Final FPV sparks kilowatt controversy (GT-F vs GTS)

[Bonn]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

I think you're right there Bonn it seems Holden don't even need to get close to claim power and no one blinks an eye. I'd be pretty upset buying a car with a 4 in front of the power number if it dynoed with a 2 in front... (Yes there are some gts's that have only pulled high 200 at the rear wheels)

It's almost purely pose value - just like riders of new Ducatis who used to stand around the Mt White cafe', in brand new leathers and "TITANIUM" written in non-subtle font on a metallic strip on their shiny boots.
No way they were going to make contact with that dirty bitumen stuff!

Like a lot of exotic cars- if people know what you spent, job done.....

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by duaned

That sums it up nicely!

It is a pretty good head to head review of the two. The 2.3 second difference in lap times was a bit of an eye opener considering it was such a small track (approx 60 second lap times)

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by stazza

I have noticed this with a lot of Holden drivers, infact most. I work with loads of dudes that drive Holdens and they are the first to bag a Ford as soon as you mention you drive one. They will refuse to see your point of view at all and blindly spout out bullshit that is more often than not inaccurate. As soon as you say something about a Holden they get super defensive and act like spoiled children. They are sore losers and will rarely EVER give praise to a Ford.

I work with another crane operator who told me if I want to get more power out of my GS then I should get an OTR intake

I've also had another young dude I worked with ask if my old FG XR8 had a 5.7ltr in it when I pulled up next to him.

It's funny how they know little about Fords but will be the first to claim they know everything, and that their mates fully *** VE SS is a "WEAPON BRO".

So glad I don't drive Holdens, bloody rednecks.

Nearly as bad as the Holden driver telling me I needed a mafless tune for my F6

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

It is a pretty good head to head review of the two. The 2.3 second difference in lap times was a bit of an eye opener considering it was such a small track (approx 60 second lap times)

I don't know how many laps would have been done in the Ford, but how long would the overboost last for?
I suspect that might have something to do with the big difference in times.

[PepeLePew]

Think the GTS's handling advantage on a track would be enough. Decent setup to even make a peckerhead driver look pretty good.

[stazza]

So what happened to Wheels re-testing with the engineers present? Weren't the results due to be published nearly a week ago?

[2242100]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Both cars are copiously overpowered for the street where the majority will spend their lives. We are spoilt and bickering over meaningless numbers. Hopefully Wheels swallow their pride shortly publish their corrected results and we can all get on with mourning the impending passing of our homegrown heroes.

It will be interesting to wait for the rematch and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but if you think Wheels has got it wrong, just consider the (at the wheels) torque figures that Motoring.com.au has published.
Instead of around 700 Nm at the wheels, think of something like over 1500 Nm at the wheels and also a comparison of torque at the wheels wouldn't be too meaningfull when the 4th gear in one car is lower than the other.
It appears obvious to me that the torque numbers would have to be estimated Flywheel numbers and that appears to put the Ford's Flywheel power at over 450 kW when only around 404 kW has been suggested.
One thing though that I must credit Motoring for is that they have been balanced in pointing out that the HSV is stronger across a wide range.

[ivandrago]

So having read this thread dyno numbers dont matter anymore track lap times now do? so if another car is faster then the gts around the track its a better car then especially if it costs half as much or does that only count when its against the ford? cant have your cake and eat it to.

[82XD393.3v]

Originally Posted by 2242100

It will be interesting to wait for the rematch and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but if you think Wheels has got it wrong, just consider the (at the wheels) torque figures that Motoring.com.au has published.
Instead of around 700 Nm at the wheels, think of something like over 1500 Nm at the wheels and also a comparison of torque at the wheels wouldn't be too meaningfull when the 4th gear in one car is lower than the other.
It appears obvious to me that the torque numbers would have to be estimated Flywheel numbers and that appears to put the Ford's Flywheel power at over 450 kW when only around 404 kW has been suggested.
One thing though that I must credit Motoring for is that they have been balanced in pointing out that the HSV is stronger across a wide range.

are you serious motoring they quoted 721nm for the gt f and 751 for the gts and i think you will be the one that's got it wrong.... are you a troll

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by 2242100

It will be interesting to wait for the rematch and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but if you think Wheels has got it wrong, just consider the (at the wheels) torque figures that Motoring.com.au has published.
Instead of around 700 Nm at the wheels, think of something like over 1500 Nm at the wheels and also a comparison of torque at the wheels wouldn't be too meaningfull when the 4th gear in one car is lower than the other.
It appears obvious to me that the torque numbers would have to be estimated Flywheel numbers and that appears to put the Ford's Flywheel power at over 450 kW when only around 404 kW has been suggested.
One thing though that I must credit Motoring for is that they have been balanced in pointing out that the HSV is stronger across a wide range.

I think it's a given that the GTS will have more torque across it's rev range since it has an extra 74 cubes to it's advantage.. and in regards to gear ratios, both auto variants are very close at the top of 4th gear, 220kph for the GT-F and 224kph for the GTS.

[marty351]

Originally Posted by dragons90

Nearly as bad as the Holden driver telling me I needed a mafless tune for my F6

This reminds me of a friend who believed harley davidsons were v8s cause of their blap blap blap sound.
He worked in a petrol servo and asked the rider if it was a v8. Rider says it was and believed him despite all the laughter. And his first car was vn!

[PepeLePew]

Originally Posted by 2242100

It will be interesting to wait for the rematch and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but if you think Wheels has got it wrong, just consider the (at the wheels) torque figures that Motoring.com.au has published.
Instead of around 700 Nm at the wheels, think of something like over 1500 Nm at the wheels and also a comparison of torque at the wheels wouldn't be too meaningfull when the 4th gear in one car is lower than the other.
It appears obvious to me that the torque numbers would have to be estimated Flywheel numbers and that appears to put the Ford's Flywheel power at over 450 kW when only around 404 kW has been suggested.
One thing though that I must credit Motoring for is that they have been balanced in pointing out that the HSV is stronger across a wide range.

Wheels had it wrong. I don't care if the GTF gets the upper hand to be honest. These are just numbers. GTS is likely producing it's goods and burning a unusually high quotient in that bulletproof drivetrain. Who would pass up the drivetrain for a dyno win? But what jacks me off is slapdash journalism that publishes figures which are at odds to even 335 figures seen on dyno's across the country. If they knew and researched their topic instead of just throwing vehicles on a dyno they might've smelt it and retested without publishing printed junk with a side note they'd retest as Ford didn't like that they saw (which is just implying sour grapes where there isn't any and gave the article a negative slant in the blue direction). Did they see what they wanted and pushed it to Facebook/press without thinking? I'll leave that to others. If that's the state of motoring journalism in Australia what can I say? I don't need a calculator or theory to work that out.

[BHDOGS]

guess theres is no controversy now the ford was more powerful most powerful australian car EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR so far

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 82XD393.3v

are you serious motoring they quoted 721nm for the gt f and 751 for the gts and i think you will be the one that's got it wrong.... are you a troll

No, I'm not a troll and yes I'm serious.
If a car has say 700 Nm @ 6000 RPM at the flywheel and the RPM speed is reduced to 1/3 of the Flywheel revs at the wheels, ie 2000 RPM (which is roughly the situation with the GTF in 4th gear) then how much torque reaches the wheels?

Answer
3 X 700 = 2100 Nm.

Well not quite because there are transmission losses, but there would be way over 700 Nm, which was why I mentioned "over 1500 Nm" at the wheels.

If you're still confident that the GTF must have around 700 Nm at the wheels, then it must have a very low Flywheel torque figure. Same applies to the other car.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by ivandrago

So having read this thread dyno numbers dont matter anymore track lap times now do? so if another car is faster then the gts around the track its a better car then especially if it costs half as much or does that only count when its against the ford? cant have your cake and eat it to.

Just had to highlight this, couldn't be further from the truth.

It is only now that Ford has finally caught up with HSV's V8's that all of a sudden dyno figures and qtr mile time slips rate.

If these cars were tested in the traditional way, over half a dozen laps, the GTS would walk away.

Cost
KW
NM
or
ET

None of it matters when your opposition is walking away from you at Mt Panorama!

[billkara]

sooooo...
if Guinness records created a section for the most powerful Aussie car built, they will have the GT-F printed there...

kthnxbai

[BHDOGS]

as i recall with all its fanciery it was 2 seconds quicker around a track big whoop only people who are on holdens side would focus on that bollocks street light drags and dyno numbers is where its at. People dont race around mountains at night this isnt fast and the furious they have the odd squirt at the traffic lights or go to dyno days pahlease what a joke.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by 2242100

No, I'm not a troll and yes I'm serious.
If a car has say 700 Nm @ 6000 RPM at the flywheel and the RPM speed is reduced to 1/3 of the Flywheel revs at the wheels, ie 2000 RPM (which is roughly the situation with the GTF in 4th gear) then how much torque reaches the wheels?

Answer
3 X 700 = 2100 Nm.

Well not quite because there are transmission losses, but there would be way over 700 Nm, which was why I mentioned "over 1500 Nm" at the wheels.

If you're still confident that the GTF must have around 700 Nm at the wheels then, it must have a very low Flywheel torque figure.

It depends on how the dyno lists torque there's tractional effort which varies with gear ratio, diff ratio, tire size, roller size, then FWNM which I'd trust as much as FWKW off a chassis dyno, then RWNM which is the most accurate because its torque after driveline losses but independent of gearing it can also be worked out by Nm = (kW x 9554) / rpm

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

as i recall with all its fanciery it was 2 seconds quicker around a track big whoop only people who are on holdens side would focus on that bollocks street light drags and dyno numbers is where its at. People dont race around mountains at night this isnt fast and the furious they have the odd squirt at the traffic lights or go to dyno days pahlease what a joke.

Riight, so that makes the XY HO also redundant then, I mean, who cares about track results and it was slower over 400m than a 6cyl Charger...

[duaned]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

as i recall with all its fanciery it was 2 seconds quicker around a track big whoop only people who are on holdens side would focus on that bollocks street light drags and dyno numbers is where its at. People dont race around mountains at night this isnt fast and the furious they have the odd squirt at the traffic lights or go to dyno days pahlease what a joke.

And only people on Ford's side focus on a dyno number? Pot Kettle Black ???

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Riight, so that makes the XY HO also redundant then, I mean, who cares about track results and it was slower over 400m than a 6cyl Charger...

correct it is redundant it was 30 years ago let it go already.

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by duaned

And only people on Ford's side focus on a dyno number? Pot Kettle Black ???

fords side on a ford forum yup we have a winner if you wanna hear holdens side its on ls1.com just because you brought a holden doesnt mean you have to go on a holden loving spree i own an old au by choice you dont see me hitting up every au hate thread. i know its a piece of **** but i still like it.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by duaned

And only people on Ford's side focus on a dyno number? Pot Kettle Black ???

HSV made the claim of being the most powerful aussie car.

[shaness8]

Latest Motor magazine

GTF Auto 13.0 1/4 mile @ 181km, can't be making the claimed power going by these results.

There only stock F6 times.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by dragons90

It depends on how the dyno lists torque there's tractional effort which varies with gear ratio, diff ratio, tire size, roller size, then FWNM which I'd trust as much as FWKW off a chassis dyno, then RWNM which is the most accurate because its torque after driveline losses but independent of gearing it can also be worked out by Nm = (kW x 9554) / rpm

There's often a lot of confusion over the torque and tractive effort subject.
I think of tractive effort as the force that the car can push forward with, and it's often expressed in Newtons.

However if a shaft is rotating with 1000 Newton metres of torque, think 1000 Newtons of turning force (approximately 102 kg's) measured at a point 1 metre from the centre of the shaft at a radius of 1 metre.

The outside of a cars tyre isn't at anything like a 1 metre radius, so the tractive effort number (expressed in Newtons) will be a very different to the Newton "metre" torque (turning force) number at the wheels.

Both of these cars can manage way over around 700 Nm at the wheels.

[SensationFG8]

You know there are gears in the diff right?

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by shaness8

Latest Motor magazine

GTF Auto 13.0 1/4 mile @ 181km, can't be making the claimed power going by these results.

There only stock F6 times.

No, they are more like an XR6t time stock.

[PepeLePew]

Given again the 335 betters that I don't quite understand what's going on here....what was the commentary accompanying the number? Makes no sense. Conditions?

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by The Monty

No, they are more like an XR6t time stock.

Yeh , but on same day , same track , same conditions , that XR6t may have run a 13.9.

Need to wait for some times from real world owners with cars that have loosened up a bit. Mid to low 12's will be the norm for stockers, especially with just a tyre swap for something stickier.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Given again the 335 betters that I don't quite understand what's going on here....what was the commentary accompanying the number? Makes no sense. Conditions?

The temperature was 7 degrees so the GTF should have had plenty of power, but traction would have been a problem. I'm starting to think that there may have been a number of runs with poor launches or at least burnouts (to heat tyres) in quick succession that killed the overboost for when they did the run that was published.
Whatever the case the 100 to 181 kmh time was very similar to my standard XR6T with it's overboost feature working. 8.2 sec vs 8.27 seconds at a 12 degree higher temperature and the GTF is better than that.