Any VF performance figures out there yet?

[Express]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Harrop stg 3 kit

http://youtu.be/D_evI4Ta0mA

A N/A LSX 511ci 2500hp engine swap in a VF SS with some modern day tech and be done with it. Cheap and fast.


.

[Tough Ford]

In all seriousness if Ford America was serious about our Falcon's it would give it the Big Bad 5.8L with all goodies those yanks get to enjoy, the Mustang with this bad boy smokes GMs all day.

We're just unfortunate that we don't have access to these goodies and we will never see the best of what Ford can offer.

Sick of sayin I just hope we get all the fruit with the Stang.

[Rodge]

I've emailed Kyle Cassidy the editor of N.Z. Autocar and suggested eyebrows have been raised by their time of 4.13 seconds given that HSV themselves claim 4.4 seconds and asked if he can shed any light on this. I'll let you guys know the response if I get one.

All I'm saying is that HSV have a 25+ year history of never under claiming performance times before so these two numbers don't appear possible of reconcilliation.

Lets lay out all the possibilties just for the sake of it, Possibilities are:-
1. N.Z. Autocar used a launch technique or some way of extracting extra traction
2. HSV gave them a "specially Prepped" vehicle
3. It was a freak car
4. Kyle Cassidy is a better driver than any of HSV's test drivers
5. N.Z. Autocar made a mistake
6. N.Z. Autocar were bribed.
7. For the first time in 25 years plus, HSV are under-claiming on their cars performacne capabilities and / or didn't have time in the rushed development process to do sufficient performacne measurement testing.

It hasn't been super cold for this time of year in N.Z. lately so you can rule out performacne gains through super cold temperatures I reckon.

For the record I have a completly open mind as to which of these possibilities it may be and FWIW I've come around to thinking the GTS is a pretty handy bit of kit but for about half the money I reckon a SS-V Redline is heaps better value for money.

[Alan D Segal]

1 or 2, I suspect. Don't really have a horse in this race but they seem the most likely options to me.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

1 or 2, I suspect. Don't really have a horse in this race but they seem the most likely options to me.

Yeap, pretty much I listed the possibilities in the order I see as most to least possible.

Originally Posted by 40RDT

If I remember correctly HSV claim 0-100 in 4.4 seconds. I dont know why you would jump to conclusions and red flag it as a highly controversial time, the GTS has all the hardware to run good times but as soon as it does people come out and say its all BS or its a conspiracy against FPV etc etc. Why would HSV even bother putting a special tune in a car for such a non mainstream media source like NZ Autocar magazine?

It seems that people are trying to find any way possible to try and discredit the GTS because its proving to be better than the FPV's. I cant understand why people just can't accept that the GTS is the new Aussie performance car king and going by whats happening with FPV it doesn't look like they are going to come back with a counter.

I think you're getting a little carried away and many of us are keeping an open mind about this, see my post above. How would you explain the discrepancy in time given that HSV have never before understated their claimed performance times ?

Originally Posted by 40RDT

I dont thinks so only F6 and GT from Rodge has been saying

Yeap, no R Spec tested here, so few made their way across the Tasman.

[mcnews]

I think you need to do some peoples tax and stop getting caught up in the fact that a new Holden, many years newer in design than our cars, is a better car (who would have thought). That is my prescription for what ails you Rodge, lol. Oh and put your new tyres on so your car feels less like a sloppy ****

[Rodge]

No I'm not worried about it Trev. GTS is a good bit of kit, no question and it doesn't worry me that its apparently a bit quicker than our FPV's, just curious how N.Z. Autocar got that time that's all. If there's no explanation forthcoming from the Editor I'm fine with that, (he's a busy man), and happy to accept that time at face value. Good on HSV for building it I say and I wouldn't rule out buying one in the future depending on how things pan out. But you're dead right about the other two points you made mate. Busy week, hopefully I can get over to the North Shore dealer and get them fitted on Thursday, really looking forward to it

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

But is this the only measure of a car? How it accelerates in a straight line? I guess for some people it is, but the performance of the GTS extends far further than that. Just because you don't believe many people will ever see the full potential of the GTS's dynamic ability on public roads is no reason to dismiss it. You can't legally go faster than 110 on public roads either. We all have our favourite stretches of highway and our favourite mountain roads. For the moment, the GTS is better in both places. It's faster, it's dynamically superior, it stops better, it has far more technologies and features- HSV should be applauded for taking the Aussie performance sedan to a place it's never been before. Since the beginning of time, the one criticism of Australian performance cars was that they had the power, but the rest of the package didn't exist. In the GTS it does. Say what you will about the potential of modifications (it's a messy argument that I think should be left out of this discussion), the GTS is a performance bargain in this market.

Now onto other things. I have a new VF SS. After driving my FG XR6T every day for 3 years, I'm in a good place to compare them. Instant power of the V8 is very nice. The 6.0 loves revs and past 4000 I cannot pick the difference between it and the XR6T. The noise the oldschool pushrod unit makes is lovely. If I raced them to 120, they'd be neck and neck. Drive tested them at WSID, they both did a 13.1 and whilst I was suspicious when I first saw it, now I can believe it. The VF is a lighter car than the VE. In every other area the VF is a better car. Technology, handling, ride comfort, build quality- the VF is an outstanding car. I would have loved to have bought another FG, it would have been number 4, but the VF is simply a generation ahead and Ford has neglected the FG which is a terrible shame.

Regarding reliability. I laugh when I read "Holden is the most unreliable car". Across 3 FGs, the amount of warranty work has been immense. They are not a reliable car either! If this was a BMW forum, you could understand the jabs at reliability. But modern Falcons being the pinnacle of reliability? From extensive experience, it's simply not the case.

Your point about reliability is noted....as your personal experience! There are stats and numbers from the masses that tell the truth.....whether it goes which way...you'd have to look it up yourself.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

No I'm not worried about it Trev. GTS is a good bit of kit, no question and it doesn't worry me that its apparently a bit quicker than our FPV's, just curious how N.Z. Autocar got that time that's all. If there's no explanation forthcoming from the Editor I'm fine with that, (he's a busy man), and happy to accept that time at face value. Good on HSV for building it I say and I wouldn't rule out buying one in the future depending on how things pan out. But you're dead right about the other two points you made mate. Busy week, hopefully I can get over to the North Shore dealer and get them fitted on Thursday, really looking forward to it

Think I'll leave the questioning and explaining of random fast Holden times to you rodge....I just get flamed and more......be nice to know the answers tho....as opposed to people wasting there breaths....with no answers, just ridicule

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Your point about reliability is noted....as your personal experience! There are stats and numbers from the masses that tell the truth.....whether it goes which way...you'd have to look it up yourself.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11224789

The truth is, FGs are not the pinnacle of reliability. 6000 odd replies in the FG issues thread, I've read every single one of them since the thread's beginning because I've been driving FGs since they came out. I urge you to have a browse of that thread, some of the issues people have had are ridiculous.

Whilst I've had 3 FGs, I've pulled apart countless more. I still get PMs every week from people with FG issues that they can't work out. FGs are still the victim of common problems that just shouldn't happen. Power steering pumps & hoses. ZF transmission cooler failures. The age old diff bush problems. Wiper motors are a common failure. Rattles and squeaks plague the cars. Front upper and lower control arm bushes. HVAC lever cam failures. Seat base failures. Pre-2012 diff cradles breaking. Turbo oil lines causing starvation and turbocharger failure. Premature brake rotor warping (someone tried to start a class action suit on this a few years back). External temp sensor failures. Mixer shaft failures. Condensation seals. Globebox warping. LCD screens fading in the heat. They are just some of the more common issues. Like I said, people come to me with their FG dramas all the time because I know these cars inside out. Whilst not an unreliable car, they are definitely not what you'd call reliable either. So the "Holdens are unreliable" jokes come across as ironic- modern Falcons are not lauded for their reliability at all.

Now back on topic..

[jimmyxr6t04]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11224789

The truth is, FGs are not the pinnacle of reliability. 6000 odd replies in the FG issues thread, I've read every single one of them since the thread's beginning because I've been driving FGs since they came out. I urge you to have a browse of that thread, some of the issues people have had are ridiculous.

Whilst I've had 3 FGs, I've pulled apart countless more. I still get PMs every week from people with FG issues that they can't work out. FGs are still the victim of common problems that just shouldn't happen. Power steering pumps & hoses. ZF transmission cooler failures. The age old diff bush problems. Wiper motors are a common failure. Rattles and squeaks plague the cars. Front upper and lower control arm bushes. HVAC lever cam failures. Seat base failures. Pre-2012 diff cradles breaking. Turbo oil lines causing starvation and turbocharger failure. Premature brake rotor warping (someone tried to start a class action suit on this a few years back). External temp sensor failures. Mixer shaft failures. Condensation seals. Globebox warping. LCD screens fading in the heat. They are just some of the more common issues. Like I said, people come to me with their FG dramas all the time because I know these cars inside out. Whilst not an unreliable car, they are definitely not what you'd call reliable either. So the "Holdens are unreliable" jokes come across as ironic- modern Falcons are not lauded for their reliability at all.

Now back on topic..

Bugger... not the best thing to read having just bought a GT haha... fingers crossed it's all good!!

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Think I'll leave the questioning and explaining of random fast Holden times to you rodge....I just get flamed and more......be nice to know the answers tho....as opposed to people wasting there breaths....with no answers, just ridicule

Thanks for that....I think, perhaps something of a "hospital pass"

[chookaradley]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11224789

The truth is, FGs are not the pinnacle of reliability. 6000 odd replies in the FG issues thread, I've read every single one of them since the thread's beginning because I've been driving FGs since they came out. I urge you to have a browse of that thread, some of the issues people have had are ridiculous.

Whilst I've had 3 FGs, I've pulled apart countless more. I still get PMs every week from people with FG issues that they can't work out. FGs are still the victim of common problems that just shouldn't happen. Power steering pumps & hoses. ZF transmission cooler failures. The age old diff bush problems. Wiper motors are a common failure. Rattles and squeaks plague the cars. Front upper and lower control arm bushes. HVAC lever cam failures. Seat base failures. Pre-2012 diff cradles breaking. Turbo oil lines causing starvation and turbocharger failure. Premature brake rotor warping (someone tried to start a class action suit on this a few years back). External temp sensor failures. Mixer shaft failures. Condensation seals. Globebox warping. LCD screens fading in the heat. They are just some of the more common issues. Like I said, people come to me with their FG dramas all the time because I know these cars inside out. Whilst not an unreliable car, they are definitely not what you'd call reliable either. So the "Holdens are unreliable" jokes come across as ironic- modern Falcons are not lauded for their reliability at all.

Now back on topic..

Surely these things are subjective mate?. If you become part of a forum dedicated to one particular brand of vehicle, you will encounter people with issues, hence the car appears to be a pile of crap. I know mechanics who work at Holden, Toyota and Mazda who all think the product they work on is crap. Why?. Because all they see is issues with those vehicles. For the record my 09 XR6t had a diff bush replaced at 60,000km, and I welded up a cracked seat base (I am 130kg) that is it. Not so much as a blown globe in 80,000km

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

Bugger... not the best thing to read having just bought a GT haha... fingers crossed it's all good!!

I wouldnt be too worried thats what warranty is for, every car has problems. Hopefully most of the issues are sorted with the FGII's

[82XD393.3v]

i think the fact that 95% of taxis are falcon is a testament to the reliability of these cars, sure you are going to get dramas from abused, mistreated and under serviced cars, and nobody is denying the diff bushes and seat frames.
anyway back to topic

[Rob 351]

I have had 2 FG's, my son has a FG XR6 ute, never had a problem with any of them.
Now if you want to talk problems, I just got rid of the wifes LW Focus Sport. What a piece of **** & if all euro cars are like that, you know where you can stick em!
Actually I think I,ve had 5 Falcons since the BA was released & beside a small hose leak on the BF Gt, I don't think I had a problem with any of them.
Before the BA I had a series of Holdens/HSV's. Problems...we won't go there!

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I think you're getting a little carried away and many of us are keeping an open mind about this, see my post above. How would you explain the discrepancy in time given that HSV have never before understated their claimed performance times ?

I don't think HSV ever quoted an exact time. Weren't they quoted saying "comfortably under 4.5sec"??

[stazza]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11224789

The truth is, FGs are not the pinnacle of reliability. 6000 odd replies in the FG issues thread, I've read every single one of them since the thread's beginning because I've been driving FGs since they came out. I urge you to have a browse of that thread, some of the issues people have had are ridiculous.

Whilst I've had 3 FGs, I've pulled apart countless more. I still get PMs every week from people with FG issues that they can't work out. FGs are still the victim of common problems that just shouldn't happen. Power steering pumps & hoses. ZF transmission cooler failures. The age old diff bush problems. Wiper motors are a common failure. Rattles and squeaks plague the cars. Front upper and lower control arm bushes. HVAC lever cam failures. Seat base failures. Pre-2012 diff cradles breaking. Turbo oil lines causing starvation and turbocharger failure. Premature brake rotor warping (someone tried to start a class action suit on this a few years back). External temp sensor failures. Mixer shaft failures. Condensation seals. Globebox warping. LCD screens fading in the heat. They are just some of the more common issues. Like I said, people come to me with their FG dramas all the time because I know these cars inside out. Whilst not an unreliable car, they are definitely not what you'd call reliable either. So the "Holdens are unreliable" jokes come across as ironic- modern Falcons are not lauded for their reliability at all.

Now back on topic..

That thread is what... 5 or 6 years old now. And in true Ford Forum fashion the thread is 90 percent rambling about offtopic crap and 10 percent issues.

Go on the ls1 forums and take a look an the VF issues thread. It's only a couple months old and the FG thread pales in comparison. Holdens are cheap ****.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

I don't think HSV ever quoted an exact time. Weren't they quoted saying "comfortably under 4.5sec"??

Good question, can anyone post a link to exactly what they said ?

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I think you're getting a little carried away and many of us are keeping an open mind about this, see my post above. How would you explain the discrepancy in time given that HSV have never before understated their claimed performance times ?.

Some are keeping an open mind but sending an email to the editor of NZ Autocar magazine for please explains is basically what im getting at. Who cares about CLAIMED times? There is probably plenty or cars that have gotten slightly better times than claimed. Claimed times give a bit of room to account for driver skill, conditions etc there is always going to people running slightly quicker and slightly slower times than claimed.

Maybe NZ Autocar stalled the car enough to get a good launch without losing grip?

Have a look at this vid, it shows the GTS doing 0-100 in 4.4 with minimal or maybe even no stall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mri0y...O1wpY2VH8QgUiA

[BadMax]

Look over there...we get to choose what blown V8 we want to buy and people still ***** about it! mmm, and most will never stick their hand in their pocket to buy a brand new
100k or even 70k car but like to comment all day long.

I'd be more ****ed off at spending 100K and my bumpers being a totally different colour!

[turbo4me]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I've emailed Kyle Cassidy the editor of N.Z. Autocar and suggested eyebrows have been raised by their time of 4.13 seconds given that HSV themselves claim 4.4 seconds and asked if he can shed any light on this. I'll let you guys know the response if I get one.

All I'm saying is that HSV have a 25+ year history of never under claiming performance times before so these two numbers don't appear possible of reconcilliation.

Lets lay out all the possibilties just for the sake of it, Possibilities are:-
1. N.Z. Autocar used a launch technique or some way of extracting extra traction
2. HSV gave them a "specially Prepped" vehicle
3. It was a freak car
4. Kyle Cassidy is a better driver than any of HSV's test drivers
5. N.Z. Autocar made a mistake
6. N.Z. Autocar were bribed.
7. For the first time in 25 years plus, HSV are under-claiming on their cars performacne capabilities and / or didn't have time in the rushed development process to do sufficient performacne measurement testing.

It hasn't been super cold for this time of year in N.Z. lately so you can rule out performacne gains through super cold temperatures I reckon.

For the record I have a completly open mind as to which of these possibilities it may be and FWIW I've come around to thinking the GTS is a pretty handy bit of kit but for about half the money I reckon a SS-V Redline is heaps better value for money.

#4...maybe he got a better holiday package than the other HSV drivers.

[turbo4me]

Originally Posted by Rodge

No I'm not worried about it Trev. GTS is a good bit of kit, no question and it doesn't worry me that its apparently a bit quicker than our FPV's, just curious how N.Z. Autocar got that time that's all. If there's no explanation forthcoming from the Editor I'm fine with that, (he's a busy man), and happy to accept that time at face value. Good on HSV for building it I say and I wouldn't rule out buying one in the future depending on how things pan out. But you're dead right about the other two points you made mate. Busy week, hopefully I can get over to the North Shore dealer and get them fitted on Thursday, really looking forward to it

Should also ask him how they got the **** times from the KPM street fighter,(other than being under bagged) seems like over 5.0 secs for 0-100ks for a 500kw car is a bit strange. Then again the GTS might be around 600kw and another understatement form HSV.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by turbo4me

Should also ask him how they got the **** times from the KPM street fighter,(other than being under bagged) seems like over 5.0 secs for 0-100ks for a 500kw car is a bit strange. Then again the GTS might be around 600kw and another understatement form HSV.

May be the KPM package is too much power to put down easily.
More to a quick time than just power.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by turbo4me

Should also ask him how they got the **** times from the KPM street fighter,(other than being under bagged) seems like over 5.0 secs for 0-100ks for a 500kw car is a bit strange. Then again the GTS might be around 600kw and another understatement form HSV.

500+kw with 20in street tyres isnt really a good combo for getting quick times

[Rodge]

Nitto Invo tyres on the KPM and...well how can I say this diplomatically so as not to offend Sam, lets just say the last time I drove his demonstator the tyres had been enthusistically used.

HSV have never understated their times before, I guess I'm just curious to know if their 4.13 second time was repeatable time after time or just some fluke or one-off.
Certainly not going to lose sleep over it one way or the other and now more than happy to acknowledge the GTS is a very handy bit of kit.

[rancidpunx]

HSV Claimed 4.4s to 100kph and a 1/4 mile of 12.3. This was when the veil of secrecy was lifted at the beginning of August.

I am also curious about the NZ time. Its very quick and at least 2 tenths faster than anything tested in Australia. Maybe it was done going down hill lol.

Anyways a stock Rspec will stop the clock in under 4.5s.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chookaradley

Surely these things are subjective mate?. If you become part of a forum dedicated to one particular brand of vehicle, you will encounter people with issues, hence the car appears to be a pile of crap. I know mechanics who work at Holden, Toyota and Mazda who all think the product they work on is crap. Why?. Because all they see is issues with those vehicles. For the record my 09 XR6t had a diff bush replaced at 60,000km, and I welded up a cracked seat base (I am 130kg) that is it. Not so much as a blown globe in 80,000km

I guess it's the luck of the draw. Two of my FGs were pretty average. But one of them was pretty good, the only thing that's gone from with it so far in ~50,000km has been the power steering high pressure line, diff bushes and front rotors warping prematurely (which still shouldn't happen at such low km but I still consider it good for an Aussie car). There are a basket of common issues that I mentioned and some cars cop it worse that others. You have had two of them happen so far inside of 80,000km- and the 80k mark is the beginning of the danger zone if you have a ZF auto with the original heat exchanger and standard oil feed lines to the turbo.

Originally Posted by stazza

That thread is what... 5 or 6 years old now. And in true Ford Forum fashion the thread is 90 percent rambling about offtopic crap and 10 percent issues.

Go on the ls1 forums and take a look an the VF issues thread. It's only a couple months old and the FG thread pales in comparison. Holdens are cheap ****.

5 years old and the issues being reported in 2008 are still being reported to this day on cars built this year. If you read the thread in it entirety it's easy to see the pattern- half of the issues reported belong to the same basket of common dramas that Ford really should have rectified by now but they haven't. I know you're one of the more passionate guys around here stazza, but surely not even you can say that Ford Falcons are the benchmark for reliability. Nobody has said that Commodores are more reliable than Falcons or that they're even reliable at all. It's just ridiculous to imply that Falcons are the benchmark. Unless the benchmark includes milkshaking autos, constant diff bush replacements, turbo oil starvation, driveline shunts, interior rattles, lurching autos etc. They are awesome cars but unfortunately for the price we pay, we're not buying Euro or Jap quality.

I'm going to retire from this subject now as it's taking the thread off course.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Nitto Invo tyres on the KPM and...well how can I say this diplomatically so as not to offend Sam, lets just say the last time I drove his demonstator the tyres had been enthusistically used.

HSV have never understated their times before, I guess I'm just curious to know if their 4.13 second time was repeatable time after time or just some fluke or one-off.
Certainly not going to lose sleep over it one way or the other and now more than happy to acknowledge the GTS is a very handy bit of kit.

If they continually get times faster than any one else can do, then maybe their equipment is either reading wrong or not calibrated correctly, or they aren't using it properly. It's like a happy dyno it seems.

I'd take the results with a grain of salt. HSV's claims have always been a joke and even they can't get near the ones this NZ car mag could get.

[Rodge]

^^ Are any of the Aussie mags using Vbox timing equipment ?
I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest. Its certainly not that Autocar N.Z's times are consistently faster. Previous month's issue they tested the Mercedes--Benz E63 S which as we know has the 430 kw 800 nm engine and got very similar times to the GTS. 0-100 was 4.23 seconds from memory and about 2.3 seconds for the 80-120 split. These times are consistent with other mags testing.

Interestingly Mercedes-benz are blatant liars about their cars weight, (and not for the first time), and their E63 S came in at just on 2,000 kg's on the weighbridge with a full tank of petrol, 100 kg's more than the fully fuelled GTS and about 150 Kg's more than Mercedes claimed weight, all figures off memory.

Seeing as the Merc weighs 100 kg's more than a GTS and makes similar torque and the same claimed power why wouldn't their times be similar ?

I do agree that up till now HSV claims have always been lower than anyone else could replicate. Maybe with the rushed final development HSV undertook on the GTS they didn't have time to organise their usual 45 Kg race car driver jockey, 110 Octane race fuel and their usual 60 knot tailwind

Maybe Autocar belted it so hard over the whole week they had it, it was fully run-in at the end and the Aussie mags have had green engines in their brief envaluations ?...who knows... but any way you slice and dice it I think HSV deserve credit for the work they've done on the car.