FPV DECIMATED the HSV!

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Regarding driveline losses, there was post from another thread were it was clearly explained that percentage losses are inaccurate because a car will only lose so much power through it's drivetrain regardless of rear wheel outputs, but I averaged out the kW loss for both cars and came up with..

GTS = 116kW power loss
GT-F 71kW power loss

From this we come to the conclusion the GTS drivetrain robs around 40% more power than the GT-F's setup... so either the GTS drivetrain is extremely inefficient or HSV are overstating power outputs (again).

And I would expect the HSV to have higher torque numbers as we should all remember we are comparing a 5.0 with a 6.2

God this is a first and I will regret it but Rodge touched on this here

Originally Posted by Rodge

Its a black art and steeped in a lot of theory and mystery.
I searched a lot of interesting literature on the subject...there's an awful lot to it.
Even the size of the wheels can have quite a significant effect on rwkw's due to the extra centrifugal force required to rotate a bigger mass.
Tyre slip is another huge area and the size of the diff and losses therein can vary widely.
Transmission losses can vary significantly and as mentioned the ZF is extremely efficient whereas the heavy duty unit is the GTS less so.

I think there's quite a bit in this the following area's
1. IIRC The GTS engine had only done about 1800 km's so was fairly green whereas the GT-F engine had about 8,000 km's on it so was probably fully run in. I think this factor alone could account for 2-3 % as a best guess of the power discrepancy.
2. GTS is running 20 inch wheels = more centrifugal losses from greater rotating mass
3. GTS transmission is best guess 2% less efficient than the ZF box
4. Bigger diff probably soaks up another one or two percent at least

Add it all up, you do the maths but seeing as we're talking about a less than 6% peak power difference between the cars on the Mainline dyno all Im saying from a technical perspective it would be good to see them reevaluate this test with 2 manual cars that have both done about the same km's to see the difference then.

Then there's the fact that the GT-F was a dedicated press car from the outset...not saying the engine was blueprinted or had a special tune but one can't rule that out seeing as they knew it would be a press car but the fact that its been belted really hard as a dedicated evaluation vehicle from the get go is possibly to its advantage in this comparison.

Originally Posted by devoGT

But the GTS times are mighty impressive 4.2 and 12.1, I don't think any stock GT has come close to that auto or manual in magazine reviews.

And yes 12.1 is fast - unsure if a Stock FPV GT has done it but if it has it may be in this thread http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...328022&page=50

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by devoGT

But the GTS times are mighty impressive 4.2 and 12.1, I don't think any stock GT has come close to that auto or manual in magazine reviews.

N.Z. Autocar got 0-100 of 4.13 seconds for their GTS auto test, quicker than their recent testing of the current model BMW M5 or Mercedes-Benz E63 S. 80-120 was 2.29 seconds. Serious torque right across the rev range and good grip with those expensive tyres appears to be the key.

They're testing an auto GT-F in the forthcoming September issue due out on August 21, i'll post their results along with those from the new SC 5.0 Jaguar F Type coupe which they're also testing, in due course.

I don't know the results yet but I'd bet serious money their independent testing will show the GT-F doesn't match those GTS times.

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Regarding driveline losses, there was post from another thread were it was clearly explained that percentage losses are inaccurate because a car will only lose so much power through it's drivetrain regardless of rear wheel outputs, but I averaged out the kW loss for both cars and came up with..

GTS = 116kW power loss
GT-F 71kW power loss

From this we come to the conclusion the GTS drivetrain robs around 40% more power than the GT-F's setup... so either the GTS drivetrain is extremely inefficient or HSV are overstating power outputs (again).

And I would expect the HSV to have higher torque numbers as we should all remember we are comparing a 5.0 with a 6.2

Holden fanboy: "Yer but teh GTS drivetrain is enguneered to get flogged all day long around baffurst. That's why it costs $20000 more, has less peak power and only ever gets driven to mcdonalds and hogs breath cafe. But I know it is a far superior performance car."

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Regarding driveline losses, there was post from another thread were it was clearly explained that percentage losses are inaccurate because a car will only lose so much power through it's drivetrain regardless of rear wheel outputs, but I averaged out the kW loss for both cars and came up with..

GTS = 116kW power loss
GT-F 71kW power loss

From this we come to the conclusion the GTS drivetrain robs around 40% more power than the GT-F's setup... so either the GTS drivetrain is extremely inefficient or HSV are overstating power outputs (again).

And I would expect the HSV to have higher torque numbers as we should all remember we are comparing a 5.0 with a 6.2

What Ford number are you using though? The 404kw overboost figure? The LSA is in 2 other GM vehicles claiming 415 and 430kw. The Miami has no other car to back up what Ford says it produces.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by devoGT

http://youtu.be/fJSiRDCR62w

GTS 4.2s 0-100 12.1s 0-400

GTF 5.1s 0-100 13.1s 0-400

Good number for the GTS. Not really fair though testing manual v auto but in saying that another comparison between the two had a manual GTS (12.6) beating a auto GTF (12.7)

[futura]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Good number for the GTS. Not really fair though testing manual v auto but in saying that another comparison between the two had a manual GTS (12.6) beating a auto GTF (12.7)

You must be referring to the latest wheels Magazine?

Have you read this Wheels article?

[Falcon SXR8]

Think back to say 97 when 200kw at the fly was nuts and busting into the 14s was good haha and now were winging over 20kw at the wheels difference in factory fords and holdens running mid 12s from the factory.

[blueoval]

If I were an owner of either of these cars, I'd be out driving them right now and having some fun rather than being on the forums measuring dick size/aerodynamics/thrust/girth/spray rate/rolling diameter etc and god knows what ever measuring device has been compared with in this thread.

I would have thought you Ford 'enthusiasts' would have been happy with that result. Go figure.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

What Ford number are you using though? The 404kw overboost figure? The LSA is in 2 other GM vehicles claiming 415 and 430kw. The Miami has no other car to back up what Ford says it produces.

Yes, 404kW as stated by Ford engineers. (though they did also claim that peak power can go as high as 420kW depending on ambient temps)

No such thing as "transient overboost".

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by blueoval

If I were an owner of either of these cars, I'd be out driving them right now and having some fun rather than being on the forums measuring dick size/aerodynamics/thrust/girth/spray rate/rolling diameter etc and god knows what ever measuring device has been compared with in this thread.

I would have thought you Ford 'enthusiasts' would have been happy with that result. Go figure.

I think we all would be "out having some fun" if we all had one parked in the drive mate (GT-F for me thanks!)

I think this has really drawn a lot of attention because most people expected the HSV to outpower the GT-F (when you look at manufacturer claims) but here we have a smaller displacement motor (that's also non-intercooled) making more power than a larger intercooled engine!

So then the argument starts over driveline losses or wheel size etc but we all know that HSV has once again overstated their flywheel output but some people are finding this hard to accept.

To me, all this proves is that a modern DOHC motor is way more efficient at making huge amounts of power over a larger pushrod layout. Of course, you can't beat displacement for big torque numbers in the lower rev range.

[futura]

Originally Posted by blueoval

If I were an owner of either of these cars, I'd be out driving them right now and having some fun rather than being on the forums measuring dick size/aerodynamics/thrust/girth/spray rate/rolling diameter etc and god knows what ever measuring device has been compared with in this thread.

I would have thought you Ford 'enthusiasts' would have been happy with that result. Go figure.

Furthmore, Ford went to alot of effort in getting Wheels to redyno the two cars under the most strict conditions to end a long ranging battle argument. Instead of rejoicing for Joy that our last ever GTF has overpowered the larger displacement intercooled GTS to be crowned Australias most powerful Australian made car! we have people on here arguing about hypothetical conditions. Its Really dissapointing.

Moderators please close this Thread.

[kypez]

Hands up all those people who will be drag racing their GTF between street lights against a GTS who have mentioned that they will have to sit there waiting till the car gets to the right operating temperature?!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by kypez

Hands up all those people who will be drag racing their GTF between street lights against a GTS who have mentioned that they will have to sit there waiting till the car gets to the right operating temperature?!

So they should just start hammering a car from cold? Is that how they treat something they have just dropped 80k -120k for?

[Patty]

Far out, struggling to read some of the comments on here.... At the end of the day these two are both flippin awesome and none of us would complain if we owned one of these iconic cars. This is the end of an era. The difference between the GT-F and GTS would hardly even be noticeable on the road unless you were on a track and even then both would be amazing to drive.

[blueoval]

Im not trying to have a go, but it just feels like we are trying to make excuses NOT to accept these accolades for what I would consider minuscule reasons. I thought Wheels magazine was heavily biased towards the Red Army. Having such a test done, and with identical conditions would have been enough to settle neigh sayers once and for all.

Is it all that hard to accept such a huge PROVEN, UNBIASED test result and say that FPV won this widely contested debate with significance? it's not as if it was biased towards 1 particular brand which I woudn't have liked. If it had of been I too would have been sceptical. But it wasn't which is why I am asking the question.

[Rodge]

Yes, yes the FPV won the dyno competition, well done and for the record I was always very happy with how my SC GT-P ran up the top end when I could get it to make over-boost

All the naysayers are suggesting that HSV are fudging their crankshaft rating which is what I take issue with.

For the very few on here with the interest to look into the technical aspects of driveline loss they may find this material interesting.
http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-10...s/viewall.html

[1TUFFUTE]

Yes and that's the reason why all us TRUE ford fans are commenting so much about this topic. It's the first truely unbiased controlled testing ever done and it gives us exactly what we always knew
Like I've said before....everyone claims to be the most powerfull......SO THATS what we've discovered here.

Oh and rodge can you put up the results when they do a same day same cars test with a GTF vs that GTS that they ran allready. That'd be the only thing worth reading.

[Rodge]

N.Z. Autocar have a good rep for unbiased reporting.
Yes there will be minor differences due to temperature and humidity and if you want to claim that makes it irrelevant that's your perogative.

[MITCHAY]

So to sum up

GT-F wins power at the wheels
GTS wins power at the engine
GT-F wins bang for buck and collectivity
GTS wins at all performance measures to date

With the figures we have seen so far, we all know why manufacturers market power at the engine. Wheel figures vary and are not as sexy so to speak especially in the GTS case.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by stazza

What's with all the speculation. The numbers have been posted and are in line with the typical dynoed figures of the Miami and LSA, why speculate on what it 'could' be at the fly wheel when no one on here is going to go to the extent of ripping a motor out of either car and engine dynoing it. It's about the most powerful Aussie car, which the GT-F has proven to be. The facts are there. Where are your facts to prove otherwise? A simple calculation here, a bit of speculation there and a whole lot of unqualified opinions.

It makes me wonder how some of you guys sleep at night if this sort of nonsense bothers you so much to be doing calculations and all this in-depth speculation. Wonder what goes on in your heads with the more trivial matters in life.

I guess some of us just like to talk about this subject. In my post I presented what I believe is the Herrod Dyno's calculation of Flywheel power, not my own.
Actually I think all the Herrod power figures could have been higher.
After comparing (previously seen) HSV/FPV speed and rev data in 4th gear with the speed and rev data in the video, I believe that there is about 10.4% speed missing with the HSV and about 9.1% missing with the Ford. When power is being calculated you're basically multiplying force by speed, so any slip is going to mean a lower calculated power figure.
With that in mind I think that the RWKW power figure for the HSV should have been around 338.7 kW and that would be 14 kW less than the Ford (at 352.7).
When it comes to what's at the flywheel, the Herrod Dyno appears to have calculated about an 85.18 kW transmission loss for the HSV and a 63.3 kW loss for the Ford.

When I add these figures to the above calculated rear wheel killowatt numbers, I get 423.88 Flywheel killowatts for the HSV and 416.5 kW for the Ford.

If my calculations are correct. The Ford has the highest peak power at the wheels (and is better at the flywheel than the 404 kW that has been suggested) and I would expect the HSV to have the highest average power (over the rev range) and to me that explains why it's apparently a bit faster even though it's a bit heavier than the Ford.
Also 423.88 kW isn't too far from the HSV's claimed 430kW.

Whatever the case though, they're both good cars and I personally don't mind which is the most powerful.

[BHDOGS]

So the winnner is ford excellent thread closed.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

So the winnner is ford excellent thread closed.

YES!!!

[kypez]

Originally Posted by vztrt

So they should just start hammering a car from cold? Is that how they treat something they have just dropped 80k -120k for?

I guess you can't understand subtext on forums.

I was saying I don't think anyone who got a GTF will be doing something so silly as street racing. And if I was at the track, I'd have it warned up and at the right temperature.

I know I won't be street racing with mine when I pick her up in 2 weeks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[82XD393.3v]

this is about a dyno test people it is pretty simple you strap them on and run it a few times then write the results. wheels did this and now the right results are in the GT F is the most powerful car australia has ever built. No if's buts or should be's so get over it there are plenty of threads about lap times, quarter times, better car, and what if we had this instead of that.
WELL DONE FORD

[Rob 351]

^^^^ Summed it up perfectly!

[SensationFG8]

So what of the credibility of the first shop that did the original test? These cars were the same two originally dynoed... that certainly puts a mark on them IMO.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by 82XD393.3v

this is about a dyno test people it is pretty simple you strap them on and run it a few times then write the results.

Simple? There was a thread two weeks back where the GTS was more powerful because they failed to do 10 warm up runs for the FPV.

[SensationFG8]

Correction, they thrashed them from cold...

Lots of cars restrict power while cold. My lotus won't rev out if it's not up to temp, does that make a cold dyno valid for that vehicle?

I find it odd that a reputable shop would not warm the cars up first to normal operating temp.

[NAK302]

this thread is just a pull. one of the vehicles is unavailable to buy, so really, the GTS is CURRENTLY the most powerful Aussie car you can walk in off the street and place an order. to me, the other one is already a distant memory.

[Tezza]

Originally Posted by GT-0733

this thread is just a pull. one of the vehicles is unavailable to buy, so really, the GTS is CURRENTLY the most powerful Aussie car you can walk in off the street and place an order. to me, the other one is already a distant memory.

You can't buy a new XY GT HO either mate, but they are still held in high regard.
What is the most powerful production car ever produced in Australia as of 16/8/14.....? The FPV Gt F! It deserves to occupy whatever thread it wants until someone knocks it off its perch....