Gen F HSV GTS Review, 0-100 in 4.4s

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Autocar N.Z. got a best time of 4.15 seconds 0-100 and din't use a drag strip.
Quicker than the very latest 423 KW version of the BMW M5 in which they got a best time of 4.35 seconds and also quicker than the Mercedes--Benz E63 S AMG with the sport tune of 430 kw and 800 nm which they got a best time in the 4.2's somewhere, sorry can't remember the last digit.

Numbers speak for themselves in my opinion and are very impressive.

Wow so that GTS will be down around 3.8-3.9 at the drags. That's AwD supercar territory!

[Rodge]

I doubt it mate, pretty sure the boys at Autocar N.Z. would have had a lot of attempts to get that best number they got but maybe on a really cold night with a super sticky track I reckon a 4.0 may be possible.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I doubt it mate, pretty sure the boys at Autocar N.Z. would have had a lot of attempts to get that best number they got but maybe on a really cold night with a super sticky track I reckon a 4.0 may be possible.

.3 secs quicker then the Aussie average bests of 4.4. If they get 4.15 on the road then they've been going 3 tenths faster at the drags for GTS times. Seems reasonable......that's if their 4.15 is even real! Quite a few comments buy owners in forums and even utube video comments suggest even the 4.4s aren't possible! Most are hinting at 4.7-8 consistently!

[Rodge]

Never had a reason to doubt their times before and they've been around for a heck of a long time...one of the few mags that test properly with vbox timing gear. Its colder here and that could easily account for 0.25 seconds in itself.

Interestingly in the January 2014 edition they beat Audi's factory stated time for the RS6, (Audi claim 3.9 seconds for their AWD RS6) also by 0.25 seconds, the best they got was a 3.65 seconds and they specially mentioned the cooler dry weather so that blows any conspiracy theory out the window in my opinion. Worth noting that in repeated subsequent testing the best they got from the RS6 was 3.8 seconds so there's what you can get as a one-off in ideal cool dry conditioons and what's repeatable in average conditions is something slightly different.

[The Monty]

From personal experience, I wpuld reccomend that if you have anything less than 350rwkw in an fg turbo, or 425rwkw in a sc gt, your going to have a bad time against one of these. I had a run with one on track, and to 100km/h it had pulled almost a car length on me. It gained that though in the first 1/2 a second before the turbo spooled up. I was only on a 300kw tune, so I would say the 350kw tune would have been close to having it. I do not doubt these low 4 second claims one bit. Plus they look freaking awesome (see multiple on a daily basis) and they sound damn fine.

[MercuryT]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Numbers speak for themselves in my opinion and are very impressive.

Absolutely fantastic figures no question. In fact it is a very impressive package.

Regardless though, I just couldn't buy a car that looks like that for 100K.

Sort of looks like a hotted-up Hyundai or Kia - maybe it's just me though!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Never had a reason to doubt their times before and they've been around for a heck of a long time...one of the few mags that test properly with vbox timing gear. Its colder here and that could easily account for 0.25 seconds in itself.

Interestingly in the January 2014 edition they beat Audi's factory stated time for the RS6, (Audi claim 3.9 seconds for their AWD RS6) also by 0.25 seconds, the best they got was a 3.65 seconds and they specially mentioned the cooler dry weather so that blows any conspiracy theory out the window in my opinion. Worth noting that in repeated subsequent testing the best they got from the RS6 was 3.8 seconds so there's what you can get as a one-off in ideal cool dry conditioons and what's repeatable in average conditions is something slightly different.

True that rodge...I remember you mentioning those other times before in the cooler nz air. Nothing like a dose of cold air hey!

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by MercuryT

Absolutely fantastic figures no question. In fact it is a very impressive package.

Regardless though, I just couldn't buy a car that looks like that for 100K.

Sort of looks like a hotted-up Hyundai or Kia - maybe it's just me though!

I know what you're saying...there's some aspects of the look from the rear that appears to have quite a bit of Japaneese / Korean influence but some of Hyundai's latest designs don't actually look too bad IMO, (i'm thinking i45 in particular and Mazda 6 which is another not unattractive car IMO). But any way you slice and dice it we're not talking about an SRT8 "event" level of contoversy are we

[Robos F6]

Best time at the drags for a stocky is 12.2@117mph against the little AMG A45, it realed them of one after another. Saw one at calder the last time i went ran, 12.4@114mph.

I wanted to beat it in my BF F6 and did with a 11.79@120mph, 314rwkw

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Wow so that GTS will be down around 3.8-3.9 at the drags. That's AwD supercar territory!

On 350kw and semis I average 3.88 at willowbank so I dont see how this is too surprising.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by UberKnee

I have nothing against Holdens, have happily owned 3 in the past but the VFs look terrible. Somebody crashed a Cruze into the front and back of them.

Lol, every time I see a VF I keep thinking it's a look I've seen for a while. Then I remember that VF should actually have been out far, far earlier then its release date here. Therefore between some of the GM US/Asian models out earlier than VF, etc, it's styling is already too familiar and imho will date far more quickly. Cannot say too much but next Falcon won't suffer this problem.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by peaterj

Still haven't seen a GTS in the wild yet and only seen a couple of Clubsports around including this black one at work.

image

even when parked, the HSV in front...

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by burnz

even when parked, the HSV in front...

Hey Burnz! How's that big power house Diesel Cruze going? I'll bet your Cruze could beat the GT in 0-100.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by The Monty

On 350kw and semis I average 3.88 at willowbank so I dont see how this is too surprising.

It's interesting the latest February motor mag test, GTS v the euros.....they struggled to slightly best the time it set at pcoty. 4.7 to 100. They mention there's no way in the real world anyone could replicate these times with the difficulty they had out of not only the GTS, but the other hypo sedans in rwd they had. M5, XFR-S, E63 S, GTS. All these times were at a drag strip too.

The acceleration test 80-120 had the GTS at 2.6secs up to over half a sec slower then the rest. Also the higher the speed, the further the GTS lost ground on the others right up over 200klms.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

It's interesting the latest February motor mag test, GTS v the euros.....they struggled to slightly best the time it set at pcoty. 4.7 to 100. They mention there's no way in the real world anyone could replicate these times

They are wrong its already be proven that the GTS can run quicker than 4.7 seconds from 0-100 in the real world

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

It's interesting the latest February motor mag test, GTS v the euros.....they struggled to slightly best the time it set at pcoty. 4.7 to 100. They mention there's no way in the real world anyone could replicate these times with the difficulty they had out of not only the GTS, but the other hypo sedans in rwd they had. M5, XFR-S, E63 S, GTS. All these times were at a drag strip too.

The acceleration test 80-120 had the GTS at 2.6secs up to over half a sec slower then the rest. Also the higher the speed, the further the GTS lost ground on the others right up over 200klms.

Different drivers, different tracks, different times of day, weather and a whole range over other variables.
There are going to be variances from different publications for all cars due to the conditions outlined above. In the end the times have been published and all are pretty impressive.

[Chopped]

From Motor mag Feb 2014

0-100 kph
3.93 Audi RS6
4.69 HSV GTS
4.91 Merc E63S
4.95 Jag XFR-S
4.95 BMW M5

0-200 kph
12.80 Audi RS6
13.22 BMW M5
13.37 Merc E63S
14.65 Jag XFR-S
14.96 HSV GTS

80 - 120 kph
1.97 BMW M5
2.19 Audi RS6
2.31 Merc E63S
2.51 Jag XFR-S
2.60 HSV GTS

1/4 Mile
11.89 Audi RS6
12.72 Merc E63S
12.73 HSV GTS
12.87 BMW M5
12.90 Jag XFR-S

Price
$ 97,480 HSV GTS
$230,690 BMW M5
$232,865 Jag XFR-S
$249,545 Merc E63S
$253,040 Audi RS6

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

They are wrong its already be proven that the GTS can run quicker than 4.7 seconds from 0-100 in the real world

They aren't 'wrong'. They just didn't have the same car or the same perfect surroundings, such as the cool nz air to run as quick as it has before.
These are times run at a drag strip too.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

They aren't 'wrong'. They just didn't have the same car or the same perfect surroundings, such as the cool nz air to run as quick as it has before.
These are times run at a drag strip too.

Yeah I misunderstood at first, what they are trying to say is that there is no way to replicate the times that they were able to achieve in testing in the real world (strip v street) not that there is no way to get a quicker time than 4.7 from 0-100

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Chopped

From Motor mag Feb 2014

0-100 kph
3.93 Audi RS6
4.69 HSV GTS
4.91 Merc E63S
4.95 Jag XFR-S
4.95 BMW M5

0-200 kph
12.80 Audi RS6
13.22 BMW M5
13.37 Merc E63S
14.65 Jag XFR-S
14.96 HSV GTS

80 - 120 kph
1.97 BMW M5
2.19 Audi RS6
2.31 Merc E63S
2.51 Jag XFR-S
2.60 HSV GTS

1/4 Mile
11.89 Audi RS6
12.72 Merc E63S
12.73 HSV GTS
12.87 BMW M5
12.90 Jag XFR-S

Price
$ 97,480 HSV GTS
$230,690 BMW M5
$232,865 Jag XFR-S
$249,545 Merc E63S
$253,040 Audi RS6

So what your trying to say is that the GTS is second only to an Audi RS6 in real world driving conditions ie; to 100k speed limits, and that it does it for less than half the price.

Pretty cool hey.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Chopped

From Motor mag Feb 2014

0-100 kph
3.93 Audi RS6
4.69 HSV GTS
4.91 Merc E63S
4.95 Jag XFR-S
4.95 BMW M5

0-200 kph
12.80 Audi RS6
13.22 BMW M5
13.37 Merc E63S
14.65 Jag XFR-S
14.96 HSV GTS

80 - 120 kph
1.97 BMW M5
2.19 Audi RS6
2.31 Merc E63S
2.51 Jag XFR-S
2.60 HSV GTS

1/4 Mile
11.89 Audi RS6
12.72 Merc E63S
12.73 HSV GTS
12.87 BMW M5
12.90 Jag XFR-S

Price
$ 97,480 HSV GTS
$230,690 BMW M5
$232,865 Jag XFR-S
$249,545 Merc E63S
$253,040 Audi RS6

one hippopotamus, half a hippopotamus, two hippopotamus

counting seconds is like shaving a hippopotamus

GTS is a winrar

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Yeah I misunderstood at first, what they are trying to say is that there is no way to replicate the times that they were able to achieve in testing in the real world (strip v street) not that there is no way to get a quicker time than 4.7 from 0-100

Exactly. They also pointed out they all missed the manufacturers claims for 0-100 at least.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Blue Roo

Hey Burnz! How's that big power house Diesel Cruze going? I'll bet your Cruze could beat the GT in 0-100.

it goes very well, but I might have trouble beating the GT.

maybe if I park in front, hrmm..

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Chopped

From Motor mag Feb 2014

0-100 kph
3.93 Audi RS6
4.69 HSV GTS
4.91 Merc E63S
4.95 Jag XFR-S
4.95 BMW M5

0-200 kph
12.80 Audi RS6
13.22 BMW M5
13.37 Merc E63S
14.65 Jag XFR-S
14.96 HSV GTS

80 - 120 kph
1.97 BMW M5
2.19 Audi RS6
2.31 Merc E63S
2.51 Jag XFR-S
2.60 HSV GTS

1/4 Mile
11.89 Audi RS6
12.72 Merc E63S
12.73 HSV GTS
12.87 BMW M5
12.90 Jag XFR-S

Price
$ 97,480 HSV GTS
$230,690 BMW M5
$232,865 Jag XFR-S
$249,545 Merc E63S
$253,040 Audi RS6

not to nit pick but something doesn't add up.

HSV 12.73 @ 188kph 1/4
and 14.96 @ 200kph

so 2.23 seconds to get another 12kph???

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by burnz

not to nit pick but something doesn't add up.

HSV 12.73 @ 188kph 1/4
and 14.96 @ 200kph

so 2.23 seconds to get another 12kph???

The closer you get to Vmax, the longer it's going to take to get that extra km/h or two.

Someone who knows a thing or two about the physics of acceleration will be able to explain it better.

[XR Martin]

GTS is the only manual too, so there was probably a gear change just before 200kmh

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

GTS is the only manual too, so there was probably a gear change just before 200kmh

Disappointing they didn't test an auto because it seems there's something of a body of evidence building up that auto's are quicker.

Originally Posted by Chopped

From Motor mag Feb 2014

0-100 kph
3.93 Audi RS6 3.65
4.69 HSV GTS 4.15 (Auto)
4.91 Merc E63S 4.23
4.95 Jag XFR-S 4.60 (regular Jaguar XFR with latest ZF8 speed auto)
4.95 BMW M5 4.35

0-200 kph
12.80 Audi RS6
13.22 BMW M5
13.37 Merc E63S
14.65 Jag XFR-S
14.96 HSV GTS

80 - 120 kph
1.97 BMW M5 2.29
2.19 Audi RS6 2.25
2.31 Merc E63S 2.3, (same)
2.51 Jag XFR-S 2.51, (same), regular Jaguar XFR with ZF8
2.60 HSV GTS 2.28

1/4 Mile
11.89 Audi RS6
12.72 Merc E63S
12.73 HSV GTS
12.87 BMW M5
12.90 Jag XFR-S

Price
$ 97,480 HSV GTS
$230,690 BMW M5
$232,865 Jag XFR-S
$249,545 Merc E63S
$253,040 Audi RS6

For a February publication all this testing must have been done in extreme summer heat.

To give you guys an insight into how much quicker the cars can be in cooler conditions I have posted comparitive figures from N.Z. Autocar's testing where data is avaiable.

Not saying which magazine is right or wrong...just that different cooler conditions and in the case of the GTS, an auto gearbox as well, can make a material difference.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by burnz

not to nit pick but something doesn't add up.

HSV 12.73 @ 188kph 1/4
and 14.96 @ 200kph

so 2.23 seconds to get another 12kph???

Agreed. There must be a typo error in the figures in the mag.

[Rodge]

I dunno Trev, I think we might have uncovered a little flaw in the GTS's armour. It seems from an aerodynamic perspective the GTS stops a heck of a lot of air because I just dug out Wheels September 2013 testing where they compared the GTS with the E63S

Quarter Mile
E63S 12.2 seconds @ 195 K.p.h.
GTS 12.8 @ 183 k.p.h.

0-200 k.p.h.
E63 12.7
GTS 15.1

Another 2.3 seconds to put on another 17 k.p.h.

This was also a manual so it would appear there's definitly a gear change required somewhere in the late 180 - late 190 k.p.h. range but aside from that it appears the GTS has pretty awful aerodynamics.

[mcnews]

Can't be right Rodge, unless it was the worst gear change ever etc. It can't just hit a wall at 180. 220 or so I would consider, perhaps, but not 180.