Motor MAY 07, GT RSPEC GETS PUMPED BIG TIME

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by BadMac

I drove GT, GTP and F6 (3 different ones), I also has a XR6T and have a XR6 BF as a company car, so I think I can comment. If you thought the Falcon handled better then you are dreaming. The R8 is much better planted and handles better. Its not a lot but its noticable. Im sure Orion will address it. But if you are truely neutral and drive both im afraid the Ford offerings come up short (this time).

And as for beleiving what we want. In the 2 back to back tests I've seen The VE has won, Ford should be proud its car, its 5 years old and Holden only just past it. In the case above, it doesn't matter if both cars were in the 20's, it only matters that they were tested side by side and hence the relative merits can be compared. We all know somebodies brothers mate who did a 9.9 in his stock LS1/F6/HSV/GTR/Vtech/whatever, but the only real result is a side by side one.

How come we don't hear stories of all the Ford boys lining up at the local strips an canning VE's? All we get is mate who "killed" the [insert VE model] at the lights. :

I stand by my comment on the handling as do you on yours...........doesn't make either of us wrong. Personal taste and preference has a lot to do with nuances like handling characteristics. On my experience, driving "back to back" I found the FORD set up better, less jittery, more stable and compliant , less affected by irregularities...........and I was wide awake.......not dreaming............. :

Next you're going to tell us you like the handbrake on the VE as well.

No body mentioned anything about doing 9.9 second passes in a stock LS1/F6/HSV/GTR/Vtech/whatever............????????????????
My comment was based on factual repetitive runs. How many runs did they do BACK TO BACK in the motor test ????????????????????
One off jism from MOTOR does not make a credible validation in my book... :

No one here is saying the R8 is slower than the GT..........DON"T PANIC.
I've said all along that the R8 felt stronger up TOP. As I've posted before I also noted the OIL PRESSURE gauge fluctuate dangerously in the VE when test driving hard.......1 other has noted this as well.........maybe a one off...........maybe not.
Gear changes in the auto R8 were no where near the ZF and I can honestly see the changes deteriorating in the R8 after the miles are put on. They are not good to begin with so tough times on the road / track will show how behind the box is.

Either way, I'd own both if I could............no one eyed here..........just factual real world personal experience.

[Ives]

There might by some typos or misprints with the times posted.

[billsta]

Originally Posted by Falchoon

How "professional" do you need the drivers to be?! Steve Richards and Todd Kelly are professional main game V8 Supercar drivers!

I meant so we can actually view the tests on tv instead of reading in the magazines. As for the test drivers I meant more the views of the journos that can't drive not the specific race car drivers that did the last test.

[prydey]

not sure how some people can type with one hand covering one eye and the other hand obviously busy elsewhere.

i haven't read the article but the overall times are irrelevent. sure you might have done a quicker time but not on that day at that track. obviously the conditions were such that optimum times were not possible whether it was damp or hot who knows.

the cars were tested together. why are we all so shocked that the r8 beat the gt. i'll admit the gap between the 2 does seem a little larger than i'd expect but maybe each car was affected by the conditions differently.

[mcnews]

Why do you hang so much crap on the journos at Motor... I am sure they take their job seriously and tell it like they find it. Car journos are generally enthusiasts like the rest of us before landing a job like they have now so the bashing they get on here from people that saying they can't drive is hard to figure out, when in all likelihood they could probably out drive 99% of the posters on here. Is it that people can't deal with being told stuff they don't like to hear? If it was a back to back test and the cars were not faulty then really I can't see the point of crying into your milk. And to be honest I would rather have seen the Motor guys do the back to back rather than the V8 Supercar Pros as the pros can drive around deficiencies in a vehicle in a way that nobody on here could ever hope to. In short, the Pros will pretty much always lap considerably quicker in the vehicle that has more grunt, because unlike normal humans the pros can use the power no matter how screwy the chassis is underneath them. If you think the way you drive compares to what they can do behind the wheel then I suggest you need to wake up and stop pulling your pud :->

[Focused]

Originally Posted by ESP

I stand by my comment on the handling as do you on yours...........doesn't make either of us wrong. Personal taste and preference has a lot to do with nuances like handling characteristics. On my experience, driving "back to back" I found the FORD set up better, less jittery, more stable and compliant , less affected by irregularities...........and I was wide awake.......not dreaming............. :

Next you're going to tell us you like the handbrake on the VE as well.

No body mentioned anything about doing 9.9 second passes in a stock LS1/F6/HSV/GTR/Vtech/whatever............????????????????
My comment was based on factual repetitive runs. How many runs did they do BACK TO BACK in the motor test ????????????????????
One off jism from MOTOR does not make a credible validation in my book... :

No one here is saying the R8 is slower than the GT..........DON"T PANIC.
I've said all along that the R8 felt stronger up TOP. As I've posted before I also noted the OIL PRESSURE gauge fluctuate dangerously in the VE when test driving hard.......1 other has noted this as well.........maybe a one off...........maybe not.
Gear changes in the auto R8 were no where near the ZF and I can honestly see the changes deteriorating in the R8 after the miles are put on. They are not good to begin with so tough times on the road / track will show how behind the box is.

Either way, I'd own both if I could............no one eyed here..........just factual real world personal experience.

And the Falcon looks a lot better. Wheel arches and huge ride height make for a boring looking car IMO.
Haven't you just bought a Holden BigMac...

[Ghiadude]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Why do you hang so much crap on the journos at Motor... I am sure they take their job seriously and tell it like they find it. Car journos are generally enthusiasts like the rest of us before landing a job like they have now so the bashing they get on here from people that saying they can't drive is hard to figure out, when in all likelihood they could probably out drive 99% of the posters on here. Is it that people can't deal with being told stuff they don't like to hear? If it was a back to back test and the cars were not faulty then really I can't see the point of crying into your milk. And to be honest I would rather have seen the Motor guys do the back to back rather than the V8 Supercar Pros as the pros can drive around deficiencies in a vehicle in a way that nobody on here could ever hope to. In short, the Pros will pretty much always lap considerably quicker in the vehicle that has more grunt, because unlike normal humans the pros can use the power no matter how screwy the chassis is underneath them. If you think the way you drive compares to what they can do behind the wheel then I suggest you need to wake up and stop pulling your pud :->

The reson some of us are a little upset about it is that these supposed "drivers" got a respectable time for an XT not for a GT so something is REALLY amiss. nobody who has read the full article has written here to confirm that it was raining/snowing at the time. thats about the only scenario that i can see causing this phenomenon. as for if the ve will beat a BF - so it ****en should... its got more power, more rubber and better weight distribution ... doesnt take a genius to see itll be quicker down and around the track. As for peoples opinions. THEY ARE THERES and they are entitled to voice them

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Car journos are generally enthusiasts like the rest of us before landing a job like they have now so the bashing they get on here from people that saying they can't drive is hard to figure out, when in all likelihood they could probably out drive 99% of the posters on here.

well...

Originally Posted by mcnews

Is it that people can't deal with being told stuff they don't like to hear?

Exactly. It's a way to dismiss any findings at all from a test that in some way doesn't give them the results they need or want to hear. Of course there would be adverse factors for the slow time - but short of a problem with the GT itself - whatever those factors were, were also affecting the HSV - so they both had to deal with them, meaning the times were relative anyhow.

I think motoring journos write pretty good articles 99% of the time and they're pretty unbiased as well. They'll never be perfect, but please, if anyone can do a better job on here - go for it. But it seems more and more these days, when a test comes out that someone likes, they're promoting it all over the place, and when it's the opposite, the slam the magazine or journo themselves.

Everyone's entilted to their opinion on mags and journos. Some people are against them no matter what is printed - and I completely respect that. It's just funny when that opinion on the mag or journo is swayed by whatever article they are refering to and the results out of it :P

[merlin]

May MOTOR isn't out for a while though isn't it???...you must get it very early. 15.3 is a pathetic time for the GT (as mentioned an XT Taxi will pull a faster time), would love to read the article and see why, something definatly amiss. The R8 is not that far off, other mag tests have it doing low 14's.

[Ives]

Originally Posted by merlin

May MOTOR isn't out for a while though isn't it???...you must get it very early.

Subscribers normally get their magazines a few days before the magazine is sold at newsagents.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Deadman

well...



Exactly. It's a way to dismiss any findings at all from a test that in some way doesn't give them the results they need or want to hear. Of course there would be adverse factors for the slow time - but short of a problem with the GT itself - whatever those factors were, were also affecting the HSV - so they both had to deal with them, meaning the times were relative anyhow.

I think motoring journos write pretty good articles 99% of the time and they're pretty unbiased as well. They'll never be perfect, but please, if anyone can do a better job on here - go for it. But it seems more and more these days, when a test comes out that someone likes, they're promoting it all over the place, and when it's the opposite, the slam the magazine or journo themselves.

Everyone's entilted to their opinion on mags and journos. Some people are against them no matter what is printed - and I completely respect that. It's just funny when that opinion on the mag or journo is swayed by whatever article they are refering to and the results out of it :P

Not at all...........

It's human nature to question anything and everything. A one off test does not make a definitive decision for all to hang off. It's great for a debate but that's about all.

Remember it only takes 51% of the population to decide the fate for 100% of the rest of us in a voting democracy............. that doesn't mean that it's right !!!!!!!!!!!!! It means that you have 49% of the population that still disagree.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I for one still reckon there was something affecting both cars............15.3 for a GT is ridiculous...........maybe we should wait for the full article and then debate the actuals rather than trying to hypothesise.

[4Vman]

well IMO compared to what they've regularly achieved elsewhere the results make BOTH cars look pretty ordinary, not just the GT.
Maybe the mag should have binned the article and re done the test on a day that was more favourable to both cars achieving their potential or close to it..
Not sure what the article achieved.. if you took the results seriously you'd steer clear of both and keep your VZ or BA...

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The results make BOTH cars look pretty ordinary, not just the GT, compared to what they've regularly achieved elsewhere, maybe the mag should have binned the article and re done the test on a day that was more favourable to both cars achieving their potential..

True, but I assume they are given these cars for "x" amount of time. Either way thats apparently what they did, in the same conditions.

What would be interesting would be seeing say scaife driving a HSV, and Bowe or whoever driving the FPV, then swapping.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Polyal

True, but I assume they are given these cars for "x" amount of time. Either way thats apparently what they did, in the same conditions.

What would be interesting would be seeing say scaife driving a HSV, and Bowe or whoever driving the FPV, then swapping.

True, but both cars performed well below their "best" so really what did the article achieve other than to make both look ordinary campared to their VZ or BA predecessors..?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

True, but both cars performed well below their "best" so really what did the article achieve other than to make both look ordinary campared to their VZ or BA predecessors..?

Perhaps the journo's own a BA or VZ, and are trying to bump up there resales..LOL

Nah I dont know, perhaps the advances made on BA/VZ aren't as big as we have believe; certainly not in FPV's case anyway.

If they "raced" the ZF then it would have been different IMO, but where is the fun in that. And I think thats were people are getting confused. In a straight line at least, there is a big difference in performance versus a manual.

[Rock ape]

HSV 14.5
My car 13.6
I win :hihi:

[weenie]

read the article in motor today & they stated that the weather was crap & the track was wet. The did start to get a slight dry line , but both drivers stated that they couldnt push to get the real feel of the suspension. They were complaining about lack of ability to get any power down. So before everyone has a whoo haa about my car does this & that. it was 2 cars on the same track at the same time in the same conditions. Definatley a better comparison than there usual trick of running the v8s in 40 plus temps one day & the turbos in 15 degree temps the next.

[Squalo]

Doesn't Motor test with two adults and a full tank of fuel?

I have to agree with Paullie though, the GM motor is a ripper. The Boss *should* be too, but it's held back by its truck-based architecture.

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by Squalo

Doesn't Motor test with two adults and a full tank of fuel?

Last I read - my understanding is Motor tests with one driver, Wheels tests with a driver and a passenger. But that might have changed over the years.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by weenie

read the article in motor today & they stated that the weather was crap & the track was wet. The did start to get a slight dry line , but both drivers stated that they couldnt push to get the real feel of the suspension. They were complaining about lack of ability to get any power down. So before everyone has a whoo haa about my car does this & that. it was 2 cars on the same track at the same time in the same conditions. Definatley a better comparison than there usual trick of running the v8s in 40 plus temps one day & the turbos in 15 degree temps the next.

More wheelspin in the BF..............LOL........

Doesn't the VE have DSC.........I'm sure the BF doesn't!!!!!!

[Richo72]

Originally Posted by Perana XR8

wouldnt be a GTHO thread without a mention of a V10

Not a V10...but perhaps one of these...the bold text is particularly interesting!!

Ford Boss engine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ford Boss V8
Manufacturer Ford Motor Company
Also called Ford Hurricane V8
Production 2008–
Predecessor 385 V8
Triton V8
Class V8
Engine 5.8 L - 7.0 L
Similar Chrysler Hemi
GM Vortec
Ford Modular
The Boss is a forthcoming large-displacement V8 engine project at Ford Motor Company. The engine project was reportedly cancelled in 2005 as the company focused on its existing Triton V8 and V10, but was reportedly[1] revived in early 2006 by Mark Fields. The large engine will compete with DaimlerChrysler's new Hemi and General Motors' large Vortec engines.

The Boss engine will reportedly displace 6.2 L (379 in³, 6208 cc) upon introduction, with the ability to exceed 7.0 L in future applications, and produce more than 425 hp (317 kW) and 425 ft·lbf (576 N·m). It has been rumored that a smaller 5.8 L (355 in³, 5814 cc) version will be developed for a special edition 2009 Ford Mustang and is expected to be the standard V8 engine for the 2010 or 2011 Ford Mustang. The Boss V8s will be built at Cleveland Engine in Cleveland, Ohio. The first application will be Ford's F-Series pickup trucks produced at Dearborn Truck. It has been rumored that the Boss will retain many of the Modular V8 design cues such as a deep skirt block with cross bolted main caps, oiling system design, and overhead camshaft valve train arrangement. The Boss' single most significant departure from the Modular V8 will be the significantly wider 4.53 in (115 mm) bore centerline. It has been rumored that the 6.2 L will employ a 4.015 in (102 mm) bore diameter and a 3.74 in (95 mm) stroke to achieve it's displacement while the 5.8 L version will retain the 6.2 L's bore diameter but employ a shorter 3.503 in (89 mm) stroke. The initial versions of the Boss will have two-valves-per-cylinder, two spark-plugs per cylinder and likely employ a form of cylinder or valve deactivation for increased fuel economy. Later high-performance versions will be be equipped with DOHC, four-valves-per-cylinder and Gasoline direct injection (GDI). There are rumors of a 6.2 L, DOHC, four-valves-per-cylinder, twin-turbo, GDI version of the Boss already under development.
The engine was initially called the "Hurricane", but this was changed in mid 2006 to the storied Boss name[2] in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

[JAYBA]

so the track and conditions where crap.....settles it

but its not the first time ive seen times like that
i have a motor at home where the gt was the slowest out of all cars
including xr6t, xr8, ss the times(same condition same day)

gt did a 14.9!!!!!

i think they usually take the average or the best out of three runs
and if thats all they can get on the day thats usually all its got...
those ''journos" spend a lot of there time driving cars and as said they can prob outdrive 99% of the people on here

[Grechie]

The GT would of spun quiet alot off the line to get a 15.3, simple, or they missed a gear. If the power was put down with semi decent traction, they would of at least got a mid or high 14.

[merlin]

So there was heavy rain - explains the times then.

However it does beg the question why not re-do the tests on a different day so the results actually mean something to somebody. Its not like an R8 and GT are exotic supercars that they can't get a hold of easily on another day.

They make thousands off subscribers and advertisers, could at least make an effort.

[GK]

Originally Posted by ESP

Not at all...........

It's human nature to question anything and everything. A one off test does not make a definitive decision for all to hang off. It's great for a debate but that's about all.

Remember it only takes 51% of the population to decide the fate for 100% of the rest of us in a voting democracy............. that doesn't mean that it's right !!!!!!!!!!!!! It means that you have 49% of the population that still disagree.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I for one still reckon there was something affecting both cars............15.3 for a GT is ridiculous...........maybe we should wait for the full article and then debate the actuals rather than trying to hypothesise.

I think we ended up with the GST with less than half of the primary vote, after preferences. LOL!

GK

[banarcus]

Take a new HSV R8 and a new FPV GT + take them to YOUR favourite dragstrip = ford getting it's rear end served on a hubcap. There is no mistake, excuse whatever.

There is a lot more than 1/4 mile times and anyway those who frequent their local dragstrip normally mod their cars far from stock.

I really dont like Motor for the fact that you just cannot trust what is on the front cover. The last edition I bought was with a picture of a 'shopped yellow Monaro on it. Inside was speculation and nothing else. A cover and a 'story' on speculation. No real pictures just someones idea and a photoshop some computer generated image. The funny thing however is the fact that people take these magazines as pure gospel.

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by weenie

read the article in motor today & they stated that the weather was crap & the track was wet. The did start to get a slight dry line , but both drivers stated that they couldnt push to get the real feel of the suspension. They were complaining about lack of ability to get any power down. So before everyone has a whoo haa about my car does this & that. it was 2 cars on the same track at the same time in the same conditions. Definatley a better comparison than there usual trick of running the v8s in 40 plus temps one day & the turbos in 15 degree temps the next.

Couldnt have said it better myself. No one doubts that GT will go quicker than that but as you said they were done at the same day, track etc and all was fair and the HSV handed the GT its ****.

[Falchoon]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

well IMO compared to what they've regularly achieved elsewhere the results make BOTH cars look pretty ordinary, not just the GT.
Maybe the mag should have binned the article and re done the test on a day that was more favourable to both cars achieving their potential or close to it..
Not sure what the article achieved.. if you took the results seriously you'd steer clear of both and keep your VZ or BA...

How many people buy a new car soley on the 1/4 mile times? Not many.

As for a retest well the cars were probably only available for that particular day, other magazines may have them booked for other days, or Motor staff have other cars to test.

If people are interested in buying a new GT or Clubbie I suggest they go to your nearest dealer and test drive some themselves and see how fast or slow they are or what features they have.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by ED Classic

Couldnt have said it better myself. No one doubts that GT will go quicker than that but as you said they were done at the same day, track etc and all was fair and the HSV handed the GT its ****.

Read the article , wet weather conditions , difficulty with traction , etc etc
What a CROCK.........

If you take that as being a definitive test then Good Luck to you. Anyone taking that sort of info as gospel and as "GOOD" info for buying their next car should be wary...............

I still have fond memories of beating the old VT 300KW GTS and a EDXR8 at the lights with our KJ Mitsubishi Verada !!!!!!!!!!!! We took off in the wet.......traction control engaged, car went straight and accelerated far far away. GTS just sat there spinning and struggling and eventually faded in the distance.

OH MY GOD..........I just handed the EDXR8 and GTS its ****

LOL LOL LOL LOL............

[colossus]

Originally Posted by ESP

Read the article , wet weather conditions , difficulty with traction , etc etc
What a CROCK.........

If you take that as being a definitive test then Good Luck to you. Anyone taking that sort of info as gospel and as "GOOD" info for buying their next car should be wary...............

I still have fond memories of beating the old VT 300KW GTS and a EDXR8 at the lights with our KJ Mitsubishi Verada !!!!!!!!!!!! We took off in the wet.......traction control engaged, car went straight and accelerated far far away. GTS just sat there spinning and struggling and eventually faded in the distance.

OH MY GOD..........I just handed the EDXR8 and GTS its ****

LOL LOL LOL LOL............

Exactly - the test in the rain was a waste of time - you cant get consistent launches, track might dry a little more for one car ect. I am not saying the overall result would be different (in fact I am positive the Clubbie would still have won the 1/4 mile easily), just saying they should re-do it in the dry to make the results meaningfull for people who are shopping for these cars.

"1/4 doesn't make a difference to performance car buyers" - pfft yeah right.