Motor Sept 2005 - BFYB - Another FPV failure!

[JPFS1]

Mickey T has failed miserably in defending MOTOR's judgement of 'FPV's Performance'.

This talk about not being able to corner, evassive action etc is totally flawed.

As i've said, show me the stats that show 'accident was caused by inadequate cornering speed'....!!!

[mickey t]

there are two levels of safety built into cars: active and passive.

passive safety is what happens after the crash (airbags, seat belt pretensioners, crumple zones, curtains, safety cell etc). active safety is a car's ability to avoid a crash in the first place.

are you seriously suggesting active safety plays no part in not adding to crash statistics?

Cornering ability = active safety. Braking ability = active safety.

two cars speeding dangerously on a public freeway as a repeatable, comparative measure of mid-corner grip? Please...

This is one of the handful of sites i post on because it's generally inhabited by the more open-minded, realistic and rational of Ford fans.

I hope that's not changing.

[MADDER]

Hi All,

I think it’s impossible for Mickey T’s defence to stand up in the face of one-eyed denial. (MT: I’m surprised that you still have the tenacity to be involved in this thread).

It is no secret that Motor’s most important measure of a car is it’s ability to “perform” as a sports car (correct me if I’m wrong MT). In both the PCOTY and BFYB which are Motor’s key annual events this is the primary focus whether you like it or not. Case in point, the Maloo was judged to be better than the Pursuit in PCOTY because as a Ute it is a better sports car. Now if you want to know how they stack up as Utes then read a Ute magazine!

If you judge the term “performance” as how well as car “performs” as a safe and comfortable mode of passenger transport then the argument for Ford’s better rigidity and load flexibility will have relevance. If this is your measure of “performance” then you better read Wheels. That is a magazine that has frequently and recently put Fords on top (XR8 v SS and XR6 x SV6) for “performing” better all round as a passenger car with some ability to go fast.

If you want to look at it another way, Wheels canned the Citroen C4 for its lack of “performance” as a comfortable vehicle to drive on Australian roads. They then gave it the WADA award for the best “performance” as a well designed vehicle.

See the pattern here, “performance” depends on context. If FPV made the decision to use that word in their name and further more use the term “Total Performance” and then don’t deliver all measures of “performance” then disappointment is inevitable.

NOW, in regards to qualifying the GT’s “performance” as a sports-car.

In Australian Muscle Car’s current issue there is an excellent article on racing the FPV GT and HSV GTS road cars. The article is well balanced and unbiased. It highlights the strengths and inadequacies of both cars from the perspective of the guys actually racing them. TEAM GT point out a few things:

- Their racing program went backwards from AU T3 to BA GT. This is to be expected, as they have to work with a new platform.
- They praise GTs safety and rigidity advantages on the road as a passenger car but they are a great penalty on the track.
- They cannot get the weight below 1730kg(!!!) as the front end structure is very heavy and removing weight from other areas throws the weight bias forward and the balance out.
- They cannot carry great speed through corners. They must break early, manhandle the vehicle through the corner neither braking nor accelerating and rely on the prodigious torque to make up lost time out of the corner.
- On leaving a corner there is a slight moment until the torque kicks in where the engine feels like it will not overcome the weight.

All of the above problems are on a modified race-going version where significant time has been put in to try and overcome them. It has been made clear that all of these problems are inherent in the production GT.

If Russ would be good enough to repost his personal GT-P/Mustang Comparo I believe you will see some of the same calls there in regards to cornering.

Again there is another pattern, several independent sources addressing the GT’s cornering speed limitations. I hope that the BF’s suspension redesign and potential lower-rev torque delivery will fix these but that depends on FPV and Ford.

While I have frequently been disappointed with Motor mags judgement of Fords, I have found it to be consistently true to its particular measure of “performance”.


:

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by MADDER

Hi All,

I think it’s impossible for Mickey T’s defence to stand up in the face of one-eyed denial. (MT: I’m surprised that you still have the tenacity to be involved in this thread).

It is no secret that Motor’s most important measure of a car is it’s ability to “perform” as a sports car (correct me if I’m wrong MT). In both the PCOTY and BFYB which are Motor’s key annual events this is the primary focus whether you like it or not. Case in point, the Maloo was judged to be better than the Pursuit in PCOTY because as a Ute it is a better sports car. Now if you want to know how they stack up as Utes then read a Ute magazine!

If you judge the term “performance” as how well as car “performs” as a safe and comfortable mode of passenger transport then the argument for Ford’s better rigidity and load flexibility will have relevance. If this is your measure of “performance” then you better read Wheels. That is a magazine that has frequently and recently put Fords on top (XR8 v SS and XR6 x SV6) for “performing” better all round as a passenger car with some ability to go fast.

If you want to look at it another way, Wheels canned the Citroen C4 for its lack of “performance” as a comfortable vehicle to drive on Australian roads. They then gave it the WADA award for the best “performance” as a well designed vehicle.

See the pattern here, “performance” depends on context. If FPV made the decision to use that word in their name and further more use the term “Total Performance” and then don’t deliver all measures of “performance” then disappointment is inevitable.

NOW, in regards to qualifying the GT’s “performance” as a sports-car.

In Australian Muscle Car’s current issue there is an excellent article on racing the FPV GT and HSV GTS road cars. The article is well balanced and unbiased. It highlights the strengths and inadequacies of both cars from the perspective of the guys actually racing them. TEAM GT point out a few things:

- Their racing program went backwards from AU T3 to BA GT. This is to be expected, as they have to work with a new platform.
- They praise GTs safety and rigidity advantages on the road as a passenger car but they are a great penalty on the track.
- They cannot get the weight below 1730kg(!!!) as the front end structure is very heavy and removing weight from other areas throws the weight bias forward and the balance out.
- They cannot carry great speed through corners. They must break early, manhandle the vehicle through the corner neither braking nor accelerating and rely on the prodigious torque to make up lost time out of the corner.
- On leaving a corner there is a slight moment until the torque kicks in where the engine feels like it will not overcome the weight.

All of the above problems are on a modified race-going version where significant time has been put in to try and overcome them. It has been made clear that all of these problems are inherent in the production GT.

If Russ would be good enough to repost his personal GT-P/Mustang Comparo I believe you will see some of the same calls there in regards to cornering.

Again there is another pattern, several independent sources addressing the GT’s cornering speed limitations. I hope that the BF’s suspension redesign and potential lower-rev torque delivery will fix these but that depends on FPV and Ford.

While I have frequently been disappointed with Motor mags judgement of Fords, I have found it to be consistently true to its particular measure of “performance”.


:

So what you're really saying is that Wheels is a better mag if you want to know what the cars are like in the real world and Motor is a better mag if you want to know what's the best thing to race around a track! :Reverend:

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by mickey t

there are two levels of safety built into cars: active and passive.

passive safety is what happens after the crash (airbags, seat belt pretensioners, crumple zones, curtains, safety cell etc). active safety is a car's ability to avoid a crash in the first place.

are you seriously suggesting active safety plays no part in not adding to crash statistics?

Cornering ability = active safety. Braking ability = active safety.

two cars speeding dangerously on a public freeway as a repeatable, comparative measure of mid-corner grip? Please...

This is one of the handful of sites i post on because it's generally inhabited by the more open-minded, realistic and rational of Ford fans.

I hope that's not changing.

Thanks for the free lesson MickeyT. I can do without it though.

You first went down the path of saying that FPV's are not a performance car, now you are saying they are not safe because of the lack of mid corner grip.

So where will this stop??

I posed a question a few posts back about the likely difference between the euro's... say for example one had enough grip to take the corner at 125 km/h, while the other at 120 km/h...would you look down upon the one that was 5 km/h down on its competitor? Yet when comparing both of these times to any of the Aussie vehicles tested, clearly they are superior and are worthy performance cars. The principle is exactly the same.

I don't have a problem with anybodies opinion on FPV if they simply say they want more speed, or even more cornering grip, but to bring safety into the equation now is a little over the top and goes against everything Ford have put into the engineering of the cars.

[Steffo]

The ignorance of some of the people posting in this thread (whom I shall not name) boggles the mind. I just cannot believe people, on a forum which I believed to be full of rational, intelligent people, are saying the things they are. Unbelievable.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The Holden is laging behind Ford with emmissions and safety. Whats your point? :
Ford has upgraded and improved their car one model ahead of holden.
That puts them at an advantage doesnt it? Ford get real life feedback and research time with the BA, Holden are still on the drawing board.

No it puts them at a disadvantage as Holden a) Performance wise has a better car at the moment in the v8s b) Has the hindsight of the issues Ford experienced attempting to meet the new compliance laws c) Have great time to spend addressing the new stresses the new compliance laws place on the platform.

I guess what I'm trying to say is its like handing in an assignment 2 weeks before it was due. It's certainly nice that its submitted, however you didnt use the 2 weeks to your advantage to improve on your submission.

[MADDER]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

So what you're really saying is that Wheels is a better mag if you want to know what the cars are like in the real world and Motor is a better mag if you want to know what's the best thing to race around a track! :Reverend:

That's one way of looking at it. Motor focuses of a cars abilities to be driven at the limits and the track is the only responsible place to do so. The whole reason for the GT's legendary status, as well as its death, as a nameplate was the reality of it being a road-going race-car.

If FPV have decided to resurrect the "Total Performance" mantra as well as the GT nameplate then they are sending a particular message to their customers that this is a car that lives on the limits. If this is shown not to be the case then maybe you need to direct your frustrations at FPV like many others here, not Motor.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by MADDER

Hi All,

I think it’s impossible for Mickey T’s defence to stand up in the face of one-eyed denial. (MT: I’m surprised that you still have the tenacity to be involved in this thread).

It is no secret that Motor’s most important measure of a car is it’s ability to “perform” as a sports car (correct me if I’m wrong MT). In both the PCOTY and BFYB which are Motor’s key annual events this is the primary focus whether you like it or not. Case in point, the Maloo was judged to be better than the Pursuit in PCOTY because as a Ute it is a better sports car. Now if you want to know how they stack up as Utes then read a Ute magazine!

If you judge the term “performance” as how well as car “performs” as a safe and comfortable mode of passenger transport then the argument for Ford’s better rigidity and load flexibility will have relevance. If this is your measure of “performance” then you better read Wheels. That is a magazine that has frequently and recently put Fords on top (XR8 v SS and XR6 x SV6) for “performing” better all round as a passenger car with some ability to go fast.

If you want to look at it another way, Wheels canned the Citroen C4 for its lack of “performance” as a comfortable vehicle to drive on Australian roads. They then gave it the WADA award for the best “performance” as a well designed vehicle.

See the pattern here, “performance” depends on context. If FPV made the decision to use that word in their name and further more use the term “Total Performance” and then don’t deliver all measures of “performance” then disappointment is inevitable.

NOW, in regards to qualifying the GT’s “performance” as a sports-car.

In Australian Muscle Car’s current issue there is an excellent article on racing the FPV GT and HSV GTS road cars. The article is well balanced and unbiased. It highlights the strengths and inadequacies of both cars from the perspective of the guys actually racing them. TEAM GT point out a few things:

- Their racing program went backwards from AU T3 to BA GT. This is to be expected, as they have to work with a new platform.
- They praise GTs safety and rigidity advantages on the road as a passenger car but they are a great penalty on the track.
- They cannot get the weight below 1730kg(!!!) as the front end structure is very heavy and removing weight from other areas throws the weight bias forward and the balance out.
- They cannot carry great speed through corners. They must break early, manhandle the vehicle through the corner neither braking nor accelerating and rely on the prodigious torque to make up lost time out of the corner.
- On leaving a corner there is a slight moment until the torque kicks in where the engine feels like it will not overcome the weight.

All of the above problems are on a modified race-going version where significant time has been put in to try and overcome them. It has been made clear that all of these problems are inherent in the production GT.

If Russ would be good enough to repost his personal GT-P/Mustang Comparo I believe you will see some of the same calls there in regards to cornering.

Again there is another pattern, several independent sources addressing the GT’s cornering speed limitations. I hope that the BF’s suspension redesign and potential lower-rev torque delivery will fix these but that depends on FPV and Ford.

While I have frequently been disappointed with Motor mags judgement of Fords, I have found it to be consistently true to its particular measure of “performance”.


:

Hi Madder

What you say is all true when applying it to the race track.

It's a whole different game when looking at the cars on the road, which is what they're for.

First things first, we all have accept and come to terms with reality when it concerns the BA's shortcomings (when concerning performance). Yes they are inherrintly much heavier and can't be made significantly lighter with simple mods. A whole new redesign would be required to get even close to moving weight around.

I don't consider HSV's/FPV's as true performance cars or sports cars, i guess that why it's easy for me to swallow the reality pill, and also easy for me to accept the cornering disadvantage, because i understand all of its pitfalls, but for on road ability, i accept them all and would be happy to live with them.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

No it puts them at a disadvantage as Holden a) Performance wise has a better car at the moment in the v8s b) Has the hindsight of the issues Ford experienced attempting to meet the new compliance laws c) Have great time to spend addressing the new stresses the new compliance laws place on the platform.

I guess what I'm trying to say is its like handing in an assignment 2 weeks before it was due. It's certainly nice that its submitted, however you didnt use the 2 weeks to your advantage to improve on your submission.

By saying that you're assuming ford are doing nothing till Holden release VE?
Holden's vehicles will change more from VZ to VE than BA to BF, if you like its like going from AU to BA for Holden, but its 4 years after Ford made their changes.
As for the assignment analogy its like Ford getting 2 goes and 4 years extra at subbiting the same assignment!
You're discounting the benefit of real life feedback as opposed to drawing board feedback.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

By saying that you're assuming ford are doing nothing till Holden release VE?

I'm saying that Holden has more room to move on the VE (as its a complete new model, not a AU to BA to BF or a VT-VZ)than what Ford has moving from the BA to the BF. Whether they can pull it off is up to them, they have time as an advantage.

I think Holden will probably run into similiar limitating factors, and I think the Falcon will probably be the "better built/better quality" car. I'm just saying that by not being the pioneer then there are always some advantages.

[MADDER]

Originally Posted by JEM

Thanks for the free lesson MickeyT. I can do without it though.

You first went down the path of saying that FPV's are not a performance car, now you are saying they are not safe because of the lack of mid corner grip.

So where will this stop??

I posed a question a few posts back about the likely difference between the euro's... say for example one had enough grip to take the corner at 125 km/h, while the other at 120 km/h...would you look down upon the one that was 5 km/h down on its competitor? Yet when comparing both of these times to any of the Aussie vehicles tested, clearly they are superior and are worthy performance cars. The principle is exactly the same.

I don't have a problem with anybodies opinion on FPV if they simply say they want more speed, or even more cornering grip, but to bring safety into the equation now is a little over the top and goes against everything Ford have put into the engineering of the cars.

Having attended a JB advanced driving course with other members of this forum it was made clear just how much of a penalty the Boss engine incurs when changing direction. Case in point was Mark (250 Pursuit) jumping from his longer wheelbase T3 Pursuit into Minges BAXR8 and going for a slalom run. He came out shaking his head at the heaviness.

Interestingly the best performers of the day in handling based time trials were Kooky in his AU XR6 and Simon (MAD_KIWI) in his VXSS. Various reasons may have existed for this including the fact that they are mad buggers.

I have had various occasions to drive my BA XR8 Ute at different limits and I can safely say that every bit of its rigidity and strong passenger cell is reassuring given the nasty handling traits and shortfalls of active safety versus available speed and acceleration. This is also why my firts mod was been upgraded brakes.

So, in my own personal experience, on the road safety has been compromised in my vehicle by an ability to accelerate and travel up to speeds that are unmatched by its ability to corner and stop.

Based on the significant increase in my insurance premiums this year I suggest this is something that clearly is an issue in the real world as insurers don't cover track work.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by MADDER

Having attended a JB advanced driving course with other members of this forum it was made clear just how much of a penalty the Boss engine incurs when changing direction. Case in point was Mark (250 Pursuit) jumping from his longer wheelbase T3 Pursuit into Minges BAXR8 and going for a slalom run. He came out shaking his head at the heaviness.

Interestingly the best performers of the day in handling based time trials were Kooky in his AU XR6 and Simon (MAD_KIWI) in his VXSS. Various reasons may have existed for this including the fact that they are mad buggers.

I have had various occasions to drive my BA XR8 Ute at different limits and I can safely say that every bit of its rigidity and strong passenger cell is reassuring given the nasty handling traits and shortfalls of active safety versus available speed and acceleration. This is also why my firts mod was been upgraded brakes.

So, in my own personal experience, on the road safety has been compromised in my vehicle by an ability to accelerate and travel up to speeds that are unmatched by its ability to corner and stop.

Based on the significant increase in my insurance premiums this year I suggest this is something that clearly is an issue in the real world as insurers don't cover track work.

I see your points and they are valid.

However, it's imo that it's incorrect to assume that active safety has been compromised in the real world when there are no stats to back this up.

I would be most interested to see how many Commodore SS/HSV's have been written off compared to the equivalent fords, but i would think these sort od stats would be hard ot come by.

At the end of the day, the shortcomings of the BA's would only be experienced when pushing them to their bounderies, something that shouldn't be happening on public roads, if they are and owner's are being caught out, then that's on their head, not FPV, because FPV have succeeded in every sense in providing are car that is far superior and can be seen a performance car (when compared to the origin) to what they are originally. That is what FPV are about.

[MADDER]

Originally Posted by JEM

At the end of the day, the shortcomings of the BA's would only be experienced when pushing them to their bounderies, something that shouldn't be happening on public roads, if they are and owner's are being caught out, then that's on their head, not FPV, because FPV have succeeded in every sense in providing are car that is far superior and can be seen a performance car (when compared to the origin) to what they are originally. That is what FPV are about.

Fair call and to FPV's credit they offer a complimentary driving course that serves to show new owners just what those boundaries are (BTW: the "No Boundaries" phrase now springs to mind but that's Ford).

Your final point is one that is frequently lost on people, FPV's business is selling Fords that "perform" better, something that they succeed in doing in most contexts of "performance". Looks better, sounds better, handles better, best level of standard safety vehicle-for-vehicle and the only Fords to have an alarm system standard (strange but true as far as I can see incl LTD).

Maybe this is FPV's measure of "performance", if so then they can be said to be "performing" well regardless of the judgements of Motor.

Anyway signing out as I've got some work to do, can't hold up Orion now can we?

[MITCHAY]

Dave_au i agree with you. As it stands it looks like Ford/FPV didnt take into consideration the weight issue as much as they should have and a)should have used lighter materials or somehow cut weight out or b)upped the power to compensate.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Dave_au i agree with you. As it stands it looks like Ford/FPV didnt take into consideration the weight issue as much as they should have and a)should have used lighter materials or somehow cut weight out or b)upped the power to compensate.

You talk about weight reduction like its as easy as waiving a magic wand over the vehicle or "just use lighter materials" _ .
Id say most of the extra weight had to be added to build a vehicle than meet the new standards, eg: extra bracing, motor that was green friendly etc.
less weight would mean non compliance or use or non complient components.
Ford have thousands of internal standards and design principles they must comply with and work within.
Like any good engineering philosophy they take the conservative route with new design, usually exceeding minimum standards by a fair margin (strength, safety, avaliable technology etc) then engineer with and around it as they refine or improve the model.
Patience!!!
Anyway, who's to say Ford or FPV see it as an issue anyway?
Especially if the vehicle meets their intended design brief.

[HSE2]

The fact that Ford supplied these cars for this sort of evaluation would seem to support a theory they endorse this appraisal and feedback.

To repeat one’s action while changing nothing, while expecting a different result equals what sort of mental state?

Its Motors test their rules and so on and so forth.

However I believe Motor has a problem communicating to the public. I no longer buy these editions and I see many people view the issue the same way. If your business is to sell volume you have to understand the market you are aiming at and for me testing on a race track doesn't give me the information I require or at least the complete picture.
And this is why.

1. I can’t put my car on a race track and keep my insurance not even to do the Ford training. I am far better off racing up and down the Sidling.

2. If you demonstrate a particular car to have a handling advantage on a track it’s likely to hold part of that advantage on the road but does that equate to the same level of grip as can be found on an enhanced surface. The theory in getting great track performance and the theory in getting great road performance aren't exactly the same. Often the simplest suspension systems work very effectively on the track. Our USA brothers often argue IRS has no place on a production car because it doesn't show a tangible advantage on the track during testing, and with a good live set up that bears true. A stiff light weight suspension will do very well on the track most of the time. What happens to tyre wear and the times as the laps pile up is another thing altogether. I assume as this was a bang for buck test tyre wear was a factor as it goes to cost of ownership. We are after the cost required to extract the performance being talked about.

3. But the real issue I have is this. I know and have said countless times the BA suspension has issues. You can’t stick a 6 cylinder tune under a BOSS engine car and expect it to work wonders. In theory you shouldn’t be able to stiffen springs without touching damper rates or not by a percentage approaching 10% anyway. Ford managed to do that and as a point by itself is the first clue about what can be expected without even sitting in the cars in question. No my issue stems from road use and observations and opinions I hold.


Now every person is different and will feel and react differently. Like it or not much of this boils down to validation. People like to think they made the right decision or have an opinion that has merit and are looking for re enforcement to support that. What I observe behind the wheel is what I look for in publication or opinions in the print media or net. I am either after support or denouncement of my opinion and the reasons why. I accept BA went backwards in some areas. They supposedly offered a system that reduced the trade off concerning comfort and control. Something went wrong in my opinion and I guess these tests to a degree support that. But it doesn’t go far enough. Either I am not educated enough to grasp the correlation or Motor have the politically correct ball clamp firmly attached. I want to know what’s going to happen if I hit a tree root road imperfection that is concealed by shadow mid corner. I want to know how the car gets it power down on a surface that has patch over patch over patch. A race track is a known. The road environment isn't. A race track is an environment designed for entertainment above all else. It is maintained above the standard of our roads and offers more consistency in large. If you were to put road imperfections into this surface it would make it unsafe to race on. The question then becomes how much of the Holden’s grip advantage translates to our environment the environment in which we have paid our money to enjoy. Here is an a piece I wrote a couple of years ago as an example of what I am looking for from Motor Mag in terms of validation and worth in a comparison.


“But less to its credit is getting power down and remaining on line with corners that feature small amplitude high frequency corrugations. Now bear in mind I am not a technical sort of person so I will describe what I felt. The Holden’s seem to sit above the road and skitter across the face of the corrugations. They couldn't get the same amount of power out of the corner and they didn't seem to be able to hold the apex under braking in the way the Ford could while being subjected to this set of conditions. You might get motion sickness such is the softness but it performed on the day. The exception to the rule was in switch backs where the more nimble front of the Holden’s inspired more confidence. I am assured by Ford engineering that what I felt isn’t the limit but it was for this black duck. There is no prize for being extracted from the scrub.”

“Alternatively the Ford seems to sit more into the road despite the seating position and either by weight or suspension philosophy was able to adsorb more road punishment and feel more confident while doing it. It’s not a controlled environment I know and the effects can change from corner to corner but that is the beauty of driving on our great roads. I buy these cars for road enjoyment and from what I have seen the Holden doesn't cope with these conditions the same way as the Ford does and in many cases the driver has to be significantly better to extract the same amount of enthusiasm in the Holden product safely. The Holden let go not once but twice trying to get out of corners. It has a high limit there is no question about that but when it goes, it goes in a big way. Under these conditions it always felt nervous at least it did to me and has the intelligence in the TC to match the auto”

That’s my bias against what we are talking about. It’s not Holden V Ford or anything else. I understand grip and in most case I understand what is required to get grip on the track. I am not a drivers a-se hole and I can’t and don’t always know the reason why a car does what it does but I do know that what works on the track is often at odd to what is required on the road. I know FPV’s development involves laps on a race track. The two situations aren’t divorced and I am not suggesting they are. If it’s good enough for the manufacturer to test under these conditions then it is good enough to be judged by them as well. I am not completely comfortable with the weighting being given to one side of this equation but I see the point with both sides, I think both sides have great arguments and there are realities to what is achievable. I ask for a no compromise approach with nearly everything I do and buy. I am after the product that makes the least amount of compromise for its intended purpose but it has to cope with what often means substandard road surfaces, work and grip off these surfaces. Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the correlation between road and track but I bet those nodding their head haven’t driven the Forth to Cradle Road lately. In a few weeks I get to test the latest R8 on the East coast of Tasmania. I very much look forward to seeing how the HSV has developed from the last trip and naturally put the theories displayed in this thread to the ultimate test. There won’t be a track in sight.

[JPFS1]

Ian

That is a great post!

I agree with everything you have pointed out.

A particular point that needs to be addressed by MOTOR is the consistency of the products performance.

I haven't read the article in full so i'm not here to pass judgement on them... but.. if they are going to subject these cars to this sort of testing, which is detached from their real intended purpose, then i would like to see how consistent these so called performance cars are in achieving the laptimes.

How many laps does it take before tyres have gone from being sticky, to be mushy and slippery because of too much heat, and how tyre wear has been affected.

This will tell us, in a controlled environment scenario, which has the better setup. This is where the more advanced control blade would have an advantage over the old holden semi-trailing arm setup, i would almost be confident enough to put money on the Ford for being more consistent on its tyres - trade off, being slightly slower, where as the simpler holden setup (doesn't provide as much tyre control) will produce faster laptimes because the tyre is providing more grip, yet it will wear quicker from the higher temps and caused by the higher level of tyre grip, just won't last as long.

It comes down to what one prefers, a consistent yet slower lap over numerous laps, or a one hit wonder?

You summed up the translation to onroad performance exceptionally well.. there simply are trade offs as you found with your experiences.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by HSE2

In a few weeks I get to test the latest R8 on the East coast of Tasmania. I very much look forward to seeing how the HSV has developed from the last trip and naturally put the theories displayed in this thread to the ultimate test. There won’t be a track in sight.

And I'll very much look forward to reading your usually non-biased opinion. :voldar02:

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by JEM

How many laps does it take before tyres have gone from being sticky, to be mushy and slippery because of too much heat, and how tyre wear has been affected.

This will tell us, in a controlled environment scenario, which has the better setup. This is where the more advanced control blade would have an advantage over the old holden semi-trailing arm setup, i would almost be confident enough to put money on the Ford for being more consistent on its tyres - trade off, being slightly slower, where as the simpler holden setup (doesn't provide as much tyre control) will produce faster laptimes because the tyre is providing more grip, yet it will wear quicker from the higher temps and caused by the higher level of tyre grip, just won't last as long.

It comes down to what one prefers, a consistent yet slower lap over numerous laps, or a one hit wonder?

There have been issues of MOTOR in the past where they have said that the Commodores tend to feel tired after a few laps but the Falcons dont.

Just have a look at the outside edge of a Commodores front tyres after some hard corning...the Falcons will wear too, but nowhere near as much as the Commodores.

Also, it has been mentioned previously that the Dunlops Ford use have softer sidewalls for ride comfort. Could it be, that a large part of Fords lack of cornering speed is due to tyres?

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Citric XR6

Also, it has been mentioned previously that the Dunlops Ford use have softer sidewalls for ride comfort. Could it be, that a large part of Fords lack of cornering speed is due to tyres?

Most definitely. Tyres play a huge part, but so does the big heavy donk up front that doesn't really sit that low in the engine bay.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by JEM

Most definitely. Tyres play a huge part, but so does the big heavy donk up front that doesn't really sit that low in the engine bay.

Here's a positive spin on it, Im thankfull they sat it high otherwise there'd be no bonnet bulge!!

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

And I'll very much look forward to reading your usually non-biased opinion. :voldar02:

I assume that is sarcastic given our history but you should know this. I do rate the current Holden’s as the driver’s car and consider the LS2 the engine the LS1 should have been. The owner tells me the R8 is more compliant then the car it replaces which has me raising an eyebrow "Rock" Style. Often I believe we under estimate the incremental improvements Holden have introduced mainly because they change models like I change pants. He claims this car is a significant step forward. The owner is confident. I am concerned. Not a big fan of posting editorials of opposition products anymore as it just ends in a Padlock but I can email if you are interested.

Anyway I thought I was on your ignore list ;)

[Dave_au]

Wheels has addressed handling testing previously, and they did have a control car for the testing - and it did have a falcon. Can't remember the result, Ill have a look for the article when I get home

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by HSE2

I assume that is sarcastic given our history but you should know this. I do rate the current Holden’s as the driver’s car and consider the LS2 the engine the LS1 should have been. The owner tells me the R8 is more compliant then the car it replaces which has me raising an eyebrow "Rock" Style. Often I believe we under estimate the incremental improvements Holden have introduced mainly because they change models like I change pants. He claims this car is a significant step forward. The owner is confident. I am concerned. Not a big fan of posting editorials of opposition products anymore as it just ends in a Padlock but I can email if you are interested.

Anyway I thought I was on your ignore list ;)

No sarcasm intended. The comment is geniune. I look forward to your write-up.

Just an aside, for those religious readers of Motor... I have a Kings/Koni suspension on my Commodore, which leaves the stock Holden setup feeling somewhat 'agricultural' as far as overall comfort, roadholding and general dynamics is concerned. I have always had great tyre wear, too. The Commodore is a great handler if you decide to upgrade its suspension. A lot of other guys in Commodores would never consider Kings springs. Apparently, Eibachs springs offer a better ride option in tandem with Bilsteins.

Where is this post heading? Well, it kind of makes the debate you guys are having about Motor's performance criteria a moot one. If you're not happy with how your stock car handles, upgrade its suspension. Then you won't take what Motor have to say so seriously. You could turn a good car into a great car!

However, I realise some owners would like to keep their warranty intact.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by mickey t

there are two levels of safety built into cars: active and passive.

passive safety is what happens after the crash (airbags, seat belt pretensioners, crumple zones, curtains, safety cell etc). active safety is a car's ability to avoid a crash in the first place.

are you seriously suggesting active safety plays no part in not adding to crash statistics?

Cornering ability = active safety. Braking ability = active safety.

two cars speeding dangerously on a public freeway as a repeatable, comparative measure of mid-corner grip? Please...

This is one of the handful of sites i post on because it's generally inhabited by the more open-minded, realistic and rational of Ford fans.

I hope that's not changing.

I'm sorry mickey t but I find the insinuations above just a touch offensive!
The moderators / admins of this site go to considerable effort to ensure any sensible subject gets a fair hearing, and that equally a variety of viewpoints on these subjects are allowed to stand unedited.

The site does not and has never approved of illegal and downright stupid acts on public roads, and as I am sure you are aware this is often at odds with even spirited driving. Non compliance with this practice by an individual poster is by no mean representative of the site or its policies. As a rule any such posts condoning illegal activity are quickly removed, or the poster asked to edit the contents.

Your comments above almost imply the the membership and administration of this forum may be becoming less open minded, and I can only assume you draw this opinion based on a few individuals zealously guarding their points of view.

All of your comments remain on display in full and unedited (as they should), as do the comments of others offering alternate viewpoints.
What we have on this forum is a very level playing field with the readership allowed to determine which posters are sheep and which are goats.
And I will add there is no prompting from the administration towards any opinion being preferable.

An opposing viewpoint is equally valid on the forum and is offered in full, unlike the edited presentation of only the most interesting readers letters, offered by the magazines.
All sides receive a fair hearing here, including the odd zealot, opinions offered are not limited to the presented opinions of a select group of scribes.
As such I would ask you to reevaluate you determination of any bias present on AFF.

[russellw]

... but as an addition to the comment above let me add that two of the posts referred to have been edited - one because it described illegal behaviour on a public road and the other because it breached our site T&C.

Russ

[BA V8 5.4Ltr]

opps wrong thread..sorry

[Black XR6]

without reading the whole thread I will comment on the first post.

The difference was 105km/h around a corner from the STi's 113km/h, on a race track.

I dont see the relevance here for car sales that are aimed at family minded people. Even the F6 and GT are bought as high end family cars. Sure they are performance cars but how many people will be driving them in the manner the magazine is criticising them? In my opinion I dont think ford should be chasing precious few Km/h around a corner that the vast majority of people will not get anywhere near. I'd much rather they spend the money producing an overall better car for the vast majority of people that will use them.

[Dave_au]

Have a look at Mickey T's comments on mid corner speed and it's importance on every day driving.