Motor XR8 Vs VF Redline Drag Race

GTPete · 11-11-2015, 04:29 PM

http://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/ne...dCEC?li=AA8ewQ

**kypez** · 11-11-2015, 04:32 PM

I dont think this warranted another thread!

Post here (as has already been done!)

http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11441767

GTPete · 11-11-2015, 04:44 PM

Feel free to ignore it.

FGX335 · 12-11-2015, 12:07 PM

Sorry bud, but "Commodore 304kw" thread is not somewhere I would trawl through to possibly find this. New thread seems justifiable to me.

**PridenJoy** · 12-11-2015, 02:25 PM

Strong headwind alright.

chopstar87 · 12-11-2015, 02:32 PM

Addition this all this XR8 vs SS 0-100 time discussions based on the Motor Test... going by the motor facebook comments by motor mag, the SS run was with out launch control as they found it launched better without it in those conditions.

Times as such doesn't matter, the gap does thou, as times will always be different every race for both vehicle, due to so so many things that can change... but on that day they raced, in the same conditions and etc, the gap was no where as big as it was between Xr8 and VF1 SS. they have closed the gap for sure with the new engine. Yes the XR8 has more POWER still.. but the SS puts it to the ground better.

Addition to this, they also managed to get 0-100 in a Fully loaded SRT of 4.3-4.5sec with the new 8speed Auto paired with the 6.4 Hemi (NA / 350kw / 637Nm) at the same strip during testing... so the times for all vehicles are what that are...

so if your like 0-100s and tech, the new SRT could be something to look at.

*also the "new" SS engine is the same engine and tune they have been using in the "Chev" SS for USA delivered vehicles

devoGT · 12-11-2015, 03:00 PM

Ford must have detuned the miami engine for the XR8 as this is the second magazine test that has produced a slow time compared to the GT.

chopstar87 · 12-11-2015, 03:11 PM

^ This could be true.... and they wouldn't have to say anything as it would still be making the 335kw claimed power, just not a much on over boost or what ever the case.

Sioso · 12-11-2015, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devoGT

Ford must have detuned the miami engine for the XR8 as this is the second magazine test that has produced a slow time compared to the GT.

It has to be detuned, when the RSpec came out it was 4.5, 4.6, 4.7.
Haven't seen many stock dyno figures for the FGX as yet, plenty of GT's were around 310 - 330rwkw mark.

AussieCJ7 · 12-11-2015, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devoGT

Ford must have detuned the miami engine for the XR8 as this is the second magazine test that has produced a slow time compared to the GT.

In this case Motor did state less than ideal conditions with strong headwind and non prepared track, so I think you can only compare the 2 cars they had on the day not in reference to previous times set

mtbkym01 · 12-11-2015, 04:49 PM

Hasn't somebody seen the profiles in WA, saying there was no difference? Can't recall where I read it though

**PepeLePew** · 12-11-2015, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtbkym01

Hasn't somebody seen the profiles in WA, saying there was no difference? Can't recall where I read it though

Dan/CAT600 did say no differences in the ECU's. But the trans appears to have GS calibrations in the autos by memory.

mtbkym01 · 13-11-2015, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Dan/CAT600 did say no differences in the ECU's. But the trans appears to have GS calibrations in the autos by memory.

Yep, that's right, I remember reading that now, maybe the manual XR8 should/could be quicker than the auto in that case.

FGX335 · 13-11-2015, 01:25 PM

The only change was the Bosch 9.0 system.

Guys, the R SPEC was 1835kg in Auto, the XR8 is 1861kg. Of course the performance won't be matched. Maybe we need a really skinny journo to run it?

rancidpunx · 13-11-2015, 01:58 PM

12.3 1/4mile and 4.3s to 100 for my Auto R-spec. The XR8 should be similar.

Sioso · 13-11-2015, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FGX335

The only change was the Bosch 9.0 system.

Guys, the R SPEC was 1835kg in Auto, the XR8 is 1861kg. Of course the performance won't be matched. Maybe we need a really skinny journo to run it?

That's only half a tank of fuel.
Half a second is missing from the XR8's 0-100km/h and 400m time, something isn't right.

Road_Warrior · 13-11-2015, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FGX335

The only change was the Bosch 9.0 system.

Guys, the R SPEC was 1835kg in Auto, the XR8 is 1861kg. Of course the performance won't be matched. Maybe we need a really skinny journo to run it?

Why the weight change, if anything it should be less? Even if only slightly

FGX335 · 13-11-2015, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Why the weight change, if anything it should be less? Even if only slightly

I'd say the Sync 2 looms, sensors front and rear, rain sensing wipers, most of it would be in looms. Can't think of anything else that would add weight between the models.

b0son · 13-11-2015, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sioso

Half a second is missing from the XR8's 0-100km/h and 400m time, something isn't right.

There was a headwind.

**Dave R** · 14-11-2015, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sioso

That's only half a tank of fuel.
Half a second is missing from the XR8's 0-100km/h and 400m time, something isn't right.

They probably ran the XR8 very hot with back to back runs measuring 0-100 and the general tomfoolery that these "reviewers" get up to. The heat wouldn't hurt the NA LS3 but without an intercooler, the PCM goes to town on the 5.0 once the temps get up there. A cynical person might suggest that the reviewers knew this too, but a close result is more interesting than the standard spanking people are used to seeing.

I've seen 12.6 out of a standard XR8, some may have gone quicker, but in general I don't expect FGX to be quite as quick as the FG equivalent due to the front end resembling a brick compared to FG's sleeker design.

**kypez** · 14-11-2015, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

They probably ran the XR8 very hot with back to back runs measuring 0-100 and the general tomfoolery that these "reviewers" get up to. The heat wouldn't hurt the NA LS3 but without an intercooler, the PCM goes to town on the 5.0 once the temps get up there. A cynical person might suggest that the reviewers knew this too, but a close result is more interesting than the standard spanking people are used to seeing.

I've seen 12.6 out of a standard XR8, some may have gone quicker, but in general I don't expect FGX to be quite as quick as the FG equivalent due to the front end resembling a brick compared to FG's sleeker design.

I believe the drag coefficient is lower on the FGX than the FG...

99AUXR · 14-11-2015, 05:42 PM

those quarter times have we not gone anywhere in the last 10 years. Read: BF|FG F6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I don't expect FGX to be quite as quick as the FG equivalent due to the front end resembling a brick.

**Dave R** · 14-11-2015, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kypez

I believe the drag coefficient is lower on the FGX than the FG...

The claim I read was that the non-performance models saw a lower cd purely because they added a larger air deflector under the car (which XR6T/XR8 did not get). The front end itself looks like a drag coefficient's worst enemy, but that's their new corporate face so it's not like they had a choice.

Sioso · 14-11-2015, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

There was a headwind.

On every single mag/internet test since the xr8 came out?
No reviewer of the XR8 has managed anything close to the GT RSpecs times and when they came out it was mid 4's from everyone who tested them.

Maybe Bricktop46 can shed some light on this for us?

shaness8 · 14-11-2015, 09:55 PM

Like to see a Xr8 against CLubsport 340kw down the 1/4 reckon it'll be close

Haven't seen a stock LS3 get into 12's