August 2016 Wheels Mag - Sprints now faster than SS-V Redline

[M&Ms]

So for those that are obsessed with magazine times, I've just been reading the August wheels magazine, and finally the Sprints record a faster time than the SS-V Redline. Interesting that the XR8 is quicker than the XR6T. Still quite close between the 6 and SS though.

If you don't want the spoiler, stop reading now. For the rest, times below:

(XR6T-S / XR8-S / SS-VR)
0-60: 2.6 / 2.5 / 2.5
0-100: 4.8 / 4.8 / 4.9
0-160: 10.2 / 9.7 / 10.7
0-200: 16.5 / 14.8 / 16.7
0-400m: 12.9@181.5 / 12.7@186.8 / 13.1@178.3
80-120: 2.5 / 2.5 / 3.0
100-0: 36.7 / 36.9 / 37.4

[Uncle_Ken]

Same its the last to see from both Ford and Holden Aussie built/made
UK

[Big_Damo]

Will keep an eye out for the mag

[Rsmedley1234]

If you don't want the spoiler, stop reading now. For the rest, times below:


(XR6T-S / XR8-S / SS-VR)
0-60: 2.6 / 2.5 / 2.5
0-100: 4.8 / 4.8 / 4.9
0-160: 10.2 / 9.7 / 10.7
0-200: 16.5 / 14.8 / 16.7
0-400m: 12.9@181.5 / 12.7@186.8 / 13.1@178.3
80-120: 2.5 / 2.5 / 3.0
100-0: 36.7 / 36.9 / 37.4[/QUOTE]

Did you mean you were posting some more info?
Those are.some of the fastest times I have seen from a Redline.

[NX74205]

I was expecting the XR6 to be quicker than the XR8.

[Rsmedley1234]

Apparently the only way to get under 5 in a Redline is 1) have perfect conditions; 2) gun drivers; & 3) Flat shift into 2nd.
Guess they had all 3

[Wretched]

Not as much in it as I would have thought.

Ok so can we confirm the following?

• Track? Was it Calder as this apparently favors the Falcon
• What were the age of tyres fitted to the Falcons?
• How many KM had each car done?
• How much fuel was in each car? Falcons need 3/4 tank.
• How many runs did they do and what was the length of time between them? Falcon needs a breather between each.
• Track temperature?

[M&Ms]

All three cars were auto, SS has much closer gearing than the Falcons which gives it a little boost in performance. I reckon swap the gear ratios between them, and the Fords will be doing 4.4 secs, the Holden 5.4.

[arronm]

I would expect a turbo and a supercharged car to be faster, would be something wrong if they weren't.

[stazza]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Not as much in it as I would have thought.

Ok so can we confirm the following?

• Track? Was it Calder as this apparently favors the Falcon
• What were the age of tyres fitted to the Falcons?
• How many KM had each car done?
• How much fuel was in each car? Falcons need 3/4 tank.
• How many runs did they do and what was the length of time between them? Falcon needs a breather between each.
• Track temperature?

For once I agree with this guy. The amount of carry on in the Sprint thread is ridiculous considering we all know magazines always get **** times in Falcons. And people always come up with these excuses.

[208260]

Originally Posted by arronm

I would expect a turbo and a supercharged car to be faster, would be something wrong if they weren't.

But hasn't it been said in the past "There is no replacement for displacement"!
Falcon Sprints turbo six is about 36 percent smaller capacity than The 6.2 litre SSV Redline.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by Rsmedley1234

If you don't want the spoiler, stop reading now. For the rest, times below:


(XR6T-S / XR8-S / SS-VR)
0-200: 16.5 / 14.8 / 16.7

Wow almost 2 second difference 0-200 between XR8 S and the rest- bigger difference than I expected....

[Struggo]

3 Great Cars

3 Great Times

3 Great Aussie Legends

[Adamz Ghia]

The whole Ford v Holden thing died for me in year 10. Probably grew up. They're all Aussie legends, never to be replaced. We should all enjoy them while we can.

[208260]

Originally Posted by asagaai

Wow almost 2 second difference 0-200 between XR8 S and the rest- bigger difference than I expected....

Yes that certainly is! The Xr8 Sprint would reach 200 kms/hr at 411.11 metres while the SSV Redline would take 463.88 metres to reach 200 kms/hr in that test.
That's a 52.77 metre advantage for the XR8 Sprint, about 12 car lengths.

[arronm]

As you go faster it takes more power to push the car through the air.

Slippery and powerful cars go fastest

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by arronm

As you go faster it takes more power to push the car through the air.

Slippery and powerful cars go fastest

Both the last commodore and last falcon have terribly blunt noses, with imaginably bad aerodynamics. Wondering what the times would be if these drivetrains had been fitted to bodies with aero like the VT and AU.

[XR6Runner]

Wow those NA V8 commodores really do go don't they! Shows how good that engine is, to be able to easily keep pace with a turbo 6 and supercharged 8!

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

Wow those NA V8 commodores really do go don't they! Shows how good that engine is, to be able to easily keep pace with a turbo 6 and supercharged 8!

I don't think it is the engine as much as it is the chassis that utilises the power better.

[FPV6]

Ah 6.2 litre N/A or not its a big motor

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by FPV6

Ah 6.2 litre N/A or not its a big motor

Which is probably why it took the longest distance to pull up on the brakes from 100kph.

[FPV6]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Which is probably why it took the longest distance to pull up on the brakes from 100kph.

it was the argument I was having with the Holden mates, hard to be friend with Holden fans

The fact we are talking about the capacity of whole 1.2 litres over the ford and there argument still is that its SC News flash the supercharger is barely blowing a fart in to that 5 litre

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by arronm

As you go faster it takes more power to push the car through the air.

Slippery and powerful cars go fastest

It is a balancing act - F1 cars are pretty fast but run high downforce.
How is that Tatra 77 from 1933 , pretty advanced aero for the time :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automo...ag_coefficient

[Express]

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Both the last commodore and last falcon have terribly blunt noses, with imaginably bad aerodynamics. Wondering what the times would be if these drivetrains had been fitted to bodies with aero like the VT and AU.

I'll think you'll find both have better aero than previous models. Don't just go on what it looks like.

[FPV6]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'll think you'll find both have better aero than previous models. Don't just go on what it looks like.

agree

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'll think you'll find both have better aero than previous models. Don't just go on what it looks like.

The thing that strikes me with the new nose is putting aesthetics to one side, there is a vast amount of clean direct air access into the front radiators, and the separation panel between the upper and lower intake cowlings is very narrow.

I suspect that the copious direct air flow into the front radiators will have a beneficial effect on engine cooling and operation of an intercooler radiator (both in the turbos and in the Supercharged 8's).

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by asagaai

Wow almost 2 second difference 0-200 between XR8 S and the rest- bigger difference than I expected....

Superior top-end power of the Miami at play I believe

[lucas2]

Despite displacement, the LS3 weighs similar to the turbo Barra (~200kg) and lighter than the Miami (~240kg+). Should the LS3 be compared by power per liter or power per kg? That could open another can of worms.

[Bent8]

These numbers explain why the Miami pulls away by 200kph.

XR8 Sprint - 286hp/tonne

XR6 Sprint - 273hp/tonne

SSV Redline - 232hp/tonne