MOTOR: Herrod XR8 Vs Walkinshaw GTS

[XBGTFGGTP]

Originally Posted by mr_xlr8

In mY Mk2 GTP manual I got a 13.07 stock as a rock off the showroom floor run after run, worst time of 13.2

Tuned it, got 13.02 with 375rwkw, couldn't put the power down and was axle tramping.

There is something seriously wrong with both of these cars times.

My stock auto ran 13.0 dead and a 12.3 tuned. I think I would have run a 11 if the Trans didn't flip out from a overrev.

[STINKY NINJA]

Should have just raced a bog stock f6...
Manuals are fun but unless they are built bullet proof(along with a bullet proof driveline) they cant be abused enough to get good qm times... and bloody axle tramp city lol

[fgpsi]

Why oh why Rob do you prefer manuals when applying 500kw

Facepalm

[zilo]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Both slower than my G6Et with 5k thrown at it...

Your G6ET with $5k spent on it can do 0-100 in less than 4 secs, repeatedly?

[steve.zissou]

the 80-120 times are a good gauge as its more about just putting your foot down and not the driver.

these 80-120 times are crap to be honest. my fg ute will do 80-120 in 2.0 (460rwkw). thats a big difference compared to a 100k plus car. you would get a fg turbo ute and mod it and for about 45k all up, rip both of these cars in a straight line

[zilo]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

the 80-120 times are a good gauge as its more about just putting your foot down and not the driver.

these 80-120 times are crap to be honest. my fg ute will do 80-120 in 2.0 (460rwkw). thats a big difference compared to a 100k plus car. you would get a fg turbo ute and mod it and for about 45k all up, rip both of these cars in a straight line

460kw at the wheels?

You must carry big heavy payloads in it to need that much power?

Without a load it must be wheelspin city for the first 100 metres on take off?

[99AUXR]

Or the 700+ rwkw ute on here

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by zilo

460kw at the wheels?

You must carry big heavy payloads in it to need that much power?

Without a load it must be wheelspin city for the first 100 metres on take off?

Whoever said anything about NEEDING power

If anyone questions high powered cars they're in the wrong place........

[701let]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

the 80-120 times are a good gauge as its more about just putting your foot down and not the driver.

these 80-120 times are crap to be honest. my fg ute will do 80-120 in 2.0 (460rwkw). thats a big difference compared to a 100k plus car. you would get a fg turbo ute and mod it and for about 45k all up, rip both of these cars in a straight line

You could also probably buy a vl turbo for 5k, spend 10k on it (if you even need that much)and rip your FG ute in a straight line as well. But that's not the point is it? Get my drift?

An FG ute is a lot more car than a VL turbo.. And either of these cars is a lot more car than an FG ute..

That being said these times are fairly ordinary. Worse than stock. Considering low to mid 12s seem the norm for these straight out of the box

[Cymrucaveman]

Interesting comment from Rob Herrod on FB last night. Seems he's not happy with the published times and the car was not setup for 1/4 mile testing, in fact he didn't know it would be run on the 1/4. Just thought it would be a road test.

From reading the article, it does look like a lot of money was spent on handling, suspension, brakes, wheels etc that would improve the trackability of the car but not necessarily the straight line speed, so perhaps that's a factor in the results.

Either way, I'm biased. I have ordered an XR8 and want it to do well. In that same regard i'm still happy with what I ordered and this wont change my mind.

Unfortunately, the only thing I might reconsider is who I get to do performance mods in the future.

[fgpsi]

Quick get it back to Rob so he can chuck an auto in it and then we see it smoke the GTS

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Cymrucaveman

Interesting comment from Rob Herrod on FB last night. Seems he's not happy with the published times and the car was not setup for 1/4 mile testing, in fact he didn't know it would be run on the 1/4. Just thought it would be a road test.

From reading the article, it does look like a lot of money was spent on handling, suspension, brakes, wheels etc that would improve the trackability of the car but not necessarily the straight line speed, so perhaps that's a factor in the results.

Either way, I'm biased. I have ordered an XR8 and want it to do well. In that same regard i'm still happy with what I ordered and this wont change my mind.

Unfortunately, the only thing I might reconsider is who I get to do performance mods in the future.

500kw, but no good over the 1/4 ....really ?
How do you make a 500kw car go like stink over 400m. I would have thought it would be brutal in a straight line and round the twisties regardless. Wow.

[lucas2]

I still would have expected the MPH to be much higher, regardless of what it is set up for.

[asagaai]

The question is not "why did the XR8 not go faster", but, with so much power "how could the XR8 be so slow ?"- mind boggling....

Motor is to be congratulated on this driving feat -miraculous physics defying driving- who was the muppet at the wheel?

Also- I am sure that this has not been beneficial for Herrod's business of modifying coyote 335s. Perhaps they should do a video showing the rear kw, listing all the mods done, and then getting a couple of non muppet drivers to do the quarter, and 0-100 kph, assuming the Motor figures are waay off....

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

500kw, but no good over the 1/4 ....really ?
How do you make a 500kw car go like stink over 400m. I would have thought it would be brutal in a straight line and round the twisties regardless. Wow.

Not really. Depends on how the suspension is setup. For Track use, I'd have a more rigid setup (again, depends on which track it was setup for) and the tyres selected will have large blocks for the outer tyre to help with lateral grip.

For drag racing, I'd soften the rear end so it hooks up better, then have different tyres more in line with drag racing. Bit like Nitto NT01 vs NT05R. Sure the NT01 will give you great grip in a straight line as well, but the design of the tyre doesnt lend itself to drag racing like the NT05R.

Also would have larger side walls and run different pressures.

With huge horsepower, these decisions become all the more important!

[ford man xf]

All this comparison tests proves is what anyone who drag races already knows; having all that power does not automatically mean you will have a quick(er) car, variables such as tyres, suspension setup, transmission type and even driver come into play.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by zilo

Your G6ET with $5k spent on it can do 0-100 in less than 4 secs, repeatedly?

Hi Zilo
I don't think he was suggesting sub 4 second times but I'd be surprised if a well spent $5 k couldn't equip a G6Et to be faster than these cars managed on the test.
Although the grip wasn't perfect I can't see that it was particularly bad in view of the times to 60 km/h (2.39 HSV & 2.59 Ford). If it was a big problem, then I'd expect the pace of these cars to look better after about 60/70 km/h when they were in higher gears, but from first gear on the numbers look close to standard times IMO. In fact the XR8's 60 to 190 km/h performance wasn't hugely faster than my standard and untuned FG XR6 Turbo Auto's performance at WSID when it managed a 12.731 quarter, with the car being launched in second gear.
I measured my time with my Performance Box, the same model that Motor has been using (They're accurate, it's 60 foot to 1/4 mile time was within 1 hundredth of a second of the Dragstrips timeslip number).
Below is the data that Motor got with the XR8 and beside that my times are listed.


Modified XR8...........My stock untuned FG XR6 Turbo Auto (2nd gear launch)
0..........0................0.................0
10........0.40............10................0.43
20........0.89............20................0.85
30........1.38............30................1.24
40........1.80............40................1.64
50........2.20............50................2.09
60........2.59............60................2.61
70........3.47............70................3.15
80........4.00............80................3.70
90........4.52............90................4.25
100......5.08............100...............4.85

110......6.08............110...............5.52
120......6.77............120...............6.40
130......7.52............130...............7.29
140......8.29............140...............8.19
150......9.45............150...............9.16
160.....10.44...........160...............10.24

170.....11.46...........170...............11.45
180.....12.55...........180...............12.96
190.....13.73...........190...............14.60 seconds. VMAX 190.6

Herrods are good tuners, I'm wondering about the fuel that might have been used on the test, could the cars have have been running on 94/5 RON E 10 fuel?
I believe that this fuels anti knock real world performance is similar to 91 fuel, because they both have the same (or a similar) important MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER and hence give a similar performance. I'd certainly expect that fuel to kill the performance of these highly tuned engines.

Also that brings me to the times that you got out of your companies FG Turbo. Was it running on 94/5 E10 or 91 fuel?
I've recently found that my XR6T's rolling pace slows down by 10% from it's 98 pace when it's running on 91 (runs done under practically equal weather/load conditions). It still feels ballistic on 91 because the initial throttle response feels equal with both fuels, but the Performance Box tells a different story.
I'm thinking it might explain the slow times that magazines have been getting out of standard FG Turbo's and the pace loss may be a lot more than 10% because the overboost would probably give up a lot earlier under hard 400 metre testing with 91 in the tank.

I'm not sure if 91 fuel would hurt the SS Commodores but their most recent test times also seem very slow to me. So have they also been running on 91 or 94/5 E10 fuels and if so, would they be closer to the HSV's if they had 98 fuel in their tanks?

[SensationFG8]

I think the real question here is why didn't they track them? They were more than happy to track compare in all the previous articles published, why not this time?

Conspiracy time, perhaps they did track them and the XR8 spanked the GTS

[Stefan]

Why is everyone blaming motor.....the POS obviously has no where near the quoted HP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

I think the real question here is why didn't they track them? They were more than happy to track compare in all the previous articles published, why not this time?

Conspiracy time, perhaps they did track them and the XR8 spanked the GTS

I'll jump on the conspiracy wagon
Rob Herrod went on record as unhappy they even did 1/4mile testing after being told it was a road test....totally the opposite

Not to mention the recent history with falcon vs commadore shenanigans with performance car tests!

I'd Love to see these modified cars track tested aswell!

[1TUFFUTE]

Another thing I just noticed.....8k on the GTS for just a pulley,exhaust,intake and a tune.

[blackf6]

The article also said. That in roll on acceleration, there was a ciggie paper between them well over the 400 meters. That's good enough for me.

[701let]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Another thing I just noticed.....8k on the GTS for just a pulley,exhaust,intake and a tune.

Makes those times seem even more ordinary considering with those same mods there's been a certain workshop in WA that has managed high 10s out of a Gts.. You would think even high 11s for a rubbish driver would be the go..

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by zilo

Your G6ET with $5k spent on it can do 0-100 in less than 4 secs, repeatedly?

Both these cars were doing sub 4s to 100 now?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6uD1sm4t2w

You can stop watch it if you want. This was without ZF tune and on street tyres, 3 baby seats and roof racks and a full sized spare.....

[zilo]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Both these cars were doing sub 4s to 100 now?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6uD1sm4t2w

You can stop watch it if you want. This was without ZF tune and on street tyres, 3 baby seats and roof racks and a full sized spare.....

The text accompanying the video says it's 350kw.

9 secs 0-160km/h ain't exactly a stock G6ET...

(the roof rack and baby seats implies it's an ordinary G6)

I reckon it's probably a fake.

[The Monty]

Errrrrrr, ok.

This is my g6et. I spent 5k on it. 0-196 in 11.9 launching softly. This is what I used for a comparo. The inside shot is from willowbank. It eben has GPS coordinates bottom left and even a GPS speed. The ding dong sound is the emergency feature on the camera going off as it exceeds 1.5g coming on boost. You can even see the lights reflections going past on the dash.

No it isnt fake. Yes, it had baby seats, roof racks, street tyres and full sized spare and was launched soft.

Airbox, cat, E85 fuel pum, E85 filter, 1000cc injectors, intercooler and a tune. Made 350kw, and was pretty consistent.

[The Monty]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4qm9j9g2AEE

An outside **** for you. Im far lane.

[zilo]

I had some time to kill at the supermarket and read the article.


I couldn't find anything negative at all.


There is a paragraph that points out what should be obvious.

These two cars are full emmissions compliant, no dodgey borderline cat back stuff....no silly blow off valve boy racer noise.
These two cars will run perfectly all day in 40 degree heat without misbehaving.
Their performance is repeatable and reliable for hundreds of thousands of kilometres and a warranty.
You can insure them without having to go to having to pay custom Shannon's policy rates etc etc.
You won't get defected in any state.

Dyno warrior cars can't match any of those important points.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by zilo

I had some time to kill at the supermarket and read the article.


I couldn't find anything negative at all.


There is a paragraph that points out what should be obvious.

These two cars are full emmissions compliant, no dodgey borderline cat back stuff....no silly blow off valve boy racer noise.
These two cars will run perfectly all day in 40 degree heat without misbehaving.
Their performance is repeatable and reliable for hundreds of thousands of kilometres and a warranty.
You can insure them without having to go to having to pay custom Shannon's policy rates etc etc.
You won't get defected in any state.

Dyno warrior cars can't match any of those important points.

But why is Herrod claiming 500kw, charging 27K and the thing has the identical performance of a stocker.

Makes no sense, Herrod have obviously been caught off guard and caught out.

Stocker does everything you've said....

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by zilo

I had some time to kill at the supermarket and read the article.


I couldn't find anything negative at all.

....no silly blow off valve boy racer noise.

If they said this on non turbo cars......sounds like they don't have a clue what they're driving to me.....which then leads to the grandpa times.....they perhaps don't know how to drive either

Say all you like......they should rerun their test.....AGAIN.....as obviously somethings seriously wrong!