FPV GT-R spec vs HSV GTS

[Rodge]

Yeah bored already...HSV isn't even a proper challange for a SC FPV, I'm tired with lion hunting... too easy. F6's and SRT8's are the only things that provide a serious challange worth of keeping on top of one's game. Its time to start talking about the elephant in the room.... the SRT8 with its aging but robust 1990's designed 5 speed gearbox beat the R Spec GT around the track, what happens when it gets the 8 Speed ZF in winter 2013 !!

[T4ME]

Who cares......SRT8 Forum may lol.

[AGS302]

Hopefully you'll buy one and jog on.

[strobe]

What if the HSV has bowtie badges?

[flooded one]

I just think no matter what you tell some holden fan boys they'll never listen. i'm just saying for now too him. have you driven one??? I think both GT R spec and SRT8 are very underrated by people but yet the HSVs get all the praise?? I thought the GT R spec would of got a lot more praise being the fastest ever accelerating Australian car made to date. instead some reviewers say stupid things like. its too dear for a falcon but yet will praise the HSV offerings that are dearer???

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by strobe

What if the HSV has bowtie badges?

gives it an extra 50kw at the wheels

[Motorbreath310]

Just gazoogled some specs, and a Camaro ZL1 has apparently run an 11.93 @ 116 mph in auto and 11.96 @ 117 mph with Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar G:2 tyres. It apparently weighs 4120 lbs which, by my rough calculations would be about 1872kg.

So it would appear, that even in a VE/VF Commodore, weight is ultimately holding the car back. It appears to hook up off the line well, as VE's always have, yet it still traps only a few miles faster than most stock FPV's.

You can even see in one of Walkinshaws promotional videos, the GTS they use only ran a 12.4 quarter. This is all making me think that it may not be worth the effort involved to produce an LSA special when they can almost give you the same thing, with warranty through Walkinshaw/HP-F currently. I don't think they want a repeat of the WD40 debacle. They've already done that, and the C4B-equipped cars, at a cost to themselves as reputation builders. They'd be better off making a WP2300-equipped special and calling it a 'Bathurst' like Vauxhall does in the UK. Is Australia ready for another high-priced special when the C63 exists?

As a disclaimer, I know there's more to the whole picture than quarter mile times. Please don't start.

[Rev28K]

The C63 will get an upgrade, the new model will be a turbo 4.0 litre V8 (two A45 3 litre turbo 4's bolted together). http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...v8-engine.html

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Just had a look back on previous models and found a pattern

2012
GT R-Spec
0-100 4.67
400m 12.75

2002
T3 TE50
0-100 5.8
400m 14.0

1992
EB GT
0-100 7.3
400m 15.2

1982
XE ESP
0-100 8.9
400m 16.3

So in 2022 we can expect 0-100 in the high 3s and a 400m time in the mid 11s.

Are the latest and perhaps greatest really that quick ....
Phase 3 was , what 14 ish ,1/4 mile , 3/4 track wheel spin,in 1971
Anyone wanna get some sticky rear boots on it and see, for whatever it could do,it was the cream of the crop ,and 40 years later we can only wipe a few seconds of that
Injection,multi cams. blowers,turbos, whatevers

[1TUFFUTE]

let me clear something up here. If anyone believes its not fair to compare cars with diff engine capacities...your a clown. There are so many stats to prove this. Price range. Power achieved and so many other things. If one company can buid a supercar for 100g that goes 2sec faster then the oposition at the same build price...that means one company is simply better.

Otherwise even cars like m3s and merc would never get compared. What a stupid theory

[JOESBOSS]

Originally Posted by teak81

I think the comparison is unfair based on the fact that the GT is supercharged and the GTS isn't.

not really the HSV has a 6.2L NA V8 the FPV has a supercharged 5L V8. the supercharger pumps in air t i think 1.9 or 2.3 L per rotation, so increasing volumetric efficiency to that of a 7L V8 so it is on par with the 6.2L and that is extremely simplified explanation.

[shaness8]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Are the latest and perhaps greatest really that quick ....
Phase 3 was , what 14 ish ,1/4 mile , 3/4 track wheel spin,in 1971
Anyone wanna get some sticky rear boots on it and see, for whatever it could do,it was the cream of the crop ,and 40 years later we can only wipe a few seconds of that
Injection,multi cams. blowers,turbos, whatevers

The Charger E49 was quicker than a phase 3 over 1/4

Seen a test a while ago where a new XR6 auto could run rings around a phase 3 on a track and nearly matched it down the drag strip.

Technology has come along way, car's of today are bigger and heavy running same times as supercars from the 70's and have to deal with all the strick emission's.

[Angeldust]

Originally Posted by JOESBOSS

not really the HSV has a 6.2L NA V8 the FPV has a supercharged 5L V8. the supercharger pumps in air t i think 1.9 or 2.3 L per rotation, so increasing volumetric efficiency to that of a 7L V8 so it is on par with the 6.2L and that is extremely simplified explanation.

thats at atmospheric pressure , at 10 psi the equivalent capacity would be closer to like 8 litres.

[JOESBOSS]

Originally Posted by Angeldust

thats at atmospheric pressure , at 10 psi the equivalent capacity would be closer to like 8 litres.

very true, as i said a very simplified explanation, so those that aren't so mechanically minded understood.

also a fair point the n/a COYOTE in the USA is putting out within 5 hp of our SC version, it goes to show how severely under tuned our cars are. same SC engine in states is putting out 650 in base form for a similar price in their performance division. and for an extra 30-50 grand thrown at the base vehicle you get a 1000hp track monster, and a great deal more can be gained from converting to turbo's or compound forced induction.

[blackf6]

Originally Posted by StrikeTwiceXR6

Funny that you say that, about a blown 6.2 litre and how it would cane the FPV blown 5 litre. Not having a go here, but have you had a read of the last two Motor Magazine Hot Tuner Contests (2011 and 2012). There were a number of 6.2 litre supercharged VE's that were sent in both 2011 and 2012 that all failed to nail the Miami blown FPV. Ford as an international brand really nailed it with this motor my friend. It's a fact!

Do my posts somehow seem that I am praising the GTS? All I have said is, that it is an unfair comparison in my opinion because obviously the poor old GTS has no supercharger. In no way am I bagging the GT. I would someday like to own a GT 335.

[blackf6]

Originally Posted by JOESBOSS

not really the HSV has a 6.2L NA V8 the FPV has a supercharged 5L V8. the supercharger pumps in air t i think 1.9 or 2.3 L per rotation, so increasing volumetric efficiency to that of a 7L V8 so it is on par with the 6.2L and that is extremely simplified explanation.

Exactly this is all I have been trying to say, and that I think it is not an even match, but I know when to fold them and walk away which is now.

Originally Posted by teak81

Do my posts somehow seem that I am praising the GTS? All I have said is, that it is an unfair comparison in my opinion because obviously the poor old GTS has no supercharger. In no way am I bagging the GT. I would someday like to own a GT 335.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

The C63 will get an upgrade, the new model will be a turbo 4.0 litre V8 (two A45 3 litre turbo 4's bolted together). http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...v8-engine.html

It has the same bore size and spacing as the 2L 4 cyl, not 3L 4cyl. 3L x2 would make a 6L V8.

[Angeldust]

Flame suit on, but theres speculation whether the current GTS is even faster than a VZ clubbie around a circuit track. Looking at motors best times, the VZ is slightly quicker than a ls2 VE, but is on par with the ls3 gts...i9e both running 1:10xx at wakefield. Beaten by a w427 and an F6..

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...QNnlHS1E#gid=0

[UberKnee]

Considering the VE is a fair bit heavier than a VZ with all the useless decade old gadgets that HSV claimed were a world first in the VEII GTS I'm not surprised.

[Rev28K]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It has the same bore size and spacing as the 2L 4 cyl, not 3L 4cyl. 3L x2 would make a 6L V8.

Yes, sorry that was my dyslexic fingers. My brain wanted to say that the A45 engine was a 4 cyl 2 litre.

The new hot AMG C series is going to be available in RWD and AWD.

[Rev28K]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It has the same bore size and spacing as the 2L 4 cyl, not 3L 4cyl. 3L x2 would make a 6L V8.

Yes, sorry that was my dyslexic fingers. My brain wanted to say that the A45 engine was a 4 cyl 2 litre.

The new hot AMG C series is going to be available in RWD and AWD.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Yeah bored already...HSV isn't even a proper challange for a SC FPV, I'm tired with lion hunting... too easy. F6's and SRT8's are the only things that provide a serious challange worth of keeping on top of one's game. Its time to start talking about the elephant in the room.... the SRT8 with its aging but robust 1990's designed 5 speed gearbox beat the R Spec GT around the track, what happens when it gets the 8 Speed ZF in winter 2013 !!

I'm suprised it took so many posts for you to mention the SRT8 and how great it is. Bugger off to the Chrysler forums with it cause its really giving everyone the irrates.

Just buy one already and shut up FFS.

[Motorbreath310]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'm suprised it took so many posts for you to mention the SRT8 and how great it is. Bugger off to the Chrysler forums with it cause its really giving everyone the irrates.

Just buy one already and shut up FFS.

It's almost as if He's doing this deliberately to **** people off

I remember when I first scrolled through this thread, I wondered when the inevitable SRT post from Rodge would pop up. Followed by the angered taunts from other members. All I can say is, it must've left one HELL of an impression on Him. And as soon as the SRT8 gets the new "world class" 8 speed ZF, we'll probably see a thread from Him boasting of His latest tech-filled acquisition.

Until then, don't get so mad about it. People love other cars too.

If you're lucky, someone may even post the link to Rodge's review thread of the SRT8. Just in case you needed reminding.

[mik]

Originally Posted by shaness8

The Charger E49 was quicker than a phase 3 over 1/4

Seen a test a while ago where a new XR6 auto could run rings around a phase 3 on a track and nearly matched it down the drag strip.

Technology has come along way, car's of today are bigger and heavy running same times as supercars from the 70's and have to deal with all the strick emission's.

well of course a newish car with 2 more gears and fresh tyres against a 40 year old GT with 10 year old tyres is going to have the advantage around most tracks,
i have heard the odd person say the E49 was quicker over the 1/4, but we all believe what we want to believe, having had a mag from those days with the hoey running 14 dead, and 14.4 average , i`ll believe it when i see it, and while the the phase 3 was/is the legend, even the xw gt it was said in the hands of a drag racer or a decent driver was probably good for a 13.2, yet to see one stock charger run a gt and win unless the gt was only running on 6 pots......... merry Xmas.

[Bossxr8]

With the Ph3 having multiple gearbox and diff ratios, I reckon it was quicker down the quarter than the only recorded times from the era by Wheels suggest, depending on what ratios were fitted to the press car. Maybe enough to see off the Charger? Who knows.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

With the Ph3 having multiple gearbox and diff ratios, I reckon it was quicker down the quarter than the only recorded times from the era by Wheels suggest, depending on what ratios were fitted to the press car. Maybe enough to see off the Charger? Who knows.

The times bandied about by people in love with the E49, was using a 3.08:1 or 3.23:1 diff. Since you could order the HO with 4.11:1 from the factory, they were sure to pull better times than the mags bothered to pursue.

[shaness8]

Originally Posted by mik

well of course a newish car with 2 more gears and fresh tyres against a 40 year old GT with 10 year old tyres is going to have the advantage around most tracks,
i have heard the odd person say the E49 was quicker over the 1/4, but we all believe what we want to believe, having had a mag from those days with the hoey running 14 dead, and 14.4 average , i`ll believe it when i see it, and while the the phase 3 was/is the legend, even the xw gt it was said in the hands of a drag racer or a decent driver was probably good for a 13.2, yet to see one stock charger run a gt and win unless the gt was only running on 6 pots......... merry Xmas.

It's a shame we'll never see these two legends run side by side again.

XW gt good for a 13.2 love to see that.

[GTPete]

3.89:1 was the lowest diff ratio you could order with a Ph3 and coupled with a wide ratio toploader would have been the best factory gearing combination availble. Im sure this would have seen off anything the Charger had to offer.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

With the Ph3 having multiple gearbox and diff ratios, I reckon it was quicker down the quarter than the only recorded times from the era by Wheels suggest, depending on what ratios were fitted to the press car. Maybe enough to see off the Charger? Who knows.

I think the XY GTHOs that were tested down the quarter mile had 3.25 :1 ratio.from what I have heard and read the charger was a few milliseconds faster down the quarter mile then a GTHO running this diff ratio. pretty sure a 3.9:1 would see it quicker then a charger. wether you like the charger or not the quarter mile times it pulled were pretty impressive for a stock six at the time.

[1TUFFUTE]

that's a great point about the HOT TUNER tests. The might of holden aftermarket tuners had their fair crack at the few GT 335 tuners around and got absolutely trumped for the last couple of years...this year espescially. And that's not forgetting the money the holden guys had to throw at their cars to even get close to the GTs with 20g spent on them. From memory one of the hsvs even had over 100g spent on it...superchargers and all and still never came close. Now im pretty sure you can take your mate to the bank with that info