More power for Australia's fastest car - Page 6

1TUFFUTE · 01-07-2015, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

LOl, its just an article man, who knows wether its accurate or not, it certainly holds no more weight than the first article at this stage.
But your not concerned with the first article because that suggests a power increase and isnt what you want to believe...

again.....wow. I never said that the latest article was fact

I was hypothesising if what the article mentioned actually came true.

I don't get you.

1TUFFUTE · 01-07-2015, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick74GT

not to go too far off topic here but wouldn't a fairer comparison to say which is 'the most powerful' be to run up both motors on an engine dyno?

I mean the HSV has a very heavy duty drivetrain, and the losses would certainly be a lot higher. So wouldn't the only true way to prove this be on an engine dyno?

For what its worth as others have said true buyers and enthusiasts from either camp don't buy these because on a dyno run one ran up 10 more KW than the other. Titles and bragging rights like this are more for the one eyed die hards.

Probably...maybe....but I doubt it. Where do you stop? That's why people dyno the end product. It's also why the GTS in the real world is faster as it's got better tyres,suspension and a better power curve. Maybe it needs all those things to put its power down on the dyno even

. Engine dynos only show an engines efficiency. But I'm no professional.

701let · 01-07-2015, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Probably...maybe....but I doubt it. Where do you stop? That's why people dyno the end product. It's also why the GTS in the real world is faster as it's got better tyres,suspension and a better power curve. Maybe it needs all those things to put its power down on the dyno even

. Engine dynos only show an engines efficiency. But I'm no professional.

I'm trying to understand your way of thinking.

Tell me this. If the next club sport comes out supercharged at 400kw and with the standard HSV diff and drivetrain pumps out more power on a dyno (even if just a peak power figure for a couple hundred rpm) than a GTS or GTF would you say that it is the most powerful Aussie muscle car produced?

shaness8 · 01-07-2015, 11:00 PM

Seen a GTS run 12.4 down the 1/4 at Calder heard a guy on the HSV forum ran 12.1 anyone taken a stock GTF out to the drags.

1TUFFUTE · 02-07-2015, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 701let

I'm trying to understand your way of thinking.

Tell me this. If the next club sport comes out supercharged at 400kw and with the standard HSV diff and drivetrain pumps out more power on a dyno (even if just a peak power figure for a couple hundred rpm) than a GTS or GTF would you say that it is the most powerful Aussie muscle car produced?

Dam right I would.
Because then the public, the buyers and even the media have something to go off. The most Powerfull Aus car is judged on a dyno.....not a fickle meaningless badge or an "engine

dyno". It's the dyno. If the last iteration of the GTS comes out with a 350 badge and out dynos a 351GTF then it will gain the title of Australia's most powerful muscle car.

it can have ten turbos and be un driveable if you like....as long as it's hitting More power it gets the title. But atm it doesn't.

1TUFFUTE · 02-07-2015, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaness8

Seen a GTS run 12.4 down the 1/4 at Calder heard a guy on the HSV forum ran 12.1 anyone taken a stock GTF out to the drags.

Ford has said on unprepped surfaces it's achieved 4.5 for 0-100.......Mid12s for the 1/4 and Low 14s 0-200.

I remember at least a few instances of these numbers being repeated(not sure if they were at the drags tho) if not the obvious tenth or two can be expected to be shaved off those numbers.

Those numbers will eventually be beaten as rare 351s eventually make it to the track....hopefully with non factory rubber on, and run in motors. Not to mention I'm pretty sure there's examples of GT335s doing similiar numbers to these!

1TUFFUTE · 02-07-2015, 01:21 AM

Just did a quick refresher on some times.....
Plenty of "GT335"s were running 12.4 with stock rubber and low Kays. Add the Rspec gear tuned to the 351 and I'd say low 4s and low 12s will happen easily at some point.
Oh and stock GT335s dynoed anywhere between 310 and 350rwkws. And some wonder why fans and ford baulked at the lame 306rwkws they got in the first (as of yet still unexplained) GTF v GTS test

LoudPipes · 02-07-2015, 02:15 AM

Struth, somebody’s got a bee in their bonnet.

mick74GT · 02-07-2015, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Just did a quick refresher on some times.....
Plenty of "GT335"s were running 12.4 with stock rubber and low Kays. Add the Rspec gear tuned to the 351 and I'd say low 4s and low 12s will happen easily at some point.
Oh and stock GT335s dynoed anywhere between 310 and 350rwkws. And some wonder why fans and ford baulked at the lame 306rwkws they got in the first (as of yet still unexplained) GTF v GTS test

But there hasn't been a GTF 'with R SPec gear tuned to the 351' get low 4s and low 12s? if they were going to 'easily' get there they would have a long time ago.

You can keep hanging your hat on a dyno figure. but you are making yourself look foolish by blindly ignoring the facts that at the end of the day HSV are standing by the fact their car is 430KW. They have put their name to their product saying their vehicle produces 430KW. Ford is standing by the fact their last GT is 351KW. They are putting their name to their product saying their vehicle produces 351KW. They both measure their vehicle power by the power the motor produces at the flywheel NOT a dyno figure. That's a fact is it not?

The relevant performance times for the 2 vehicles, be it 0-100, 0-400, 80-120 etc also emphatically back those numbers up.

It is what it is. The HSV is more expensive and has had a lot more thrown at it than the GTF. So it should be the most powerful and the fastest. Doesn't diminish the fact the GTF is also a great car.

FGX335 · 02-07-2015, 08:39 AM

Hmmm, seems to me a $52,490 XR8 with a $1000 tune and some better rubber would have a pretty good chance up against a $92,990 GTS, and still have some $37,500 left in my pocket.

But I'm not naive enough to think that the GTS isn't the better all-round package - but it would damn well want to be for that sort of coin.

Make the GTS around the pricing of a Clubsport and I might start listening, but $93K is just too much to spend on a car that looks like a hot Daewoo.

**Polyal** · 02-07-2015, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick74GT

It is what it is. The HSV is more expensive and has had a lot more thrown at it than the GTF. So it should be the most powerful and the fastest. Doesn't diminish the fact the GTF is also a great car.

I thought I would bold that to emphasize how true that line is.

1TUFFUTE · 02-07-2015, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick74GT

It is what it is. The HSV is more expensive and has had a lot more thrown at it than the GTF. So it should be the most powerful and the fastest. Doesn't diminish the fact the GTF is also a great car.

......So it should be the most powerful....BUT IT ISNT
Just thought I'd correct what you missed

701let · 02-07-2015, 04:39 PM

But 430kw is more than 351kw?

futura · 02-07-2015, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 701let

But 430kw is more than 351kw?

according to the badge numbers yes!

But only a fool would believe the badge numbers

**Polyal** · 02-07-2015, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by futura

according to the badge numbers yes!

But only a fool would believe the badge numbers

Was trying not to chime in again buuuuuuuuuuuut.

There is something majorly wrong from a customers (not to mention process/governance/ethical) POV if you cant have confidence in knowing a car marketed and sold as 430kw not being more powerful than one that is 351kws.

701let · 02-07-2015, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by futura

according to the badge numbers yes!

But only a fool would believe the badge numbers

Only a fool would believe the badge number you are right.

The performance figures tend to back it up though. Only a fool would think otherwise..

nz13boy · 02-07-2015, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Was trying not to chime in again buuuuuuuuuuuut.

There is something majorly wrong from a customers (not to mention process/governance/ethical) POV if you cant have confidence in knowing a car marketed and sold as 430kw not being more powerful than one that is 351kws.

I was also, buuuutttt,

Those numbers are fwkw. Obviously. We have seen rwkw dyno figures but nobodies shown any engine Dyno figures that disprove the claims. Just a lot of jibba jabba about rwkw. Lets ignore differing driveline losses between the two.

Hsv states 430kw at the flywheel. Fpv say you get a minimum 351 @flywheel, but most of the time its more. A lot more. No ones really disproved any of those figures.

People are blabbering on about Dyno rwkw and using those figures to mock company stated fwkw figures. They are totally different. Obviously.

zilo · 02-07-2015, 05:53 PM

Who cares about what happens at redline on the tacho?

Forget the KW let's talk about the Nm...

Whitey-AMG · 02-07-2015, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilo

Who cares about what happens at redline on the tacho?

Forget the KW let's talk about the Nm...

You need both...
Look at the power curve intersection and the RPM range under the curve.
High torque alone is rubbish...tractor basically. Same as high kW and low torque is rubbish.

KW = engines ability to use power. ( work rate )
Torque = ability to work , twist , push etc.

So essentially a high KW engine will twist the crank faster and over a bigger RPM spread = faster acceleration and higher top speed over a given distance.

( apologies to the physicists if I have the terminologies wrong - in my head it makes sense anyways....

)

futura · 02-07-2015, 06:39 PM

Thinking about this again, 351 is more than 430!

3+5+1=9 > 4+3+0=7

BENT_8 · 02-07-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilo

Who cares about what happens at redline on the tacho?

Forget the KW let's talk about the Nm...

GTS...740Nm

GTF...570Nm

Game Over...

asagaai · 02-07-2015, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

You need both...
Look at the power curve intersection and the RPM range under the curve.
High torque alone is rubbish...tractor basically. Same as high kW and low torque is rubbish.

KW = engines ability to use power. ( work rate )
Torque = ability to work , twist , push etc.

So essentially a high KW engine will twist the crank faster and over a bigger RPM spread = faster acceleration and higher top speed over a given distance.

( apologies to the physicists if I have the terminologies wrong - in my head it makes sense anyways....

)

Another way is, Power = revolutions x torque

So, torque is the inherent twist force, and power is that twist force being applied at an increasing work rate by increasing revs

Whitey-AMG · 02-07-2015, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

GTS...740Nm

GTF...570Nm

Game Over...

Well...kind of.
The fact that they are so evenly matched on the road in straight line performance testing would suggest that the GTS is not utilizing all that extra torque to its full advantage. To me that means that the KW output may not be exactly what is stated...hence the dyno result.
So what we are seeing is the GTS taking initial advantage in a standing start where it is able to use the torque and then it tapers off in the top end where the GTF catches it . hence you see similar trap speeds.

Only other suggestion is that the GTS engine actually does make the claimed figures but the software is retarding power outputs at different points to keep it all from self destructing ? ( severe torque tagging )

That's enough science from me now....my head hurts.

futura · 02-07-2015, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

GTS...740Nm

GTF...570Nm

Game Over...

Again 570>740

5+7+0=12 > 7+4+0=11

Iggle Piggle · 02-07-2015, 07:28 PM

While I would like to see further from both makes before local production finishes, how perfect would it be if neither upped the ante beyond what they have given us so far...leaving this debate to rage for centuries, never resolved, keeping the rivalry alive.

Ippy289XP · 02-07-2015, 07:49 PM

[QUOTE=Bluey-GT;5428929]You need both...
Look at the power curve intersection and the RPM range under the curve.
High torque alone is rubbish...tractor basically. Same as high kW and low torque is rubbish.

This is so true, once had a 302 with around 620nm and only around 270hp.

It could tow, but it was slow.

1TUFFUTE · 03-07-2015, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Well...kind of.
The fact that they are so evenly matched on the road in straight line performance testing would suggest that the GTS is not utilizing all that extra torque to its full advantage. To me that means that the KW output may not be exactly what is stated...hence the dyno result.
So what we are seeing is the GTS taking initial advantage in a standing start where it is able to use the torque and then it tapers off in the top end where the GTF catches it . hence you see similar trap speeds.

Only other suggestion is that the GTS engine actually does make the claimed figures but the software is retarding power outputs at different points to keep it all from self destructing ? ( severe torque tagging )

That's enough science from me now....my head hurts.

It's nice to see some good quality,knowledgeable and insightful posting about this topic. It's easy to see from the different comments who knows what they're talking about, and who simply has no clue.