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

[PepeLePew]

Um the topic is.......??? Jump back on the topic camel please

[hootar]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Our Ford's are between 18-20% but the GTS maybe as high as 25% because of the beefed-up power train.

Mustangs (live axle) average around 12-15% so there are a lot variations based on driveline layout..

Have also heard that high horsepower cars usually have less driveline losses.

It was explained to me that certain drive line combinations would loose X amount of power regardless of fwkw. It takes x amount of force to turn over a particular gearbox, tailshaft, diff and wheels. For example if it takes 50 kW to drive ya drive line and ya motor is only making 60 kW then there will only be 10 kW left at the wheels. If ya have a more powerful motor and same drive line then we have this 400 kW - 50 = 350 kW at the wheels. Therefore you have a different drive line loss ratio!

The more beefier the drive train then the more force required to turn it over. Eg it may take 60 kW to drive the GTF drive line but it may require 75 kW to drive a GTS.

I'm not sure you can put exact percentages on losses to certain car manufactors, but you could compare car a to car b.
If a xr6 and a xr6turbo have the same running gear but different motor power levels then the drive line losses ratio will be smaller on the xr6 turbo. Plus an auto may take slightly more power to drive then say a manual gearbox. Therefore their could be a different ratio between auto to man on same car.

Higher horsepower cars generally have lower hp loss ratios, not lower hp losses, because they normally have beefier components to drive etc.

That's how it was explained to me anyway!

[2242100]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

Given the car has a speedo and the roller speed can be measured why don't people take a reading from both places and compensate?

This slip explanation just isn't quite sitting well in my mind. That could just be my lack of understanding though.

Edit: 2 dynos 2 days did only the 311 gtf run slip? You implied the hsv one did too.

If that was the case then for slip to be plausible the only run that didn't slip would have to be the motor gtf run due to the closeness of both hsv runs on both dynos.

Actually some shops do have the ability to compare the tailshaft speed with the roller speed and identify slip that way.
I'm not sure that they ran both cars to their rev limits, but if they did then both cars apparently had slip. As it was a shootout, then that would seem logical.

Regarding the Motoring.com.au Dyno tests, I think the HSV was a different car.

Also I've just looked at the Engine Torque {Rat** graphs on their Dyno Dynamics sheets (page 7 on the other thread). At the peak power point (around 6100 RPM) it's looking to me like the torque number of the GTF is around 705 Nm. If that's the case then the GTF was producing close to 450 FWKW. A 28.2% overboost (kW of power = Nm of torque X RPM divided by 9549.3).

As far as on track performance is concerned, so far I've seen a best of 186.7 kmh @ 400 metres out of an Auto GTF, and the time was 12.68 seconds. Current Wheels. !7 degrees C.

By contrast I ran my standard (and still untuned) FG XR6 Turbo Auto at WSID recently with an accurate GPS based Performance Box in the car.
Temperature was 19 degrees C and without stalling the transmission fully up, the car ran a 12.84 sec 400 metre time, just 16 hundredths and about 1.6 car lengths behind the GTF. End speed was around 7 kmh slower (the car was shallow staged and the official Dragstrip timeslip showed 12.509 seconds).
0 - 40 kmh time was just mediocre and very similar for both cars.See data below.

MY XR6 TURBO TEST.....................................WHEELS S/C GTF AUTO TEST
0................................................. ...............0
0-20.....0.84 sec...........................................0-20..............0.8sec
0-40.....1.61sec.................................... ........0-40..............1.6sec

0-100...4.62sec..................................... .......0-100 kmh.......4.68sec

400 M....12.84........................................ ......400M..........12.68 @186.7km
@179.39 & 180.04

On a Dyno the XR6T managed 262 RWHKW (no doubt in its overboost mode with about 10.5 pounds boost). The calculated Flywheel power estimate was 312 killowatts and slip appeared to be around 5%. So all up it's looking like 330 flywheel killowatts to me.
That's around 120 kW behind the GTF, but the end speed was only 6 - 7 kmh slower and with a very similar launch for both cars, there was only around 1.6 car lengths in it at 400 metres.

For an extra 120 kW or so , I'd expect more.
The suggested 404 Flywheel killowatts for the GTF seems a lot more plausible than 450 to me.

[Buttnekid]

there is a lot of variables, were both cars in Performance mode, did both cars have traction control on, did both drivers just mash the throttle etc

Unless you have the same driver employing precisely the same launch and driving technique under the same conditions, I think the error of margin is too great to say that it conclusively means the dyno power is wrong

[futura]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Actually some shops do have the ability to compare the tailshaft speed with the roller speed and identify slip that way.
I'm not sure that they ran both cars to their rev limits, but if they did then both cars apparently had slip. As it was a shootout, then that would seem logical.

Regarding the Motoring.com.au Dyno tests, I think the HSV was a different car.

Also I've just looked at the Engine Torque {Rat** graphs on their Dyno Dynamics sheets (page 7 on the other thread). At the peak power point (around 6100 RPM) it's looking to me like the torque number of the GTF is around 705 Nm. If that's the case then the GTF was producing close to 450 FWKW. A 28.2% overboost (kW of power = Nm of torque X RPM divided by 9549.3).

As far as on track performance is concerned, so far I've seen a best of 186.7 kmh @ 400 metres out of an Auto GTF, and the time was 12.68 seconds. Current Wheels. !7 degrees C.

By contrast I ran my standard (and still untuned) FG XR6 Turbo Auto at WSID recently with an accurate GPS based Performance Box in the car.
Temperature was 19 degrees C and without stalling the transmission fully up, the car ran a 12.84 sec 400 metre time, just 16 hundredths and about 1.6 car lengths behind the GTF. End speed was around 7 kmh slower (the car was shallow staged and the official Dragstrip timeslip showed 12.509 seconds).
0 - 40 kmh time was just mediocre and very similar for both cars.See data below.

MY XR6 TURBO TEST.....................................WHEELS S/C GTF AUTO TEST
0................................................. ...............0
0-20.....0.84 sec...........................................0-20..............0.8sec
0-40.....1.61sec.................................... ........0-40..............1.6sec

0-100...4.62sec..................................... .......0-100 kmh.......4.68sec

400 M....12.84........................................ ......400M..........12.68 @186.7km
@179.39 & 180.04

On a Dyno the XR6T managed 262 RWHKW (no doubt in its overboost mode with about 10.5 pounds boost). The calculated Flywheel power estimate was 312 killowatts and slip appeared to be around 5%. So all up it's looking like 330 flywheel killowatts to me.
That's around 120 kW behind the GTF, but the end speed was only 6 - 7 kmh slower and with a very similar launch for both cars, there was only around 1.6 car lengths in it at 400 metres.

For an extra 120 kW or so , I'd expect more.
The suggested 404 Flywheel killowatts for the GTF seems a lot more plausible than 450 to me.

Ok. lets look at this in another way, what is the best times Wheels or Motor run for a turbo XR6?

More importantly the 12.68 time achieved was not at the drag strip! Correctly me if Im wrong?

you need to compare apples with apples.

[BENT_8]

What a lot of BS!

So many Lol's in this thread.

Instead of worrying about who did what, who's shop it was done in and how much driveline loss and tyre slip was present, take them to the place where GT's and GTS's were meant to be tested against each other.

Mt Panorama.

Anything else is **** talk.

The term 'Falcon GT' is regarded in Australia as the pinnacle of Ford performance motoring, so too is the GTS to Holden.
GT stands for Grand Tourer as GTS stands for Grand Touring Sports.

The term 'Touring' refers to going on a trip, an excursion, an extended drive.
500 miles or 1000 kilometres one could argue, depending on the era.

In the early 60's Bathurst was dominated by GT Cortina's, followed by GT Falcons with the Generals GTS taking it right up to them.
They weren't dyno queen's or qtr mile hero's.
The weren't intended to be.
They were hotted up versions of the family sedan designed to win Touring car races on circuit tracks.

Only when both cars are subject to a half dozen laps of the mountain will the ultimate winner be crowned, anything else is just clouding the truth.

Bring on Bathurst.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by futura

Ok. lets look at this in another way, what is the best times Wheels or Motor run for a turbo XR6?

More importantly the 12.68 time achieved was not at the drag strip! Correctly me if Im wrong?

you need to compare apples with apples.

Actually I think I was really comparing apples with apples which is why I made the point about the 0 - 40 times of both cars being practically equal and just average. I was really comparing the performances beyond the point where wheelspin would be a problem.
The Wheels test was on concrete and my best launch was also on a non dragstrip concrete surface. The 0 - 40 time from that best launch was exactly 2 tenths quicker and that would have made my 400 metre time 12.65 seconds instead of 12.84, and the 0 to 100 time would have been 4.42.
That's not guesswork. The Racelogic software makes it very easy to accurately determine what the 400 metre times and end speed would be.
But I wasn't knocking the GTF, just trying to make the point that I don't think it has 450 FWKW.
Also it would comfortably beat a standard Turbo over a standing killometre.

[shaness8]

Is there any in gear acceleration times on the GTF or GTS 80-120k.

I think this Zone represents true power using 2nd gear and 3rd for a bit using midrange and top end power and no traction issue's

2242100
Any mods on your XR6 fast for standard tune, hope my F6 can run those times.

[Chopped]

did they end up redoing the dyno test yet ?

[XR Martin]

0-180km/h From Wheels

GT-F 11.8 (0-200 in 14.6)
GTS 12.4 (0-200 in 15.1)
CLA45 13.9
F6 12.9
E63S 10.5 (0-200 12.7)
A45 12.8
HSV R8 13.6
GTR 9.1 (0-200 11.4)

[irish2]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

0-180km/h From Wheels

GT-F 11.8 (0-200 in 14.6)
GTS 12.4 (0-200 in 15.1)
CLA45 13.9
F6 12.9
E63S 10.5 (0-200 12.7)
A45 12.8
HSV R8 13.6
GTR 9.1 (0-200 11.4)

Very surprised by the results there. Would indicate the falcon was putting more power to the ground.

[XR Martin]

Oh, just realised the GTS figures are manual vs auto of the GT-F.

[Chopped]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Oh, just realised the GTS figures are manual vs auto of the GT-F.

What 1/4 mile time did the GTF do?

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

0-180km/h From Wheels

GT-F 11.8 (0-200 in 14.6)
GTS 12.4 (0-200 in 15.1)
CLA45 13.9
F6 12.9
E63S 10.5 (0-200 12.7)
A45 12.8
HSV R8 13.6
GTR 9.1 (0-200 11.4)

Is this from the latest wheels mag is it?

[pottery beige]

i dont really care

is that cool

[jimt3te50]

You are the king of cool PB

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Is this from the latest wheels mag is it?

Times were from various reviews over the last 6 months or so.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by jimt3te50

You are the king of cool PB

just whacked three months rego on GT

bored with life

drop skids

n

stuffs

[pottery beige]

******* b series nugget that still goes broom broom

[XBGTFGGTP]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

There's a big difference between GT and 351 GT.. I'd feel pretty embarrassed driving something that sounds wimpier than a 3.9 I6 when it's meant to represent the iconic car that won bathurst. I'd love any GT and would feel proud driving it but this one. but also accept an E-B series GT is essentially a luxury pack with non mediocre brakes (for the record the sprint had a more powerful motor) they were never meant to be compared to the 351's.. and even calling these models GT's would irk some die hard some ford fans. The way they're marketing this is quite silly... so if they want to revive the 351 badge and slap it on the bonnet prepare to be laughed at. It's a bit different than just calling it a GT they decided to open a can of worms by detrimenting the greatness that the 351 badge represented. One last marketing grab, can't blame them I guess but you can blame Ford be being unpatriotic. Not me. They're the ones thatcherizing/deculturing the reputation of the 351 GT. Thanks ford we now have our very own chev badge.. all the holden bogans are going to have a field day on that one!

You really can't bag chev badges anymore on chev engines if you have no problem with a 351 badge on a eurofied v8 that purrs like a kitten!

This is how they're meant to sound if you've never heard the early GT's before!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxd8IzHEqs

Sounds good but it's cammed not stock.

[XBGTFGGTP]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Then call it GT-F....

351 represents when they actually became GT's (they were'nt famous before that reputation turned them into a muscle car). Calling it 351 is a direct reference/tribute to 1970.. not 4 decades of GT falcons. Maybe you would consider removing the passenger mirror as homage to 4 decades as well... please. 351 = specifically that 1970 era.

GT-F (final) is the perfect badge to pay homeage to over 4 decades of GT falcons i would think..

The only idiots I see are the ones who think that badge is entitled to be on this car.

So the XR 289 4.7 and the XT 302 5.0 were never a GT. What started the legend?

[mcnews]

Most definitely the XR started it all.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Most definitely the XR started it all.

and this is how I look at my B series nugget

it was the first of the new crew and they just evolved and grew bigger, better, and stronger until they were no more

rocking good times

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Complete an utter tripe and you know it.





I am not sticking up for anyone and have not been hiding under any rock, unlike some here.
So explain to me issues since the release of AU?
BA Falcon wins COTY (first in 40 years)
Territory wins COTY
Turbo ute wins BFYB
Focus is the bench mark handling hatchback
Fiesta is given continuous praise.
R Spec GT given praise.
T3 rated better than HSV.
XR6T driven through Europe with high praise

Some of you lot are a sad bunch that are so insecure and biased that you cannot see the forest for the trees. That any critical comments regarding Falcon are shot down immediately and the author labeled biased and anti Ford. When in actual fact the opposite in the case, just about journo has high praise for the Ford product (see Peter Robinson's long term test of Focus vs Cruze, 6 month test).
It might actually be the Falcon is the "weakest" product in the Ford range right now. The rest of the range are world class vehicles at the top of each of their respective markets.

compare that to how much praise Holden has got over the years. as for the GT-R spec getting praise. Read that article and they said the bloody Clubsport R8 was the Better car. yea that's sounds like tripe to me and you ******* know it. going on like your not sticking up for anyone yet your sticking up for wheels... how many ******* Commodores have won car of the year compared to Falcons??? when has the Toyota Camry ever own car of the year???? its a bias magazine

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by XBGTFGGTP

Sounds good but it's cammed not stock.

True but the cammed Boss sounds like it has a water sprinkler in the exhaust in comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3qISnJc5pE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXG5JhUQPLs

[pottery beige]

I haven't even read these articles

red or blue

buy what you want it will make you feel like you want

little less worrying about what other people think will make you happy

[prydey]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

I haven't even read these articles

red or blue

buy what you want it will make you feel like you want

little less worrying about what other people think will make you happy

what about maccas carpark cred?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by prydey

what about maccas carpark cred?

I don't rate

[prydey]

if i wear my HSV jacket whilst driving my 1980's hyundai, am i still cool?

[flooded one]

I do agree buy what makes you happy

But what local car manufacture that is still around has won the most car of the year awards with local made cars??? and if you include every car that has won that award Holden comes on top with 10 wins (9 for locally built cars with the Commodore having 5 wins)