October MOTOR - W427 vs GTR vs Ford GT vs Lambo LP - Page 2

irlewy86 · 10-09-2008, 03:01 PM

I think people forget that while the GTR, W427 and LP640 are all current models.

The GT was released in 2005

And its quarter mile time tested oh so long ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford US Website

As Stoddart alludes to, the GT's performance is incredible. For its January 2004 cover story, “Judgment Day!” Car and Driver magazine test driver Larry Webster drove a Ford GT from 0-60 mph in 3.3 seconds. Car and Driver also recorded a quarter-mile time of 11.6 seconds at 128 mph. In the same test, Ferrari’s $193,000 Challenge Stradale took four seconds to reach 60 mph and was 0.8 second and 13 mph slower through the quarter-mile.

DougM · 10-09-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irlewy86

I think people forget that while the GTR, W427 and LP640 are all current models.

The GT was released in 2005

And its quarter mile time tested oh so long ago

My thoughts exactly........The GT is an awesome car that was released 3 years ago ....And the times posted by MOTOR are the worst I've seen anywhere for the GT......And they were the only mag to bag it's performance......

The W427 is a great Acheivment for HSV for just having the balls to build it but there is no chance in hell I would pay the dollars for a car that's come down the same line as an Omega........

Ives · 10-09-2008, 04:03 PM

That's a slow time for the Haltech GT-R, because I read that the Haltech GT-R did 11.1sec qtr mile. Perhaps it was because the different conditions and the fact that MOTOR (and Wheels) do straight-line tests with one passanger in the car.

merlin · 10-09-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ives

That's a slow time for the Haltech GT-R, because I read that the Haltech GT-R did 11.1sec qtr mile. Perhaps it was because the different conditions and the fact that MOTOR (and Wheels) do straight-line tests with one passanger in the car.

The Haltech GTR had all its settings returned to stock for the test

Ives · 10-09-2008, 04:13 PM

Ah I see. Obviously I haven't read the article yet.

220XR8 · 10-09-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougM

My thoughts exactly........The GT is an awesome car that was released 3 years ago ....And the times posted by MOTOR are the worst I've seen anywhere for the GT......And they were the only mag to bag it's performance......

The W427 is a great Acheivment for HSV for just having the balls to build it but there is no chance in hell I would pay the dollars for a car that's come down the same line as an Omega........

Would you buy a (Ford W123) whatever for that money and it came off the same line as the XT. Or is it just a Holden thing??

DougM · 10-09-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 220XR8

Would you buy a (Ford W123) whatever for that money and it came off the same line as the XT. Or is it just a Holden thing??

It's not just a Holden thing.I don't think I would buy a Falcon at that price either.....But that's just my personal choice......For serious all round performance, I would not be starting with a 1800kg car.....

My personal choice for those dollars would be either classic muscle (boss302) or a great modern trackday car like a Porsche Cayman....Or my ultimate would be a GT40 replica.......

Quicksand · 10-09-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ea90gl

A slight edge maybe but I wouldn't say big step over what Ford has to offer, again look at the F6 they have clocked 13.1 down the strip at what 180ish km/h by the end, they have even got an XR6T producing similar numbers which is a lot less $$$.

Yep, it's an interesting thought; with better tyres i wonder just how well the F6 goes against these guys

DDXR6T · 10-09-2008, 06:15 PM

The Walrus427 gets 8 stars, as does the GTR?! Waaaaah?!

Ives · 10-09-2008, 06:22 PM

Holdens/HSVs get 2 or 3-star boost in MOTOR or Wheels magazine.

Falc'man · 11-09-2008, 02:06 AM

I thought there were enough Holden advertisements in Motor as it is.

Jayden · 11-09-2008, 02:52 AM

the GT-R is desirable the world over while just about everyone thinks the 427 is laughably ugly, its trying to be a lambo on a big sedan chassis. Shouldn't be attempted really as its embarrasing. Hope australia will get our coupes back with less size/weight. Its the only way to compete with old rivals.

mcnews · 11-09-2008, 10:19 AM

I must say in the flesh I found the 427 looking quite damn impressive. Certainly better looking than anything Ford has made.

Transfiguring R · 11-09-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irlewy86

I think people forget that while the GTR, W427 and LP640 are all current models.

The GT was released in 2005

And its quarter mile time tested oh so long ago

They didn't use a GT-X1, did they? The X1 produces 150 bhp more than the GT, for a total of 700 bhp.

irlewy86 · 11-09-2008, 10:55 AM

Nope this was before the X1 was released.

Jayden · 11-09-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

I must say in the flesh I found the 427 looking quite damn impressive. Certainly better looking than anything Ford has made.

ban.

jk, but seriously though. Id take a TS-50 over that if they had the same performance, the W427s styling just seems to have that try-hard factor in it.

But I havnt seen it in the flesh so ill shut up till I do.

FalconXR6 · 11-09-2008, 01:06 PM

Not sure why people are comparing F6 and W427.
No one in the market for an F6 is going to sniff at a W427.
And likewise, the bloke in the market for a W427 isn't going to give an F6 a second look.

Stock for stock.
0-100 and 0-400m, there's bugger all in it between the two (F6 and W427) and some will see question the "value for money" equation between F6 and W427. but again, I'm not even sure why...

Tyres (grip) is certainly the F6's limiting factor, having driven one on several occassions and struggling for traction everytime the accelerator pedal was floored...

Would love to see the W427's 80-120 times...

XR6_190 · 11-09-2008, 01:21 PM

This seems like a simple effort to try and drum up magazine sales, no serious unbiased car oriented media outlet would even consider putting the W427 in the smae group as the other 3, especially the Lamborghini, I mean seriously, an overpriced Holden in drag, versus a super exotic Lamborghini.

FalconXR6 · 11-09-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6_190

This seems like a simple effort to try and drum up magazine sales, no serious unbiased car oriented media outlet would even consider putting the W427 in the smae group as the other 3, especially the Lamborghini, I mean seriously, an overpriced Holden in drag, versus a super exotic Lamborghini.

Far king spot on Bevan!!!
Good post!

ea90gl · 11-09-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

Not sure why people are comparing F6 and W427.
No one in the market for an F6 is going to sniff at a W427.
And likewise, the bloke in the market for a W427 isn't going to give an F6 a second look.

Stock for stock.
0-100 and 0-400m, there's bugger all in it between the two (F6 and W427) and some will see question the "value for money" equation between F6 and W427. but again, I'm not even sure why...

Tyres (grip) is certainly the F6's limiting factor, having driven one on several occassions and struggling for traction everytime the accelerator pedal was floored...

Would love to see the W427's 80-120 times...

quickest recorded was a 2.6, in the mag its 3.0. F6 clocked a 2.7 which isnt too bad

merlin · 11-09-2008, 02:33 PM

Wheels compare the AMG to the W427 in latest edition and the AMG is quicker everywhere (and cheaper)- not bad since it "only" used a 6.3L engine and provides similar levels of comfort and boot space. The W427 is a niche model for a very small niche market - it fills this gap very successfully but I personally see no value in it, then again I am not a 50+ year old white male that grew up on meat pies and ridiculously low property values

Fev · 11-09-2008, 02:40 PM

its actually 6.2lt's. the amg 6.3 badge on the side grill bit is some relation to an older merc engine from way back(im thinking the same engine that used in zonda's as its a 6.3lt)

loltastic · 11-09-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fev

its actually 6.2lt's. the amg 6.3 badge on the side grill bit is some relation to an older merc engine from way back(im thinking the same engine that used in zonda's as its a 6.3lt)

The Zonda uses a 7.3lt V12 made by AMG.

Whitey-AMG · 11-09-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

I must say in the flesh I found the 427 looking quite damn impressive. Certainly better looking than anything Ford has made.

Have to agree there.........in the flesh , the W427 is actually quite good. It looks purposeful , design is balanced , and the overall look is far enough removed from the mainstream HSV stuff so it does stand out.

We should all stop bagging this product. HSV are doing what we all want FPV to do..................go out on a limb and produce something special. It may be overpriced.....but when you consider that all 90 odd that have been produced thus far have a home.......someone out there is buying them and HSV are reaping the rewards.

I don't have that kind of cash , but If I had a freebie choice, I'd take one over the FG GT or F6 any day of the week.

Obviosuly if you had to pay for it.........it'd be a different story.........but then again as mentioned, THESE THINGS ARE SELLING.

Carby · 11-09-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Wheels compare the AMG to the W427 in latest edition and the AMG is quicker everywhere (and cheaper)- not bad since it "only" used a 6.3L engine and provides similar levels of comfort and boot space. The W427 is a niche model for a very small niche market - it fills this gap very successfully but I personally see no value in it, then again I am not a 50+ year old white male that grew up on meat pies and ridiculously low property values

Wrong - the 80-120 times all went the way of the W427, the Benz cost $270K as opposed to $156K for the HSV and the Benz had wooden feeling steering. Overall the HSV compared quite well to the Benz.

FalconXR6 · 11-09-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ea90gl

quickest recorded was a 2.6, in the mag its 3.0. F6 clocked a 2.7 which isnt too bad

Beautiful!

That speaks volumes on the grunt front doesn't it?

I mean, here is a $65k 6 cylinder Falcon that is a meagre 0.1 seconds off the pace from 80-120 (real world driving, remember...) compared with a $155k 7.0 litre V8 Commodore.

FPV F6 - King Of Aussie Muscle!

Ghiadude · 11-09-2008, 04:29 PM

The W427 is the fastest 4 door stock australian car built today. For that it gets kudos from me. Great article too, But parked next to that company it would look like a ...i mean seriously...IMHO it is as ugly as a hsv has ever been.

Ives · 11-09-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Wheels compare the AMG to the W427 in latest edition and the AMG is quicker everywhere (and cheaper)- not bad since it "only" used a 6.3L engine and provides similar levels of comfort and boot space. The W427 is a niche model for a very small niche market - it fills this gap very successfully but I personally see no value in it, then again I am not a 50+ year old white male that grew up on meat pies and ridiculously low property values

Hang on, hang on. Are you talking about the CLS63 AMG Vs W427? if you are...

-The CLS63 AMG is much more expensive than the W427.
-And it's got a 6.2L engine instead of 6.3L

Quote:

Originally Posted by tx3dude

The W427 is the fastest 4 door stock australian car built today. For that it gets kudos from me. Great article too, But parked next to that company it would look like a ...i mean seriously...IMHO it is as ugly as a hsv has ever been.

If I would to buy one, I'd get one in black (to hide the Walrus face)... and I'll take it to a place that would replace the red leather to black or something. Ugh.

merlin · 12-09-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ives

Hang on, hang on. Are you talking about the CLS63 AMG Vs W427? if you are...

-The CLS63 AMG is much more expensive than the W427.
-And it's got a 6.2L engine instead of 6.3L

.

OK I am getting confused here, I am talking about the AMG that costs around $140K with the 6.3 V8. (yes I realise its really 6.2 but Benz badge it 6.3).

4Vman · 12-09-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

OK I am getting confused here, I am talking about the AMG that costs around $140K with the 6.3 V8. (yes I realise its really 6.2 but Benz badge it 6.3).

You need to be more specific... name the model you're referring to not the engine.....