FG FPV GT Rspec vs VF HSV GTS by MOTOR Mag

[XBGTFGGTP]

[QUOTE=Rodge;5093060]Hemi, Yeap, decent tyres make quite a difference...go with the Michelin Pilot Super Sports or Goodyear Asymmetic 2's like I had....you're a wealthy guy so i'd go with the Michelins despite them being a lot more expensive...absolutly incredible grip in the dry and i'm sure you'd really enjoy them....I know the same guy, small world eh.

GTS has a far more robust driveline...proper supportive seats e.t.c.e.t.c. the list goes on and on and on.

People were saying the Chrysler would be a heap of shyte and incredibly unreliable too....funny thing is its not, (early days though) and its not drinking oil like a fish like Wolfie was either...

Ritchie, hmmm, that looks tasty but the Walkingshaw 509 or is it 506 ? package with 900 nm's looks more attractive seeing as you have a long established name augmenting the HSV warranty. Thing is I reckon the driveline will be durable with 900 nm's in the HSV but OTOH good luck with your ZF transmission...

40RDT - Same car...those were pretty close to the times last time wern't they...engine may be a bit more run

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

I'm over the whole "Jandals" thing but have to wonder how the Kiwis get such fast times. Be interesting if that mob get a hold of one of the GT-F that are heading to Un Zud

The power/weight of the HSV should make 4.13 easily achievable I'd say, as long as there was enough grip and of course that's often the problem. I understand the new AWD Mercedes - Benz E63 AMG S (430 kW & 800 Nm) is supposed to be capable of 3.6 to 100 kph.

On the subject of testing cars, you and others might be interested in Car and Drivers testing methods.
They seem to be thorough, but they have been correcting their acceleration times for weather.

See the U tube Video
How Car and Driver Tests Cars' Acceleration, Braking, Handling

[Sorted]

I saw a HSV GTS 430KW at the Drags @ Heathcote on 04/05/2014
I was very impressed with its 14 sec 1/4 mile time & 1.98 60 foot lol
Vid here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LqGZzNLhwI

[Rodge]

^^ If you look hard and long enough you'll always find a bunny who couldn't drive a car into a barn door if their life depended on it...
In independent testing in N.Z. Autocar N.Z's time of 4.13 seconds 0-100 for the GTS compares to best times by the same testers of 5.13 seconds for a SC GT and the GTS time also betters their own testing of the current model BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz E63 S.
Wheels testing had a GTS beating the E63 S on the track too.

[XBGTFGGTP]

Originally Posted by Rodge

^^ If you look hard and long enough you'll always find a bunny who couldn't drive a car into a barn door if their life depended on it...
In independent testing in N.Z. Autocar N.Z's time of 4.13 seconds 0-100 for the GTS compares to best times by the same testers of 5.13 seconds for a SC GT and the GTS time also betters their own testing of the current model BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz E63 S.
Wheels testing had a GTS beating the E63 S on the track too.

Lots of different factors to being consistent in racing cars especially Rodge, especially drag racing. From most reports I've seen only a few people seem to have got super duper world class crushing times out of these tech loaded super space ships. Says to me they are either hard to get going or the cars that do these times must have been lovingly put together with the greatest of care to achieve these super human automotive feats.

When on the other hand how many tune only budget kit SC V8 cars can stick with them in a straight line. Something don't stack up.

[Rodge]

Best time anyone seems to have got with an R Spec with the wider but still pretty bloody hopeless Dunslops is about 4.6 seconds ? from memory.

I don't have any difficulty believing that a GTS with heaps more torque, a much higher calibre set of tyres, specially callibrated launch control and a stronger driveline, (read lack of axle tramp) and tighter track suspension settings can get the power down better and get a few tenths better than the best time of an R Spec.

What's a Jaguar XFR with ZF 8 speed, (best time Autocar N.Z. 4.60 seconds) and an R Spec got in common other than their 0-100 time ?...they both use Dunslop tyres...whereas BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz E 63 and HSV GTS are all wearing far higher calibre rubber and all getting into the low 4's. Its all about getting the power down IMO.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Sorted

I saw a HSV GTS 430KW at the Drags @ Heathcote on 04/05/2014
I was very impressed with its 14 sec 1/4 mile time & 1.98 60 foot lol
Vid here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LqGZzNLhwI

Someone obviously needs some driving lessons lol

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Rodge

^^ If you look hard and long enough you'll always find a bunny who couldn't drive a car into a barn door if their life depended on it...
In independent testing in N.Z. Autocar N.Z's time of 4.13 seconds 0-100 for the GTS compares to best times by the same testers of 5.13 seconds for a SC GT and the GTS time also betters their own testing of the current model BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz E63 S.
Wheels testing had a GTS beating the E63 S on the track too.

Speaking of Wheels magazine here is a bit of insight from John Bowe after comparing the E63 S AMG and the GTS back to back

http://youtu.be/at46KJLmLXc

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Best time anyone seems to have got with an R Spec with the wider but still pretty bloody hopeless Dunslops is about 4.6 seconds ? from memory.

I don't have any difficulty believing that a GTS with heaps more torque, a much higher calibre set of tyres, specially callibrated launch control and a stronger driveline, (read lack of axle tramp) and tighter track suspension settings can get the power down better and get a few tenths better than the best time of an R Spec.

What's a Jaguar XFR with ZF 8 speed, (best time Autocar N.Z. 4.60 seconds) and an R Spec got in common other than their 0-100 time ?...they both use Dunslop tyres...whereas BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz E 63 and HSV GTS are all wearing far higher calibre rubber and all getting into the low 4's. Its all about getting the power down IMO.

4.4s here bud. 10000ks on the clock with the factory dunlops.
Also the GTS launch control is the same as the RSpec. Its activated using the performance dial in certain modes and is more so just traction control limiting torque until full traction is achieved using factory preset variables.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Rodge

^^ If you look hard and long enough you'll always find a bunny who couldn't drive a car into a barn door if their life depended on it...
In independent testing in N.Z. Autocar N.Z's time of 4.13 seconds 0-100 for the GTS compares to best times by the same testers of 5.13 seconds for a SC GT and the GTS time also betters their own testing of the current model BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz E63 S.
Wheels testing had a GTS beating the E63 S on the track too.

There's no doubt driving ability can have a big effect Rodge, but unfortunately the 0 - 100 times don't tell us how these cars performed after the initial launch phase. As we know different grip levels can throw up varying results and the HSV would be very good at making the most of the available grip, perhaps slightly higher grip levels might have made the other cars look a lot better.
It's a pity AUTOCAR NZ doesn't give more data so that readers can get a better idea of rolling acceleration. Even times to 60 kph, 100 and a 400 metre time with the end speed would tell us a lot more I think. Even giving the 0 - 120 times in 10 or 20 k increments would be very helpful.
Why not ask them to start giving more data.
I guess it takes a good car to get to 100 quickly, but good cars don't always get to 100 in a good time.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

4.4s here bud. 10000ks on the clock with the factory dunlops.
Also the GTS launch control is the same as the RSpec. Its activated using the performance dial in certain modes and is more so just traction control limiting torque until full traction is achieved using factory preset variables.

Wondering was that at a sticky drag strip? Because if it wasn't, you can take a few tenths off that time with better tyres and track grip! Even just better tyres will see you near the FASTEST GTS times at the track. And your flogging all the rest that are recording bests of 4.6-4.8s aswell.
Only two cars have been below 4.3 from 'memory'.....both at the drags and one in cooler nz.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Wondering was that at a sticky drag strip? Because if it wasn't, you can take a few tenths off that time with better tyres and track grip! Even just better tyres will see you near the FASTEST GTS times at the track. And your flogging all the rest that are recording bests of 4.6-4.8s aswell.
Only two cars have been below 4.3 from 'memory'.....both at the drags and one in cooler nz.

Private road mate
The video is in my build thread, links in my sig.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Wondering was that at a sticky drag strip? Because if it wasn't, you can take a few tenths off that time with better tyres and track grip! Even just better tyres will see you near the FASTEST GTS times at the track. And your flogging all the rest that are recording bests of 4.6-4.8s aswell.
Only two cars have been below 4.3 from 'memory'.....both at the drags and one in cooler nz.

I think both the 4.1's that Autocar NZ got weren't at a drag strip, you would to confirm with Rodge though.

[XBGTFGGTP]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Best time anyone seems to have got with an R Spec with the wider but still pretty bloody hopeless Dunslops is about 4.6 seconds ? from memory.

I don't have any difficulty believing that a GTS with heaps more torque, a much higher calibre set of tyres, specially callibrated launch control and a stronger driveline, (read lack of axle tramp) and tighter track suspension settings can get the power down better and get a few tenths better than the best time of an R Spec.

What's a Jaguar XFR with ZF 8 speed, (best time Autocar N.Z. 4.60 seconds) and an R Spec got in common other than their 0-100 time ?...they both use Dunslop tyres...whereas BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz E 63 and HSV GTS are all wearing far higher calibre rubber and all getting into the low 4's. Its all about getting the power down IMO.

Interesting Rodge, Phil's white GT ran a 12.4 stock 400m, and others have similar times so they must be able to put some power down.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

I think both the 4.1's that Autocar NZ got weren't at a drag strip, you would to confirm with Rodge though.

I swear we need a couple of site hampsters just runnin numbers sometimes lol

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

4.4s here bud. 10000ks on the clock with the factory dunlops.
Also the GTS launch control is the same as the RSpec. Its activated using the performance dial in certain modes and is more so just traction control limiting torque until full traction is achieved using factory preset variables.

Good time mate, gotta be happy with that on Dunslops.

Originally Posted by 2242100

There's no doubt driving ability can have a big effect Rodge, but unfortunately the 0 - 100 times don't tell us how these cars performed after the initial launch phase. As we know different grip levels can throw up varying results and the HSV would be very good at making the most of the available grip, perhaps slightly higher grip levels might have made the other cars look a lot better.
It's a pity AUTOCAR NZ doesn't give more data so that readers can get a better idea of rolling acceleration. Even times to 60 kph, 100 and a 400 metre time with the end speed would tell us a lot more I think. Even giving the 0 - 120 times in 10 or 20 k increments would be very helpful.
Why not ask them to start giving more data.
I guess it takes a good car to get to 100 quickly, but good cars don't always get to 100 in a good time.

I've always taken more interest in the 80-120 times TBH, more representative of how they go in real world driving. GTS is 2.29 seconds, very similar to M Benz E63S and BMW M5 and SC GT is lineball with Jaguar XFR at 2.51 seconds. Any of these cars or for that matter my new SRT8 are as quick as you can realistically use on normal public roads so as far as i'm concerned it comes down to handling, features, technology, suspension, brakes and comfort and perhaps most importantly getting the best mix of these for your dollars.

Originally Posted by 40RDT

I think both the 4.1's that Autocar NZ got weren't at a drag strip, you would to confirm with Rodge though.

They don't hire drag strips normally mate.

Originally Posted by XBGTFGGTP

Interesting Rodge, Phil's white GT ran a 12.4 stock 400m, and others have similar times so they must be able to put some power down.

They go well in a straight line when you can get traction.

[XBGTFGGTP]

Need to see a few more GTS slips to really see what times are achievable by everyday drivers. As far as I am concerned the car on paper may have the potential to so call dust a Miami but from what I seen their isn't a lot of slips to back it up.

Hence again I question what cars are Holden providing to testers (esp Autocar) to achieve these times? I would think that most owners of these cars should be more than capable of running some times and know how to drive them by now, when the poor lowly budget packed GT in various owners hands can come up with the goods straight off the floor.?????????

[Rodge]

Keep in mind Hemi that the measured fully fuelled weight of a GTS is circa 100 kg's lighter than the E63S and BMW M5 that Autocar N.Z. tested...all making making about the same power so the GTS being a tenth or two quicker appears to add up in that comparitive regard. Havn't spent any time of the LS1 forum so not too sure what people are saying they're getting but TBH its track times and comments like those of vastly experienced John Bowe about the GTS that impress me...gives an indication of how good they are in the real world, heaps of corners around Titirangi mate.
Too expensive and burn too much fuel for my liking though.

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Also the GTS launch control is the same as the RSpec. Its activated using the performance dial in certain modes and is more so just traction control limiting torque until full traction is achieved using factory preset variables.

I was actually wondering about the launch control in the Rspec. Is it a separate module to the traction control in the standard GT? Or is it simply part of the tune/engine management? I.e. is it something us regular GT owners could get for our beasts?

[Jymbo]

Originally Posted by Jymbo

I currently own an F6 (black, auto) and have a GTS (white, auto) on order. When it arrives and I've thrown 1000km's on the clock I'll run some timed comparisons. I have a Racelogic Performance Box that I've used to check the improvements mods have made to the F6 over the years.
She currently runs at 350rwkw & sits on 275's at the rear. Should be an interesting test.

I'll get 0-60, 0-100 & 80-120.....and post back in a month or so when I've done it.

Already, the best I have gotten out of the F6 is 0-100 in 3.9. But with the 1ft rollout enabled (forgot to switch it off)....without it enabled...probably would be 4.1.
Keep in mind, this was with a passenger in the car on a country highway....

I know its not a stock vs stock comparison. But if I put my winter tune onto the F6 (roughly 300rwkw) it'll make for a pretty close power to weight shootout.

To finish off. I'll then pick either the Harrop or KPM mods out there and make the GTS pump out an extra 100kw and see how her times improve.

Ok, an update. I got my GTS this week. Overall, very nice to drive. Doesn't crash through every little bump like my F6 does....HUD, heated seats, Voice Control is all pretty good.

Have done a few runs starting from the side of a highway. Best so far:

Km/h Time Distance
10 0.45 0.64
20 0.88 2.46
30 1.38 5.92
40 1.84 10.38
50 2.25 15.51
60 2.72 22.67
70 3.18 31.00
80 3.66 41.08
90 4.16 52.86
100 4.76 68.73

Feel there's at least 3 more tenths to squeeze out it out. Launching a bit soft. I'm used to the F6 where I have to really feed the power in gently.

Tomorrow I'll try and get a few runs back to back with the F6 and post the results.

[Rodge]

Congrats on your new GTS and pretty good times for a brand new green engine although I managed a 4.80 in my SRT8 without launch control (mega wheelspin throughout the run), on a green engine so that's a little comparitive perspective for ya and if I find some better traction like you I feel there's a few tenths to come off Not much between any of these cars in a staright line but I know which one would thump the others on the track and it's yours. GTS is a fantastic bit of kit if you can afford it and the fuel bills that go with it.

[Jymbo]

Thanks mate. Yeah the fuel usage is pretty high lol. The F6 with all that power still would average 13l/100 in not very conservative suburban driving. GTS is telling me about 19l/100....but then its new so the right foot is going to be feeling heavy more often :-)

P.S In my earlier post I said I'd wait till I'd racked up 1000km/s before doing speed comparisons.....well, turned out I could only wait 150km's before I thought the time was right :-)

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Jymbo

Thanks mate. Yeah the fuel usage is pretty high lol. The F6 with all that power still would average 13l/100 in not very conservative suburban driving. GTS is telling me about 19l/100....but then its new so the right foot is going to be feeling heavy more often :-)

P.S In my earlier post I said I'd wait till I'd racked up 1000km/s before doing speed comparisons.....well, turned out I could only wait 150km's before I thought the time was right :-)

Lol! Keep those numbers coming

[Jymbo]

Originally Posted by Jymbo

Ok, an update. I got my GTS this week. Overall, very nice to drive. Doesn't crash through every little bump like my F6 does....HUD, heated seats, Voice Control is all pretty good.

Have done a few runs starting from the side of a highway. Best so far:

Km/h Time Distance
10 0.45 0.64
20 0.88 2.46
30 1.38 5.92
40 1.84 10.38
50 2.25 15.51
60 2.72 22.67
70 3.18 31.00
80 3.66 41.08
90 4.16 52.86
100 4.76 68.73

Feel there's at least 3 more tenths to squeeze out it out. Launching a bit soft. I'm used to the F6 where I have to really feed the power in gently.

Tomorrow I'll try and get a few runs back to back with the F6 and post the results.

UPDATE:

Got a set of times for both GTS and F6 today. FYI, I put the 300rwkw tune onto the F6 to make it more fair, power to weight wise.

F6--------------------GTS

Speed Time--------Speed Time

10.00 0.48-----------10.00 0.35
20.00 0.94-----------20.00 0.71
30.00 1.44-----------30.00 1.13
40.00 1.86-----------40.00 1.58
50.00 2.30-----------50.00 2.07
60.00 2.75-----------60.00 2.48
70.00 3.19-----------70.00 2.92
80.00 3.68-----------80.00 3.41
90.00 4.23-----------90.00 3.87
100.00 4.70 ---------100.00 4.41


In all fairness, the F6 feels quicker. I was really struggling to get it to hook up. I think with some new stickier tires it would beat the GTS...even with the less powerful tune I set it on.

[BENT_8]

Whats the go with the 90-100 splits?

The split times favour the GTS in almost every sector, until the last split where the GTS blows out by .07 over the F6.

Looking at the numbers the GTS should have pulled a low to mid 4.3, not bad on a green engine I'd have thought.

You sure you didn't lift off early in the GTS.....

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Jymbo

UPDATE:

Got a set of times for both GTS and F6 today. FYI, I put the 300rwkw tune onto the F6 to make it more fair, power to weight wise.

F6--------------------GTS

Speed Time--------Speed Time

10.00 0.48-----------10.00 0.35
20.00 0.94-----------20.00 0.71
30.00 1.44-----------30.00 1.13
40.00 1.86-----------40.00 1.58
50.00 2.30-----------50.00 2.07
60.00 2.75-----------60.00 2.48
70.00 3.19-----------70.00 2.92
80.00 3.68-----------80.00 3.41
90.00 4.23-----------90.00 3.87
100.00 4.70 ---------100.00 4.41


In all fairness, the F6 feels quicker. I was really struggling to get it to hook up. I think with some new stickier tires it would beat the GTS...even with the less powerful tune I set it on.

4.41 is a good time to 100 but I'm particularly impressed by the cars rolling acceleration from 70 to 100 where traction should not be an issue. I note that your time is 1.49 compared to the 1.67 time that HSV managed in the February 2014 issue of MOTOR Magazine. The other cars times on the test were:-
Audi RS 6 - 1.44
BMW M5 - 1.38
Jaguar XFR-Sv - 1.61
Mercedes AMG E63 S - 1.51
Also Drive.com.au got a 0 - 60 time of 2.26 for the Auto HSV test car on what was an obviously grippy surface at WSID. So adding your 1.93 sec 60 to 100 time to that points to the possibility of something like a 4.19 which is close to the 4.13 sec time that Rodge spoke of and your cars engine would still be a bit tight I'd expect. Certainly impressive.
I've got something to add about the accuracy of our Performance Boxes but I will follow up with that shortly because the system seems to only accept short posts.

[Jymbo]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Whats the go with the 90-100 splits?

The split times favour the GTS in almost every sector, until the last split where the GTS blows out by .07 over the F6.

Looking at the numbers the GTS should have pulled a low to mid 4.3, not bad on a green engine I'd have thought.

You sure you didn't lift off early in the GTS.....

I took them both to about 120 before I lifted off. The difference in 90-100 split would be that the F6 struggled to get traction until about 80km/h. I kicked myself afterwards. Thinking, if I took them both to 140km/h it would more than likely show the F6 in front once it had well and truly got its power down.

If I get the chance, I'll give them another crack tomorrow and take them to a speed where the F6 might have the advantage of traction

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Jymbo

UPDATE:

Got a set of times for both GTS and F6 today. FYI, I put the 300rwkw tune onto the F6 to make it more fair, power to weight wise.

F6--------------------GTS

Speed Time--------Speed Time

10.00 0.48-----------10.00 0.35
20.00 0.94-----------20.00 0.71
30.00 1.44-----------30.00 1.13
40.00 1.86-----------40.00 1.58
50.00 2.30-----------50.00 2.07
60.00 2.75-----------60.00 2.48
70.00 3.19-----------70.00 2.92
80.00 3.68-----------80.00 3.41
90.00 4.23-----------90.00 3.87
100.00 4.70 ---------100.00 4.41


In all fairness, the F6 feels quicker. I was really struggling to get it to hook up. I think with some new stickier tires it would beat the GTS...even with the less powerful tune I set it on.

Now to continue on about the accuracy of our Performance Boxes, I ran my standard and untuned Auto XR6 Turbo at WSID last Wednesday week and I was able to check my Performance Boxes accuracy against the Dragstrip timing gear from 60 feet on.
A couple of people questioned the accuracy of my unit in the "re. Confusion over VS 0 -100 times" thread but they are quite accurate as I found out.

Run 1 - 2.026 sec 60 foot time. Then 10.705 sec to the end. Performance Box time was 10.700 sec. It only measures to the nearest hundredth so that's only thousandths of a second out. 12.731 for the quarter was on the Dragstrip timeslip and the car was launched in second gear with a 2100 -2200 rpm stall up. 0 - 100 kph took 4.85 secs in second gear.

Run 2 - 1.934 sec 60 foot. Then 10.575 to the end. Performance Box said 10.600 so it was around 2.5 hundredths pessimistic, still very close though.
Dragstrip timeslip was 12.509 SECONDS for that run. Car was launched in first gear (Drive) but with about 300 less rpm stall up. Interestingly the 0 - 40 time was only 3 hundredths faster than with the second gear launch (1.61 vs 1.64 sec) and there was no wheelspin in either case, so it shows just how effective the extra 300 revs of stall up can be if the grip is available. The 0 - 100 kph time was 4.62 seconds.

Run 3 - Stall up was a bit higher which caused wheelspin. 12.841 time and the Performance box was 3.7 hundredths pessimistic (just over one third of a percent).

Run 4 - Performance Box was around 12 thousandths of a second pessimistic, certainly close for a unit that only costs around $600.

So it's got the above mentioned level of accuracy and you don't get the 2 to 4 tenths of rollout that you can get at the Dragstrip.

[BLOHSV]

I drove my customers GTS the other day it's tuned by harrop made 460rwkw and to be honest I was very impressed handling, grip and the brakes were outstanding you feel like you have full control love the interior and very advanced in the tech department in terms of features the only thing though when nailing through 1st and 2nd it felt so long to get to the limiter but once it gets in the higher gears it was like a bullet the torque was outstanding 1000nm by the way my GT with 400rwkw feels like in the lower gears it gets to the limiter much quicker than the GTS maybe because it's frying the tyres but I think with same tyre setup the GT would definitely give the GTS a belting but then over 100km/h the GTS would eat the GT but you would expect that from a bigger cube V8 anyway in terms of tech handling brakes and grip the GTS will eat it up but I feel that the 5.0l is a better engine but I feel the GT's chassis can't handle the power I've been thinking go all out and spend 25k on things like wheels, engine and suspension but it will never have the same advanced tech as the GTS my customer is busting my chops to buy the GTS ha ha and we also went for a cruise on some winding roads one weekend and he left me for dead should of taken the R35 out but I wanted it to be a FPV & GTS drive anyway well done to HSV for building such an awesome car giving the customers what they want might park one of those in my driveway well worth the coin sorry for draining it

[graphicgoose]

Would be interesting to compare the GTS to a GT with, say, a Shockworks coilover setup, some Harrop ultimates or AP Racing brakes and some decent tyres. Be on a more level playing field at which point. I don't doubt the GTS is a great car, I just think the GT has a bit of a handicap.