Motor Sept 2005 - BFYB - Another FPV failure! - Page 4

XR6turbo · 16-08-2005, 11:17 AM

There are only 2 things they need to do, and most guys from the track will tell u the same thing. They need a better suspension setup and better tyres. The real issue is those Dunlops they put on these cars. Even if they only changed the tyres and left the suspension there would be a dramatic increase in the speed the car could carry through the corner. Dunlops are sh#t, always have been and always will be.

MrSparkle · 16-08-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

As ive said before, the biggest critics seem to be the ones who have either never driven or owned a BA or are least likely to be able to afford to own one....

Not sure if that one was aimed at me, but you are right and wrong. No I haven't owned a BA. Have spent enough time in them to know them though. Trust me when I say I can afford anything in the range at this point in time, however! :dr_Evil:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

hamberger shop might sell a nicer berger but its a different market, compare apples with apples and markets with markets.

Markets? Well FPV claim they are in the performance end of the market, and BFYB provided a solid empirical test of this - hence my whole reason for starting this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Its simple, FPV sell a product that is widely accepted as a fantastic performance ROAD vehicle, sales DO tell the story.

They make a great product, but it must be improved to compete in the market FPV want to play in. That is, unless of course, they are trying to create a new niche market for only themselves to be in?

paul7v7 · 16-08-2005, 11:33 AM

I think the review was well done. It is a wakeup call to FPV & the fans to say yeah the car is good, but it ain't no performance car. Well done Motor Magazine.

4Vman · 16-08-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

Not sure if that one was aimed at me, but you are right and wrong. No I haven't owned a BA. Have spent enough time in them to know them though. Trust me when I say I can afford anything in the range at this point in time, however! :dr_Evil:

Markets? Well FPV claim they are in the performance end of the market, and BFYB provided a solid empirical test of this - hence my whole reason for starting this thread.

They make a great product, but it must be improved to compete in the market FPV want to play in. That is, unless of course, they are trying to create a new niche market for only themselves to be in?

I guess my point was aimed at those with a "utopic" view of the world, with grandious dreams of what Ford "should" make but the reality is they either dont understand commercial manufacturing principles or have no intention of buying it even if Ford did make it!
As for BFYB make no mistake about it, MOTOR mag are there to sell mags and make money, end of story, there is no component of 'public service" in their journalism... selling mags to people who love this stuff is what its about.
IMO BFYB is flawed in principle, it make a very interesting read i agree but it relates poorly to the real world of the cars it tests and how they meet the purpose of what they were designed for and in many ways contradicts the principles you apply to make a good performance ROAD vehicle.
I agree 100% FPV can't rest on their laurels and feedback is very important part of keeping ahead of the pack but i read very little into BFYB.
And id suggest the average punter with 70K to spend on a V8 performance vehicle is far more intelligent than to make a choice based on a mag article that focuses on lap times, and splits hairs over a few KPH or hundreths of a second....

twr7cx · 16-08-2005, 04:14 PM

I don't give a toss what Motors say as I'm seeing a lot more new FPV's and XR's on the streets lately, than I am WRX's, and HSV/S's. After all it's the sales that determine anything, not what Motors say.

gtfpv · 18-08-2005, 10:38 PM

I hope this is not taken as a repost but i would like to air my views on biast car magazines . usually before a buy a car mag i have a quick read of articles and if it tickles my fancy . i'll buy it . today in the newsagency i flicked through the new edition of MOTOR. once again i was flabbergasted at the ridicule that ford always seems to get when up against holdens . ie. SV8 scored 1st in it's catagory . xr8 and gt were both beaten buy SS COMMADORE . and then i noticed the writers ridiculing the gt as a poor slug or somewhat along those lines .it was too much for me .since when is 0-100km in 5.99 seconds sluggish . i read abit more put downs on the xr8 . the typhoon they even ridiculed saying it couldn't get more because of traction loss ( how terrible ) 5.7 sec to 100km/hr. then they proceeded to rant on the 6 litre clubbie i think it was on how fast it felt over the rest of the field .they never bagged it for being slower than the sti . i closed the book put it down and decided not to buy . what a slap in the face , once agian to F.P.V. . I ALWAYS DENIGHED THEM as biased but now i have changed my mind they definately are.

Dave_au · 18-08-2005, 11:11 PM

Yeah its a repost, and a lot of people do agree with Motor's criticism, especially with the mid cornering speed issue. It just seems the FPVs aren't super brilliant on the track at least this time around and FPV has a bit of work to do.

JADED6 · 19-08-2005, 01:44 AM

Buy Ford Performance Mag or Street Fords.
Funnily enough, both these magazines speak rather highly of Fords.

JPFS1 · 19-08-2005, 02:14 AM

I read through the comments in the mag tonight. It sure doesnt sound pretty for Ford, especially the way that Rick/Neil Bates totally bagged out the big oz sedans and totally painted a rosey picture for the import ricer brigade.

I'd love to see a Jeremy Clarkson put all the Aussie cars through their paces, with all BIAS aside.

CSV_LS1 · 19-08-2005, 02:43 AM

I think having 2 drivers from each field to test all the cars and post their opinions would keep it fair. Having Rick Bates drive a v8 sedan/coupe is a waste of time.

SpoolMan · 19-08-2005, 02:49 AM

Threads merged from post 95 to 96.

MrSparkle · 19-08-2005, 07:31 AM

Can someone please explain to me how driving cars around a track and taking empirical data from that is biased? If you're that hung up on the opinions of the drivers/journos, then forget the commentary and stick to the hard figures. You'll soon see a fairly similiar conclusion.

4Vman · 19-08-2005, 08:47 AM

I still cant see how BFYB is relevant in the context of what the vehicles were designed for...
Its like taking a group of NRL players and evaluating them on their ability to play AFL...
It makes great reading no doubt but serves no meaningful purpose from a buyers perspective..
I will conceede however that if BFYB was run in a way that gave meaningful feedback about the cars and how they perform in their seperate catagories as performance Road vehicles it would probably be boring and not sell mags so i can appreciate how and why it is done this way..

Id love to see a "BFYB +5k", where each car is allowed 5K worth of mods, at least modified cars would sit more comfortably with the flavour and slant of "track evaluation".
Ill back it in the F6 would be a clear winner... 5K worth of aftermarket stuff makes an enourmous difference to the entire Ford range, thats small change when you consider the cost difference between the FPV range and more expensive opposition..

Dave_au · 19-08-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSV_LS1

I think having 2 drivers from each field to test all the cars and post their opinions would keep it fair. Having Rick Bates drive a v8 sedan/coupe is a waste of time.

Didn't Cameron McConville do it last year - with an equally dismal result for ford? I think we put it down to Holden bias last year.

In all seriousness I'm afraid to say that being a track weapon isn't really FPVs forte, and there is no quick fix for the biggest problem (the weight!)

4Vman · 19-08-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Didn't Cameron McConville do it last year - with an equally dismal result for ford? I think we put it down to Holden bias last year.

In all seriousness I'm afraid to say that being a track weapon isn't really FPVs forte, and there is no quick fix for the biggest problem (the weight!)

Here's a thought, grab a couple of novice car enthusiasts who represent the average buying public and let them evaluate the cars!!! They might get some more meaningful real world feedback? although you are right, FPV's strength is how it performs its designed purpose, a performance ROAD vehicle...

JPFS1 · 19-08-2005, 10:11 AM

How's this for a reality check... FPV (or even Ford) have never claimed their product to be track weapons, they were not designed to be, period! So why get so hot under the collar? They are tarted up LARGE, HEAVY family sedans aimed at people that want something just a little more special above and beyond an XT. If the marketing is disappointing some fans, then so be it, it's working for the majority as sales are ticking along nicely and the majority of owners from what i can tell are very happy with their choice.

So a holden is quicker through turn 9 at a track... big ing woop!

If the REAL enthusiast wants a track attack pack, then they will mod it to their liking, not rely on FPV to give them the final product, a REAL enthusiest wouldn't accept anything from a Holden or Ford in standard form, there's always room for improvement.

SpoolMan · 19-08-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEM

How's this for a reality check... FPV (or even Ford) have never claimed their product to be track weapons, they were not designed to be, period! So why get so hot under the collar? They are tarted up LARGE, HEAVY family sedans aimed at people that want something just a little more special above and beyond an XT. If the marketing is disappointing some fans, then so be it, it's working for the majority as sales are ticking along nicely and the majority of owners from what i can tell are very happy with their choice.

So a holden is quicker through turn 9 at a track... big ing woop!

If the REAL enthusiast wants a track attack pack, then they will mod it to their liking, not rely on FPV to give them the final product, a REAL enthusiest wouldn't accept anything from a Holden or Ford in standard form, there's always room for improvement.

I would agree with that, Sums it up well, we buy road cars not track warrior's...
if you want a BA track warroir , see RACEGT (Matt) he drives his BAgt to from the track and holds some very tidy times.
(Quickest Full Street trim GT to pass around Phillip Island in 1:51.91 and Sandown in 1.28.28es)

4Vman · 19-08-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRFPV8

I would agree with that, Sums it up well, we buy road cars not track warrior's...
if you want a BA track warroir , see RACEGT (Matt) he drives his BAgt to from the track and holds some very tidy times.
(Quickest Full Street trim GT to pass around Phillip Island in 1:51.91 and Sandown in 1.28.28es)

This is exactly the point ive been making, it costs far less to mod a GT to go well around a track than what it would cost to have FPV design and build/sell it like that.
Its a proven fact that track orientated cars don't sell well, Grand Tourers do.... Sales figures dont lie.
We should be wrapped that the FPV cars do their jobs so well and provide such an easily tunable base to work with if you want to go racing, best of both worlds id say!

:

MrSparkle · 19-08-2005, 12:29 PM

From the FPV site, under the heading "Philosophy" ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV Website

Our goal. Ford Performance Vehicles is far more than just a brand or a name. It's setting and exceeding unequivocal new benchmarks in Australian high-performance motoring. Achieving this is a result of FPV's world-class facilities, innovative and dedicated workforce, race-bred technology and continually challenging ourselves in everything we do. It's a commitment to continually building on our engineering integrity and design innovation to produce the ultimate Australian high-performance cars.

This is what we call Total Performance.

Ford Performance Vehicles enforces Total Performance through three governing criteria:

* All FPV vehicles must have substantial power increase from its Ford donor vehicle.

* Power developments must be balanced with developments to the chassis, driveline and brakes, providing an exhilarating yet safe performance package.

* It must have a distinctive look and feel that accentuates the power and technology found in all FPV vehicles.

This is from FPV themselves, not from diehards who think they know what FPV are trying to do or achieve ie. a "nice" road car that's meant to be a little bit quicker than the bog standard. How many mentions do you see of the words "performance" and "power"? Their aim is clear, their execution is below par.

MITCHAY · 19-08-2005, 12:56 PM

If they just want to be a tourer or luxury car then they should drop the "performance" from their name. I dont know about anyone else but if i was to buy an FPV i would want all out performance. If i wanted luxury or comfort i would buy a BMW.

Steffo · 19-08-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

If they just want to be a tourer or luxury car then they should drop the "performance" from their name. I dont know about anyone else but if i was to buy an FPV i would want all out performance. If i wanted luxury or comfort i would buy a BMW.

BMW manage to combine it with performance though.. M3, M5, M6... they're all pretty fast cars.

Dominator · 19-08-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

BMW manage to combine it with performance though.. M3, M5, M6... they're all pretty fast cars.

At what price premium? Ive driven a new M3, i wouldn't want to drive it daily... It is too highly strung to be a decent 40,000k's per year car.

Dominator · 19-08-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

From the FPV site, under the heading "Philosophy" ...

This is from FPV themselves, not from diehards who think they know what FPV are trying to do or achieve ie. a "nice" road car that's meant to be a little bit quicker than the bog standard. How many mentions do you see of the words "performance" and "power"? Their aim is clear, their execution is below par.

I think they've achieved a large part of what they've written! nowhere do thay say anything about lap times or track performance,

* All FPV vehicles must have substantial power increase from its Ford donor vehicle.

YEP done.

* Power developments must be balanced with developments to the chassis, driveline and brakes, providing an exhilarating yet safe performance package.

Yep Done, it handles, brakes and drives far better than the base Falcon.

* It must have a distinctive look and feel that accentuates the power and technology found in all FPV vehicles.

Absolutely! its the best looking performance Falcon Ford have ever made.

Looks like FPV have succeeded in producing a cost effective high performance passenger vehicle, thats markedly faster than the base sedan and has significantly more power and provided an exhilirating performance sports experience!

MITCHAY · 19-08-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

BMW manage to combine it with performance though.. M3, M5, M6... they're all pretty fast cars.

Yeah thats what i pretty much meant. I would take a M series BMW anyday.

Dominator · 19-08-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Yeah thats what i pretty much meant. I would take a M series BMW anyday.

Lets all be honest here BMW and Mercedes make better performance cars, but nothing good comes cheaply. Id say Mercedes do a better job at producing a more refined product than BMW but its close, nobody with half a brain would spend 100K+ on an Australian built car when BMW or Mercedes can offer the cars they do, which is exactly why a "track pack" GT would be a sales failure, it would bump its price up around the C55 or M3 point and we all know that the manufacturing scales of economy of Europe allows them to build a better product.

MITCHAY · 19-08-2005, 01:53 PM

I know FPV wouldnt be able to offer a reasonably priced car that offers it all. But the fact they have performance in their name is killing them. Surely there has to be somewhere were they could cut out some weight.

4Vman · 19-08-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

But the fact they have performance in their name is killing them. Surely there has to be somewhere were they could cut out some weight.

How old are you? What car do you drive? have you driven an FPV vehicle?

MITCHAY · 19-08-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

How old are you? What car do you drive? have you driven an FPV vehicle?

Im 18 and look at avatar for my ride lol (yes its s**t i know) Well think about it. Why market it as Ford Performance Vehicles when obviously the "performance" part is the make up of the name which is what appeal to people. Performance cars are lighter not heavier.

MITCHAY · 19-08-2005, 02:02 PM

Im not paying out on the FPV cars as they good cars but they need to decide which way they are goin to go with it. They need to cut out weight or up the power substantially to compensate.

4Vman · 19-08-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Im 18 and look at avatar for my ride lol (yes its s**t i know) Well think about it. Why market it as Ford Performance Vehicles when obviously the "performance" part is the make up of the name which is what appeal to people. Performance cars are lighter not heavier.

With respect i totally dissagree, your definition of "performance" would only be satisfied by a GT3 Porche or CSL M3...
The GT IS Clearly a performance vehicle, just not on the same scales as others, but it DOES forfill a place in the market for a performance FAMILY car, which is what it is, nothing more, nothing less, and its built to a price point that makes it excellent value compared to the Porche or BMW..