engineering is all....

Its like saying Ford Aus saved development money on the BA DOHC VCT Barra engine because it shares it bore spacing with the SOHC non VCT engine from an EA of 1989...or even older versions of the engine for that matter.... Not so, you still need to develop that tech to work on teh given engine in a given time, to a given set of targets (power, torque, nvh, fuel burn, reliability etc.). In this case with coyote having a new block, new piston design, new heads, new intake runners, TIVCT, different oil system and even custom design headers i'd say its a 'new' engine for me..... Otherwise you risk sounding like Holden fans telling me the FG I6 is really just a 1960 american falcon I6 donk....

Coyote was a sped up engine design no doubt, but the time saved was in initial scoping and targets (ford got that down pretty clear), and early design work. This was by using more CAD, building more 'hybrid mutant' engines from scratch and tearing them down, using tricks learnt on the V6 and other V8 programs and good old fashioned overtime. The reliability testing was the only bit of the pogram that wasn't sped up.....

EDManual · 03-02-2010, 09:03 AM

I saw a new GT test car near geelong, and it DID have different wheels on the back to the front! Looked wider. ALso the front of the car was under covers so there must be some changes there, however there was no intercooler. I can see the difference between A/c Radiator and an intercooler even if they are coloured black. :-)

banarcus · 03-02-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Hmm, kinda right. Yes it shares the mod v8 deck height and bore spacing but that was a design limitation RE production plant....that is not a 'existing tech' carry over. There was no advantage in development time saved in doing this (not signifnicant any way) it was just a limitation. Other parts of the engine were carrried over and/or used as a basis for design but hardly any engines are ever 'totally new'. IF they dont' pinch stuff off the existing engine they base it off current 'best practice' in the industry...including stripping down your rivals engines....Ford's decition to use existing plant equipement for the engine while still meeting its targets was smart engineering is all....

Its like saying Ford Aus saved development money on the BA DOHC VCT Barra engine because it shares it bore spacing with the SOHC non VCT engine from an EA of 1989...or even older versions of the engine for that matter.... Not so, you still need to develop that tech to work on teh given engine in a given time, to a given set of targets (power, torque, nvh, fuel burn, reliability etc.). In this case with coyote having a new block, new piston design, new heads, new intake runners, TIVCT, different oil system and even custom design headers i'd say its a 'new' engine for me..... Otherwise you risk sounding like Holden fans telling me the FG I6 is really just a 1960 american falcon I6 donk....

Coyote was a sped up engine design no doubt, but the time saved was in initial scoping and targets (ford got that down pretty clear), and early design work. This was by using more CAD, building more 'hybrid mutant' engines from scratch and tearing them down, using tricks learnt on the V6 and other V8 programs and good old fashioned overtime. The reliability testing was the only bit of the pogram that wasn't sped up.....

Umm, thats what jpd80 explained to the earlier poster but far less words. He was simply saying that it was not a new ground up engine and that the coyote V8 has similar bottom end dimensions to suit existing manufacturing facilities thus saving time and money in the process.

brodfloyd · 03-02-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

The coyote was not designed from scratch, it uses the 4.6 Mod V8 deck height and bore spacing,
allowing an existing engine machine line used reduces delivery time by around 12 months.
I know it's going into the revamped Essex factory in Canada but the machinery set up is
basically the same as used in the previous 4.6 engine lines at Romeo and Cleveland

That was not the point of my post.

That is why I said "basically" scratch. As discussed above it had some limitations from its 'mod' heritage but this did not speed up development, however mentioning this in full in my previous post would have sidetracked my argument and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Whether or not Coyote is a "New" engine in the true definition of the word is not the topic of this thread, Mr Dowlings article, my post within the thread, nor the majority of the other posts, so can we please discuss it elsewhere.

To clarify:

The example was mentioned to negate the argument Dowling had stated in regards to it taking "2 years" to engineer the existing production GM supercharged LS engines into a HSV. This compares to the time it took Ford US to develop and engineer Coyote from BASICALLY new.

This also includes the local development work to engineer Coyote into our Falcon (and maybe as speculated developing different specification levels including a unique supercharged version.)

However I can partly justify my previous bracketed claim by referencing the official confirmation from Harrop Engineering about its program with ford. Unlike Mr Dowling who references no one, does not preface his claims with 'rumoured' and states all of his claims as fact.

HSV could safely engineer, develop, test and release a Supercharged Commodore in as little as 12 months, maybe less.

So why then Mr Dowling if it takes Ford US, FPV and Harrop Engineering 2 years to design, construct, test, redesign, retest, trial, ship to Aus, modify, and retest coyote would it take HSV the same period of time to take an existing engine from the GM catalogue and put it into their products if they so desired?

These facts make it clear that Mr Dowling has very little concept of the reality of engine development/transplant programs and more broadly the automotive industry. This discredits not only this paragraph, but the article as a whole and also his complete body of work.

My contention is still: Josh Dowling is not a credible automotive journalist. He relies to heavily on rumour and speculation instead of fact and is beholden to journalistic trends and hyperbole.

Unfortunately some are so happy to not be receiving another ill-advised pasting from Mr Dowling that they are all to willing to accept an equally ill-advised, baseless puff piece.

How Chuck Norris allows Josh Dowling to continue his existence is a travesty I hope to soon see rectified.

Swordsman88 · 03-02-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brodfloyd

That was not the point of my post.

That is why I said "basically" scratch. As discussed above it had some limitations from its 'mod' heritage but this did not speed up development, however mentioning this in full in my previous post would have sidetracked my argument and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Whether or not Coyote is a "New" engine in the true definition of the word is not the topic of this thread, Mr Dowlings article, my post within the thread, nor the majority of the other posts, so can we please discuss it elsewhere.

To clarify:

The example was mentioned to negate the argument Dowling had stated in regards to it taking "2 years" to engineer the existing production GM supercharged LS engines into a HSV. This compares to the time it took Ford US to develop and engineer Coyote from BASICALLY new.

This also includes the local development work to engineer Coyote into our Falcon (and maybe as speculated developing different specification levels including a unique supercharged version.)

However I can partly justify my previous bracketed claim by referencing the official confirmation from Harrop Engineering about its program with ford. Unlike Mr Dowling who references no one, does not preface his claims with 'rumoured' and states all of his claims as fact.

HSV could safely engineer, develop, test and release a Supercharged Commodore in as little as 12 months, maybe less.

So why then Mr Dowling if it takes Ford US, FPV and Harrop Engineering 2 years to design, construct, test, redesign, retest, trial, ship to Aus, modify, and retest coyote would it take HSV the same period of time to take an existing engine from the GM catalogue and put it into their products if they so desired?

These facts make it clear that Mr Dowling has very little concept of the reality of engine development/transplant programs and more broadly the automotive industry. This discredits not only this paragraph, but the article as a whole and also his complete body of work.

My contention is still: Josh Dowling is not a credible automotive journalist. He relies to heavily on rumour and speculation instead of fact and is beholden to journalistic trends and hyperbole.

Unfortunately some are so happy to not be receiving another ill-advised pasting from Mr Dowling that they are all to willing to accept an equally ill-advised, baseless puff piece.

How Chuck Norris allows Josh Dowling to continue his existence is a travesty I hope to soon see rectified.

Seems about right. It appears i wasted some of barnacus' time in reading my post with too many words. Apologies. My point was the same as brodfloyd RE that while jpd80 may have been correct the coyote was based on existing mod dimensions to save money in tooling etc. the claim it 'saved time' is not true at all. Esp when you take into account the local development work on coyote via the miami program (SC).

Had ford opted for a diff set of dimensions for the coyote that would have cost only months, not years. ONce the new dimensions were chosen (which woudl have had to been early on) then the production facilities had 18months+ to retool for the new design sizing while the rest of the engine was built up and tested, rebuilt etc. So in effect the choice to go with the current mod size had very little measuralbe impact on the project timeline at all...... Which was my point if you read it carefullly....

THis is all just a distraction from the fact that in its final form the coyote (SC or not) is a great engine that will deliver a real walloping to GMH.... Regardless of what ford puts on the badge (or even if they set up the rest of the car properly) the coyote is a very very impressive V8 donk, and will give Ford globaly the weapon to compete a hell of alot better in a whole range of vehicles...

irlewy86 · 03-02-2010, 11:55 AM

Better to write a positive story about Ford than a negative one about Holden.

The GFC took a fair bite out of GM's and Holden's backside. They haven't been able to produce the same amount or quality of spin, as they did in the past. The motor press pack have the same dealines to meet but less content to write about.... ENTER THE FALCON!!!

DanielXR8 · 03-02-2010, 07:16 PM

What the Coyote means for a lot of people, is that wether you are Ford man or a Holden man, or if you really don't care either way, there is going to be a glut of low milage, near new V8 performance cars on the market as many move to supercharged V8's. Good times for all V8 buyers. New buyers get the tech and the bragging rights at the pub and second hand buyers get the bargains.

jpd80 · 03-02-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Hmm, kinda right. Yes it shares the mod v8 deck height and bore spacing but that was a design limitation RE production plant....that is not a 'existing tech' carry over. There was no advantage in development time saved in doing this (not signifnicant any way) it was just a limitation....

I have on good authority from FNA insiders that retaining the deck height and
bore spacing of the previous engine meant the existing machining equipment
line can be reused, saving up to 12 months on delivery time.
That is a huge saving in time and cost on the machining line.

Bossxr8 · 06-02-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

I saw a new GT test car near geelong, and it DID have different wheels on the back to the front! Looked wider. ALso the front of the car was under covers so there must be some changes there, however there was no intercooler. I can see the difference between A/c Radiator and an intercooler even if they are coloured black. :-)

An intercooler on a roots blown engine sits underneath the supercharger, and is water to air intercooled. They do not fit front mount intercoolers to them. GT500 and ZR1 as examples.

And its funny how they think HSV will use the supercharged 6.2 from the ZR1 and CTS V, when its even more expensive than the LS7 from the W427, which already cost something like 20k more expensive than the LS3. Do they seriously think HSV will be selling 80 grand Maloos and 90 grand Clubsports?