HSV 307kw

DougM · 28-03-2007, 11:56 AM

Hi all.

New wheels is out today.......They test the 307kw against Evo and STi.

Wheels only managed a 13.8 qtr and 5.7 o-100k's!!!!! They are the same people who first tested the SSV and managed a 13.4 qtr and 0-100km in 5.1s.

Big difference eh!!!!! We have now seen consistant 13.7-13.8 from the HSV's...It certainly doesn't make our BOSS look so bad and our turbo's kick butt!!!!

Cheers.

ilsautomotive · 28-03-2007, 12:05 PM

Keep in mind, the figures are all meaningless unless achieved by the same driver on the same track under the same conditions, weather, direction etc. Cheers.

Ridin-High · 28-03-2007, 12:06 PM

so many factors that can effect 1/4 mile times....

1.) Driver
2.) Transmission (Auto .Vs. Manual)
3.) Track conditions
4.) Car weight (options added to the car, did they have the spare tire in, model, GTS/Clubbie/Senitor)
5.) Did they warm up the tires
6.) what tire pressure was they running

Evo/STI will have impressive qtr mile times and 0-100km sprints because they are light from 80-150kmph the v8 will own them.

13.7 from the size of the car is very good.... imagine if you ran semi-slicks and did some weight reduction + manual + Good driver and conditions... i'd say 13.1's high 12's

DougM · 28-03-2007, 12:42 PM

I understand completely what you guys are saying about the qtr mile times and variations.....

I was mainly trying to point out that the intitial bragging by the GMH brigade when the 13.4 was achieved in "just a SSV" has been shot down in flames with all the HSV's tested since then!!! Maybe the SSV "accidently" got the 307 engine and just maybe the computer "accidently" had a different(development) program????

freaky · 28-03-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougM

I understand completely what you guys are saying about the qtr mile times and variations.....

I was mainly trying to point out that the intitial bragging by the GMH brigade when the 13.4 was achieved in "just a SSV" has been shot down in flames with all the HSV's tested since then!!! Maybe the SSV "accidently" got the 307 engine and just maybe the computer "accidently" had a different(development) program????

i hear what your saying. Holden have been notorious in the past with tweaking their press / test cars.

Starting to see some consistency now. And the times are not as quick as what HSV / Holden claim.

**Polyal** · 28-03-2007, 01:00 PM

Doesn't surprise me, this from pretty much the same company/people involved with the HRT/TOLL outfits; bit of a trend happening.

gtfpv · 28-03-2007, 01:02 PM

hahahahah you beat me to it . 5.7 and 13.8 . those times have been accomplished and published in a car magazine
so whats all this i hear about the 6 litre consatantly whipping the 5.4 . each and everytime without a doubt .

you see holdens always get complimented regardless of times with huge!!!! power on tap . fords always get tagged as lazy !!!! bias for sure .
now if this was a ford not meeting claimed times they wouldve bagged the crap out of it . did they bag the HSV . and call it a lazy slug ???????????

4Vman · 28-03-2007, 01:14 PM

In any event 0.5 sec over 1/4 of a mile is hardly grounds for trading or worry, to the legal limit that equates to barely a car length or 2.
"Heads up" on the street it would come down to reaction time and driver ability more than advantage/dissadvantage of either vehicle.

vztrt · 28-03-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky

i hear what your saying. Holden have been notorious in the past with tweaking their press / test cars.

Also they were taken to court about there engine output figures, I'll have to find the name of the mob that did it.

FORD3V · 28-03-2007, 02:10 PM

I drive a car that has run 12's and would consistently run low to mid 13's, I got lined up by a VE GTS and faaark this thing went.

YOOT · 28-03-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougM

Hi all.

New wheels is out today.......They test the 307kw against Evo and STi.

Wheels only managed a 13.8 qtr and 5.7 o-100k's!!!!! They are the same people who first tested the SSV and managed a 13.4 qtr and 0-100km in 5.1s.

Big difference eh!!!!! We have now seen consistant 13.7-13.8 from the HSV's...It certainly doesn't make our BOSS look so bad and our turbo's kick butt!!!!

Cheers.

I bet if you ran a GT that same day on the same piece of road it would struggle to go below 14.2 6.1.

Its all relative. :yeees:

merlin · 28-03-2007, 02:13 PM

Holden supplying "warm" cars...no way. [/sarcasm]

Out of interest what times did the STI and EVO run?

Ridin-High · 28-03-2007, 05:39 PM

they had a lamborghini gallardo vs Evo, straight line and track the evo won... insane car... 2 bad its interior shits me off.. sapose that comes with the territory

**Falcon Coupe** · 28-03-2007, 05:42 PM

Maybe they no longer edit the press cars like they did when they were relesed, i saw one being done, went from 219rwkw to 241rwkw.

BadMac · 28-03-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky

i hear what your saying. Holden have been notorious in the past with tweaking their press / test cars.

Starting to see some consistency now. And the times are not as quick as what HSV / Holden claim.

Just like wheels have acheived a best time so far of 14.0 for an F6, maybe Ford also prepares their cars, someone should tell them they are surposed to make them better.

: Proves nothing. I have seen timeslips of 13.1 for GTS on track. We hear about (and I assume theres a slip to back it up) about low 13's for F6 stock, still can't compare as different times, different tracks, different conditions. I have still never seen anybody here line up side by side with a E series and a F6 and post the real result. Thats the result i'll believe and accept.

4Vman · 28-03-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadMac

I have seen timeslips of 13.1 for GTS on track. We hear about (and I assume theres a slip to back it up) about low 13's for F6 stock, still can't compare as different times, different tracks, different conditions. I have still never seen anybody here line up side by side with a E series and a F6 and post the real result. Thats the result i'll believe and accept.

12.9 and 13.0 actually for stock F6..

FalconXR6 · 28-03-2007, 06:52 PM

I'm with BadMac - show us time slips for the Phoon with filter pullin the 12's and the credibility will shoot through the roof!

As for Holden supplyin "warm" test cars, my suspicions were arrounsed when a VY SS (235kw) romped down the quarter in 13.9 seconds (Motor mag - XR6T vs VY SS).

1TUFFUTE · 28-03-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougM

I understand completely what you guys are saying about the qtr mile times and variations.....

I was mainly trying to point out that the intitial bragging by the GMH brigade when the 13.4 was achieved in "just a SSV" has been shot down in flames with all the HSV's tested since then!!! Maybe the SSV "accidently" got the 307 engine and just maybe the computer "accidently" had a different(development) program????

HAHAHHAHAHAAH touchy subject that one
An im pretty sure those time slips for the phoons have been shown allready

merlin · 29-03-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

HAHAHHAHAHAAH touchy subject that one
An im pretty sure those time slips for the phoons have been shown allready

Yep I remember seeing the 12.9 timeslip

EL XR8 · 29-03-2007, 08:35 PM

I don't know the story behind the Typhoon timeslips, etc.
But timeslips don't really proove anything, unless you saw it in the flesh you can still call bullshit to the timeslip.
I mean i have a handful of 10 flat and 10.2 sec slips, which unfortunately the XR doesn't do, but i have a slip!

MITCHAY · 29-03-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Holden supplying "warm" cars...no way. [/sarcasm]

Out of interest what times did the STI and EVO run?

HSV Clubsport R8

0-100 = 5.7 secs
0-400M = 13.8

EVO 9

0-100 = 5.6 secs
0-400M = 13.8

STi

0-100 = 5.5 secs
0-400M = 13.6

And here are some interesting facts. Don't know if they are accurate or not though.

Quote:

6L V8, 307kw @ 6000rpm, 550nm @ 4400rpm
claimed 4.96 sec for manual and 5.05 sec for auto

beaten by 2 4cyl turbo cars with over 110kw less power than it lol

Quote:

$62,890 for the HSV, $56,990 for the STi - nearly 6 grand more!

11.6 vs 15.3L per 100km for mixed driving, so the turbo wins out hands-down there too.

STi comes in at 1495kg vs 1760kg for the HSV, so 265kg heavier.

1760kg / 307kw = 5.732kg/kw This looks too light to me?
1495kg / 195kw = 7.66kg/kw - the STi needs 260kw before its got the same power to weight.

Quote:

6L - 307kw - 51.16kw per L
2.5L - 195kw - 78kw per L

gtfpv · 30-03-2007, 12:05 AM

ahhhh but does the sti and evo come with a free pair of headphones ???? to drown out the subwoofer noise .

gtfpv · 30-03-2007, 12:06 AM

never seen a sti or evo towing a boat.

DougM · 30-03-2007, 12:26 AM

My uncle owns an STi.

It's quick with one person in the car on a cool day.....

If it's a hot day with the aircon on and a few people in the car, it needs a lot of revs to get going.

He was VERY impressed with the power of my XR6T. 4 men in the car and it just kept pulling like there was no difference in load....

MITCHAY · 30-03-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

never seen a sti or evo towing a boat.

The test is done in the context of performance not practicality otherwise they would never of been matched in the firstplace. Most would not want to ruin the rear bar with a tow bar anyway!

MAGPIE · 30-03-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

never seen a sti or evo towing a boat.

How lame

:

People don't but EVO's & STi's to tow boats with :MrT_anim:

Is the STi not 206kW though ?

Aeron · 30-03-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Is the STi not 206kW though ?

Thats what they are rated at. So are R34 GTR Skylines. There is no way a GTR has 206Kw.

I believe its something to do with power limits placed on cars in Japan, so the manufacturers make powerful engines and say, “yeh, its got 206Kw”, so that they comply, when in fact, they have more power.

MAGPIE · 30-03-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeron

I believe its something to do with power limits placed on cars in Japan, so the manufacturers make powerful engines and say, “yeh, its got 206Kw”, so that they comply, when in fact, they have more power.

Just wasn't sure if you ockers were still getting the watered down Subaru's when the 195 kW was mentioned.

gtfpv · 30-03-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

How lame

:

People don't but EVO's & STi's to tow boats with :MrT_anim:

Is the STi not 206kW though ?

not lame at all . why race i one person car with a big subwoofer against a family luxury sports car. thes buzz boxes are built for one thing only , ( slingshot performance and loud music) racing them is only good to sell a magazine .
it's kinda like a high powered hovercraft that can carry 100people against a jetski.

anyhow . i guess you can tell i dont like little rally cars .

xr8ted · 31-03-2007, 07:18 AM

Yeah well my bro has an EVO9, and I will tell you know that it gets up and boogies. I dont have a chance in hell on standing starts, and on the run he pulls away also.

I hear what others are saying tho, after about an hour in sitting in it, it becomes uncomfortable, you just cannot wait to get out of it on long trips. Mine is the opposite. I can go for a kane and nearly keep up, but also I can drive from Melbourne to Sydney being comfortable the whole way. These cars are built on totally different philosophies.