FPV DECIMATED the HSV!

[stazza]

So in short, it's speculative bull**** with no firm data.

Btw with your tyre theory have you considered the HSV may have a lower profile tyre or the FPV have a higher profile tyre therefore effectively negating any real outside diameter differences?

You seriously need a hobby dude, if you really have put this much thought into purely speculation over a 20kw difference in 2 cars you dont actually own then you have far too much time on your hands. I feel embarrassed for you.

[Stefan]

Rodge....

[40RDT]

Going by calculations there is about 1in diff in diameter

FPV - 275/35/19 = 675mm diameter
HSV - 275/35/20 = 700mm diameter

[99AUXR]

Wow

[JC]

Originally Posted by Rodge

You might want to re-check your maths there mate. Using your figures the driveline loss is 27.4% (565 x .726 = approx. 410)
Obviously I've looked into this a lot closer than you

If HSV claim 430fwkw, and the best wheels got is 322rwkw, the loss on that dyno is 108kw, or just on 25%. If HSV claim 430kw, then it's more like 576hp, not 565...... (1 hp = 0.746 kw). Or if they say 565, then that's more like 422kw.

ZF box is far more efficient than the HSV box.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Kinda crazy that there has been so much emphasis put on peak power numbers on a dyno haha, black top numbers is where its at

I would hardly call 5% or so more peak power on a dyno reading as being "decimated" though

Your sig says nothing about 'black top numbers', just a dyno figure.

[hootar]

There are too many variables to make assumptions.

The Hsv rims and tyres might be lighter or heavier and the tyres rolling resistance might be different. If Hsv wheels are lighter then it will soak up less HP not more!

[irish2]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

How does the torque compare?

More torque than one powered by a centri

[Wretched]

Decimated is little exaggerated but not unexpected.
Well in any case, you can either have a dyno queen or a drag queen.

I'd be more interested in seeing a lap time around Philip Island, where power is king.
Then we'll see which has the better overall car, which can put the power to better use.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by irish2

Your sig says nothing about 'black top numbers', just a dyno figure.

Closest drag strip is 1500km away thats why lol

[stazza]

Even if the dyno figures were on par, the 5.0l having the same or more output is pretty damn impressive. I can't believe how many people on this FORD forum are doubting such a definitive result.

It actually makes me wonder why some people are even members here anymore.

[futura]

Time to close this thread.

[2242100]

I found the Herrod torque data on both the HSV and Ford interesting.

Looking closely at the HSV's 306.7 kW Dyno sheet, I note that it's torque at the peak power point appears to be about 668 Nm and at that point (according to the screen) it's at 5602 rpm.
668 X 5602 / 9549 = 391.88 kW. So I can only conclude that the estimated Flywheel power of the HSV has been calculated to be around 392 kW. When I try that out with the Ford it looks like approximately 620 Nm at 5960 rpm on it's best run, and that works out to almost exactly 387 kW.

One other thing that stands out is the big difference in the max torque figures. The HSV's peak torque looks to be around 165 Nm above the Ford.

[brownba]

^^

The zf dyno gear is an overdrive.. not sure about the holden.. .it may be 1:1.. which may explain the big torque difference.

course.. one engine is bigger .. than also helps.

[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.

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by stazza

Even if the dyno figures were on par, the 5.0l having the same or more output is pretty damn impressive. I can't believe how many people on this FORD forum are doubting such a definitive result.

It actually makes me wonder why some people are even members here anymore.

Because of people like you, turning people anti ford.

[Stefan]

What an embarrassment...

We are now shouting from the roof tops that Ford Decimated Holden by a 5% power output in certain conditions.

You get smoked at the first set of lights, so you hang out the window yelling out to "try it 9 more times", hoping the transient boost can kicks in. Then if you miss the vital transient boost run, heat soak kicks in.


Close the thread...don't let the stupidity continue.

[BHDOGS]

So ford decimated Holden an excellent result and shows how much Holden bull****s good riddance to there bad rubbish. Gts Most powerful car more like most powerful bull****

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I found the Herrod torque data on both the HSV and Ford interesting.

Looking closely at the HSV's 306.7 kW Dyno sheet, I note that it's torque at the peak power point appears to be about 668 Nm and at that point (according to the screen) it's at 5602 rpm.
668 X 5602 / 9549 = 391.88 kW. So I can only conclude that the estimated Flywheel power of the HSV has been calculated to be around 392 kW. When I try that out with the Ford it looks like approximately 620 Nm at 5960 rpm on it's best run, and that works out to almost exactly 387 kW.

One other thing that stands out is the big difference in the max torque figures. The HSV's peak torque looks to be around 165 Nm above the Ford.

Thats a big difference in peak torque

[responsef6]

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.

You can't handle the truth

[Sorted]

Not these cars they tested on the dyno which are autos but Evo tested the 6 speed manuals on a private road/airstrip on a farm in central-western NSW.

These are the numbers they achieved.........

HSV GTS FPV GT F

0-20k 0.52s 0.54s
0-40k 1.34s 1.38s
0-60k 2.25s 2.29s
0-80k 3.27s 3.32s
0-100k 4.34s 4.46s
0-120k 6.00s 6.06s
0-140k 7.51s 7.59s
0-160k 9.66s 9.66s
.
0-400m 12.53 @190km/h 12.66 @ 189km/h

SO if you were to RACE a GTS with a GTF up to 100klms then it will come down to the driver

So do not think for a minute just cause it is proven for the moment (again I state these are the 6sp manual cars not the Auto cars as tested here) that the GTS is faster than if you were to come up against one that it is a clear cut case the GTS will be faster even with or without the transient boost or whatever it is called.

Fact here is a GTS at Heathcote that shows you what a useless driver can do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LqG...xvS1UAuWsyT_eg

So even with all this banter you all still forget it is the driver that will count in a GTF vs GTS up to 100k

If I was a GTF owner I would be LOL'ing at this thread with all these comments and also I would be proud it has been tested the GTF has more power than a GTS

Seriously what are the chances, although illegal, that a GTF will come up against a GTS at the lights on the street?

So therefore without any proof of who is faster it comes down to who has the most power and I am happy to say it is the GTF - WINNING

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Stefan

You get smoked at the first set of lights, so you hang out the window yelling out to "try it 9 more times",

The strip times run up so far by some mags beg to differ.
The cars are much closer than some care to speculate. Driver error or reaction time would be the biggest split.

The GTF has proven itself - its time to move on and winge about something else......

[warpo83]

I know one thing for sure. Pull up at a set of lights in your GTF and there is a GTS next to you and you are stupid enough to drag, the fastest thing to happen is both of them in a Police compound fro 28 days.... No thanks.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by warpo83

I know one thing for sure. Pull up at a set of lights in your GTF and there is a GTS next to you and you are stupid enough to drag, the fastest thing to happen is both of them in a Police compound fro 28 days.... No thanks.

These

[devoGT]

http://youtu.be/fJSiRDCR62w

GTS 4.2s 0-100 12.1s 0-400

GTF 5.1s 0-100 13.1s 0-400

[Sorted]

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

GTF is a 6 Speed Manual
GTS is a 6 speed Auto

Comparison Fail lol

Auto's are well known to be faster down the 1/4 mile at the Drag Strip

Driver error with your comparison where as EVO Magazine got 4.46s 0-100 & 12.66 @ 189km/h 0-400 with the same GTF a private road/airstrip on a farm in central-western NSW - not a sticky drag strip

[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.

[anto]

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.

think again

[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

[devoGT]

Originally Posted by anto

think again

links?