FPV v HSV: stripped bare (GTF vs GTS performance) EVO MAGAZINE

[Sorted]

Linky:-
http://www.evomagazine.com.au/fpv-v-hsv-stripped-bare/

The Only Comprehensive detailed performance test as of today
GTF vs GTS - No BS and no hidden facts - it is all here



The Facts:-

Originally Posted by futura

HSV GTS / FPV GT F

0-20 0.52 /0.54 (GTS -0.02)
0-40 1.34 /1.38 (GTS -0.04)
0-60 2.25 /2.29 (GTS -0.04)
0-80 3.27 /3.32 (GTS -0.05)
0-100 4.34 /4.46 (GTS -0.12)
0-120 6.00 /6.06 (GTS -0.06)
0-140 7.51 /7.59 (GTS -0.08)
0-160 9.66 /9.66 (GTS=GTF)
.
0-400m 12.53 @190km/h / 12.66 @ 189km/h (GTS -0.13)

* Figures taken from EVO magazine.

There’s been plenty of controversy surrounding the HSV GTS and FPV GT F lately. Most of it stems from claimed power figures and how these have translated to rear-wheel kilowatt figures during dyno testing by media publications. evo Australia has no desire to add to that controversy, instead we’ve concentrated on extracting the best possible acceleration times for both cars.

Of course, acceleration times also have the potential for controversy, but before you throw out claims of bias, I implore you to read the what, who, where and how of our test. If you’re still unhappy, or have any questions, contact us at facebook.com/evoaustralia or contact@evomag.com.au and we’ll do our best to answer your queries or complaints.

You can see the full numbers at the bottom of this story, but the headline figures are: HSV GTS 0-100km/h in 4.34 seconds and 0-400 metres in 12.53 seconds at 190km/h; the FPV GT F recorded 4.46 seconds to 100km/h and 12.66 seconds for the standing 400 metres at a terminal speed of 189km/h.

What
What
Both cars were fitted with six-speed manual transmissions. The FPV GTF had a fraction over 8000km on the odo when we started performance testing, while the HSV was considerably newer with just over 1800km on the odo.

Who
The testing was conducted by yours truly. Prior to joining evo Australia 15 months ago, I was deputy editor of Wheels for seven years, and for the five years prior to that I was editor and deputy editor of Motor. With this in mind, I’ve performance tested every Australian-built performance car since late 2001, except the HSV W427, which I’ve never driven. My best effort in a Ford/FPV product prior to this test was a 4.57sec 0-100km/h and a 12.64sec quarter mile at 189km/h in an FPV GT R-Spec manual tested for Wheels magazine (October 2012). My best effort in an HSV or Holden product was a 4.44sec 0-100km/h and 12.57sec 0-400m at 185km/h in an automatic HSV GTS (evo Australia 004).

Where
evo Australia conducts many of its performance tests on a private road/airstrip on a farm in central-western NSW. As such, we cannot take photos or video at this venue to protect the privacy of the generous owner. Perhaps this element will spark the conspiracy theorists, but there’s nothing in it beyond respecting the privacy of the owner. The property is located at approximately 660 metres above sea level. The surface of the strip is coarse-chip tarmac, concrete, then coarse-chip tarmac. Launches were conducted on both the concrete and coarse-chip tarmac sections with the concrete providing better grip. The strip appears level (certainly more so than the one per cent drop of a drag strip). Testing was conducted in only one direction.

How
evo Australia conducts its performance testing with driver only. I cannot speak for how other publications presently conduct their performance testing, but the R-Spec I tested for Wheels magazine was just with driver (there had been a policy shift to just driver from around 2010). For context, at the time of testing the FPV for Wheels in 2012 and the HSV for evo Australia last year, I weighed 75kg. Presently I weigh 67kg. Do I think those 8kg makes any difference in cars that weigh more 1800kg? Of course not, but we’re trying to make these numbers as transparent as possible. No standard equipment (spares, floor mats etc.) was removed from the vehicles.

The test was conducted over a two-hour period in order to allow the cars to dissipate any heat soak from back-to-back runs. The HSV completed four full runs and three aborted runs (of which more later) before parking for approximated 35 minutes with the bonnet up. The FPV completed four full runs and three aborted runs before sitting with the bonnet up. The HSV then completed four full runs and one more aborted run. The FPV then completed four more complete runs and no aborted runs. The HSV recorded its fastest time on run three of the first session, while the FPV recorded its best time on run two of the second session.

The starting ambient temperature (taken from an average of the external temp gauge in the cars and my phone) was 7.9 degrees. Over the two-hour period, the temperature rose to an average of 9 degrees.

According to their fuel gauges, both cars started the performance testing with a fraction more than half a tank (I do not recall the fuel load of the FPV GT R-Spec I tested for Wheels but this my have been noted in the copy – see the October 2012 issue of Wheels).

Both the HSV and FPV feature launch control but neither worked particularly well. Both cars trimmed too much power through first and, especially, second gear. The fastest times were recorded with launch control inactive and ESC switched off. Both cars completed eight runs, though both cars also had several aborted runs (four for the HSV, three for the FPV). One aborted run for the HSV was due to too much wheelspin off the line. All other aborted runs for both cars were because I missed the shift from second to third. Please note that shifts involved a complete lift off the throttle and use of the clutch (no flat-shifting).

My technique to get powerful rear-drive cars off the line is to gently walk them off the line (using between 1800-2200rpm) before applying more and more power through first gear. I’m not suggesting this is the only way to do it but it works best for me. Daniel DeGasperi (currently at www.caradvice.com.au and formerly of Wheels) has had success launching cars with considerably more revs off the line.

Of the eight completed runs for each car, only two each were close to the best times published below. Most runs for both cars netted 0-100km/h times of around 4.7 seconds and 0-400 metres of 12.8-12.9 seconds. Regardless of times, the terminal speeds for both cars were consistently between 188-190km/h. It should be noted that the FPV’s quarter mile time is 0.02 seconds slower than the time I recorded in the R-Spec for Wheels, but the GT F recorded an identical terminal speed. I’m speculating here, but perhaps I managed a better 2-3 or 3-4 shift in the R-Spec (which may account for the difference in time).

In my experience, the HSV is fractionally easier to get off the line cleanly. This doesn’t indicate a lack of grip from the FPV (both cars run 275 rear tyres) but simply because I find it easier to modulate the throttle in the HSV through the critical phase of first and second gear. A different driver with a different technique may produce a different result.

The 0.12-second advantage the HSV wins over the FPV to 100km/h is only improved to a 0.13-second advantage over the 400 metres, and the HSV crosses the line just a single km/h faster (190 plays 189). Without wishing to add fuel to the dyno fire, these numbers appear to back claims that the cars are very similar in power.

Whether you bleed red or blue, you must admit these are seriously impressive performance figures for sub-$100K cars.

- Jesse Taylor, Editor, evo Australia

[hedgehobb]

Biggest difference is I can go out today and buy a HSV GTS.

[Blue Roo]

That's one of the best reviews I've read. Honest and non bias review.
Evo Magazine just might put Wheels out of business.

[Nikked]

Only a missed gear-change in it really...

did some quick calculations...both seem to be putting 370-80kw @ flywheel?


Embarrassing for the GTS...

[BHDOGS]

slower then the rspect the gtf has still got some extra time in it will be interesting to see how quick it can go.

[MITCHAY]

Those times are quite close and it is a very good result for the GT-F.

There has been a 10+ page argument about where the GT-F put down ~20kws more at the wheels yet the GTS has won (albeit slightly) in every 0-100 and 1/4 mile I have read.

Is it time to do the 1000m test with these beasts? Trap speeds are very close at the 1/4 mile :

[mik]

actually i think i may still have an old mag buried around still somewhere where they road tested a 1967 289 poverty pack falcon 500, 3 on the tree i think ??
and the journo was like.............. oh my god how can anything be faster than this...... for a standing quarter of 17 seconds : ).
The GT and the Commy, a couple of awesome cars there, im a ford boy , but the commy would also be welcome in the shed.

[turbo4me]

Great review one happy chappie here.

[Brendo_GSUte]

Originally Posted by Blue Roo

That's one of the best reviews I've read. Honest and non bias review.
Evo Magazine just might put Wheels out of business.

I think the decision from Holden to stop production in Australia is what will put wheels out of business

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Those times are quite close and it is a very good result for the GT-F.

There has been a 10+ page argument about where the GT-F put down ~20kws more at the wheels yet the GTS has won (albeit slightly) in every 0-100 and 1/4 mile I have read.

Is it time to do the 1000m test with these beasts? Trap speeds are very close at the 1/4 mile :

GTS has a broader torque and power curve and with better rubber it shouldn't be a surprise it's quicker. Although the GT/GT-F is obviously understated. I'd be interested to see what happens after the 400m too.

[Struggo]

I have asked Santa for one of each.......

[d410xlt]

I too, would like to see a run over 1000m. The GTF is obviously starting to hit it's straps at 160km/h. It makes up that .08 difference in that 20km/h increment according to the figures. The Coyotes do really seem to find something extra in the 4-6,000rpm range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Linky:-
http://www.evomagazine.com.au/fpv-v-hsv-stripped-bare/

The Only Comprehensive detailed performance test as of today
GTF vs GTS - No BS and no hidden facts - it is all here

image

You can see the full numbers at the bottom of this story, but the headline figures are: HSV GTS 0-100km/h in 4.34 seconds and 0-400 metres in 12.53 seconds at 190km/h; the FPV GT F recorded 4.46 seconds to 100km/h and 12.66 seconds for the standing 400 metres at a terminal speed of 189km/h.

The 0.12-second advantage the HSV wins over the FPV to 100km/h is only improved to a 0.13-second advantage over the 400 metres, and the HSV crosses the line just a single km/h faster (190 plays 189). Without wishing to add fuel to the dyno fire, these numbers appear to back claims that the cars are very similar in power.

Whether you bleed red or blue, you must admit these are seriously impressive performance figures for sub-$100K cars.

- Jesse Taylor, Editor, evo Australia

That is the most balanced and explanatory read of any of the Australian magazines. Not only that I appreciate Jesse Taylor's 'scientific / methodical' approach.

Missing out by a tenth or thereabouts over the 400m when the badge reads 351kW versus 430kW and the Ford having a $20k cheaper pricepoint is completely palateable. The Ford Falcon GT-F is an incredible achievement.

It's just a shame the other publications were not so enlightened in their understanding of 351kW (worst case) Ford and 430kW (best case) HSV and let their ingrained bias through.

[1TUFFUTE]

You see how everyone is happy no matter the result, when all is needed is a fair non biased review.
And yes I think the GTF has equited itself perfectly against a more powerfull, more grip, more tech and more $$$$ hsv GTS.

Amazing what can be done on a shoestring budget

[G6T]

Done a good job with manual. now they should do both autos..

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by phillyc

[B]The Ford Falcon GT-F is an incredible achievement.

Lets not forget the RSpec which has been with us now for 18 months. 4.5s to 100 (I have done 4.4) and a 12.6 1/4mile

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by hedgehobb

Biggest difference is I can go out today and buy a HSV GTS.

The biggest difference is 17k.
If the price was the same I'd concede a victory for the Red team on this one.

[sbutler]

The 17Gs would turn me to the GT any day. 17 grand is a lot of money in this day. They are both great cars, but $17000 is still $17000.
Trade the crap tyres from the GT max change over $1000
Tune $1200 to $1500, for 400+ rwkw
& still have a heap of change to keep the Mrs happy, and smoke the GTS all day!

[BHDOGS]

Not to mention any random bogan with money can own the gts where as the gtf is presold to the most fastidious of expert gentleman to ever grace australias green earth. 500 made thats it take it leave it shove it up your clacker you own one or you dont tough **** not this any random nobody business of the other mob.

[Polyal]

So is it also fair to say any miami with 275 rear rubber and a good tune can run these numbers? Heck even a GS?

[sbutler]

Yep......

[1TUFFUTE]

Agreed....but try telling biased journos that.....because if they want to sell mags.....they need to panda to the masses

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

The biggest difference is 17k.
If the price was the same I'd concede a victory for the Red team on this one.

Difference in a straight line is so small it's barely worth debating. OTOH the other thread where they track tested them both and the GTS was 2.3 seconds quicker around a short track and wherein the reviewer noted all the extra equipment in the GTS tells you what you get for your extra $17,000.

[4stanger]

Good report, both cars show their real potential, Ford does well for the money, envious of any one who are in a position to purchase either, if I was in a position, it would be the Ford;)

Nothing in it, with those times, but the holden crew will win the "bar room argument" with the acceleration times, even though there is very little in it.
Track times mean nothing to me, who ever drives these cars to their extreme on highways and streets should be locked up, there is no track anywhere near me to drive cars to their limit and if there was, I am certainly in no position to throw a $70000 plus motor car around a track, if any one else is in that position to do so, good on ya, you deserve everything you get!

[Jase_Boss]

Great unbiased article, concisely stating how the test was carried out and put forward the facts about both cars. As a GTF owner very happy with the results (even though I didn’t win) as the article showed both cars are a great tribute to the final series of Australian built muscle.

[futura]

I hope EVO magazine repeats this test with using autos? Will be great to have both manual and auto time comparisons.

Holden GTS may have won the manual drag strip challenge but the times are so close it all comes down to the driver. For the general public, Whoever can peddle there Manual vehicle best wins the drag strip battle. As noted in the article, a number of passes were aborted due to missed gears.

Bring on the Auto drag strip challenge.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by futura

I hope EVO magazine repeats this test with using autos? Will be great to have both manual and auto time comparisons.

Holden GTS may have won the manual drag strip challenge but the times are so close it all comes down to the driver. For the general public, Whoever can peddle there Manual vehicle best wins the drag strip battle. As noted in the article, a number of passes were aborted due to missed gears.

Bring on the Auto drag strip challenge.

It wouldn't actually surprise me if the automatic was quicker. I managed around 4.6 in the GT F a couple of weeks back on a fairly average road with one attempt.

Given that the ZF 6-speed is such a slick shifter, with a bit of talent and effort I'd say it could do better than the Evo time.

Vid of the run for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpSm_iiRuzQ

[701let]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Difference in a straight line is so small it's barely worth debating. OTOH the other thread where they track tested them both and the GTS was 2.3 seconds quicker around a short track and wherein the reviewer noted all the extra equipment in the GTS tells you what you get for your extra $17,000.

Exactly. 17k isn't a lot when you look at what else you get. I mean what would the brakes alone be worth on a gts?

[Chopped]

Goes to show how good the R-Spec still is and whether those extra kws in the GT-F actually make a difference.

I can't help but feel that HSV will do a limited edition GTS-R for their last hurrah.

Anyway who cares, what an epic era we got to experience with Aussie Muscle cars.
They may soon be gone but they will never be forgotten.

[hootar]

$17000 buys ya a fair few performance enhancers so I would expect a GTS to be quicker around corners. But whats to say that its actualy 2.3 secs quicker.

I mean if the other Mag writers couldn't drive a GTF quick in a straight line what's to say they can drive it quick around a track.

If in wheels/motors eyes it looses .5 of a second on every straight and there are 4 straights then that makes it only .3 of a second slower on all those corners. Now if it had 5 straights then that's a new ball game. so far we have had wheels and a HSV driver test times on a track. That says a lot for credibility of their story.

Yes im playing with times and yes I expect the GTS to win but as Evo has pointed out it may be by a narrower margin then other Magazines have lead us to believe.

Both car makers have done a great job on their flagship cars. IMO Fords engineers have done a great job on a Shoe String budget.