FPV GT-F outpowers HSV GTS The Aussie horsepower king has been identified & we are surprised as any1

[fgpsi]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

They've only done manual gt-f vs auto gts

[WHYME]

GTS who? CHOPPED!

[rancidpunx]

Like a F6 the GTS has a butt load of Torque. Power wins arguments but Torque wins races.

[MITCHAY]

Well it will be interesting to see how many pages this racks up but as someone who never reads either, if the Wheels dyno stinks like poo then so does this one in my opinion.

For a start the GT-F had 9 runs to reach it's peak power compared to the GTS with 4 and it conveniently makes around what the FPV engineers says after disputing the other dyno.

In any case the GTS is consistent with 330 and 339 compared to 311 and 348 and the GT-F peak power is transient and could possibly explain why they did 9 runs to reach it.

I'd expect the GTS to gobble up more in the drive train. Someone with more knowledge could probably elaborate more either for or against that argument.

Both are awesome cars but I find it hard to overlook this.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

my opinion.

For a start the GT-F had 9 runs to reach it's peak power

it had 9 runs, correct, but where does it say it achieved peak power on the 9th run?

being non intercooled, i'd hardly think the results will continue to improve the more flogging it gets.

but you are right. one result is in fords favour, the other is not, so naturally we gravitate toward the one that is in fords favour.

having said that, there is also history to take in to account. the 335 has been around for some time now, and if you look at the history of its dyno results, there is a clear trend that a stock 335 is pushing north of 300 on pretty much every dyno in the country. most are over 310. logic dictates the GT-F should be north of that at a bare minimum.

[futura]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Well it will be interesting to see how many pages this racks up but as someone who never reads either, if the Wheels dyno stinks like poo then so does this one in my opinion.

For a start the GT-F had 9 runs to reach it's peak power compared to the GTS with 4 and it conveniently makes around what the FPV engineers says after disputing the other dyno.

In any case the GTS is consistent with 330 and 339 compared to 311 and 348 and the GT-F peak power is transient and could possibly explain why they did 9 runs to reach it.

I'd expect the GTS to gobble up more in the drive train. Someone with more knowledge could probably elaborate more either for or against that argument.

Both are awesome cars but I find it hard to overlook this.

Ok, can you tell me what run number 348.6 was achieved? If you cannot answer this question, you certainly not in a position to be commenting about the number of runs used to get this number.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by dragons90

They said they did the 9 runs to make sure it was consistent.
Mosts 335 gt make over 310RwKw

Originally Posted by prydey

it had 9 runs, correct, but where does it say it achieved peak power on the 9th run?

being non intercooled, i'd hardly think the results will continue to improve the more flogging it gets.

but you are right. one result is in fords favour, the other is not, so naturally we gravitate toward the one that is in fords favour.

having said that, there is also history to take in to account. the 335 has been around for some time now, and if you look at the history of its dyno results, there is a clear trend that a stock 335 is pushing north of 300 on pretty much every dyno in the country. most are over 310. logic dictates the GT-F should be north of that at a bare minimum.

Originally Posted by futura

Ok, can you tell me what run number 348.6 was achieved? If you cannot answer this question, you certainly not in a position to be commenting about the number of runs used to get this number.

It may or may not be relevant what run it was. Maybe I should have expanded on that a bit more. If these tests are under the same conditions then logic dictates they should run both the same amount of times and that being 9.

If you're trying to prove consistency and/or highest peak for the GT-F then why would you not do the same for the GTS.

I'm just trying to take a more objective view rather than the usual argument that tends to play out.

[futura]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

It may or may not be relevant what run it was. Maybe I should have expanded on that a bit more. If these tests are under the same conditions then logic dictates they should run both the same amount of times and that being 9.

If you're trying to prove consistency and/or highest peak for the GT-F then why would you not do the same for the GTS.

I'm just trying to take a more objective view rather than the usual argument that tends to play out.

I can see your point, but think about this another way, if the GTF produced 348.6rkws running 9, or 90 times more will not yield more power. Especially since heat will be a big killer on these non inter cooled cars

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

It may or may not be relevant what run it was. Maybe I should have expanded on that a bit more. If these tests are under the same conditions then logic dictates they should run both the same amount of times and that being 9.

If you're trying to prove consistency and/or highest peak for the GT-F then why would you not do the same for the GTS.

I'm just trying to take a more objective view rather than the usual argument that tends to play out.

Sorry if this gets sorted out and I'm double posting but I couldn't let this slip
If you read the articles you would have heard they ran the EXTRA runs....up to 9 in total because they couldn't believe the figures. They said they wanted to make sure. And unless heat soak was somehow a non existant force....then 9 runs would have HURT its power readings, not improved. Common

[1TUFFUTE]

Ok so I've read the whole thread and there's sooo much confusion.

Ok so it started with wheels doing "separate" dynos with "their" tuner and only getting 311rwkws for the GTF. Ford queried these figures and requested they do a PROPER test, ON THE SAME DAY, SAME CARS, SAME GEARBOX, SAME TEMPS and an official engineer from Holden and ford to keep it tidy.
This was needed because wheels was busted when they posted a video showing the GTS run was not strapped down properly(giving higher readings)
They explained this by somehow stating it was a video of them doing setup runs, then they tied it down properly for the good runs REALLY. Does that compute to anyone who's ever dynoed their car before? (There are MANY utube stock hsv dynos, as low as 290ish up to 330 max)

So anyway in the end FORD were justified by getting exactly what they claimed they "had" and could achieve.
More POWER then the HSV too!

NOW DONT FORGET......
This is about HSV claiming to be the most "powerfull" Aussie car.(by slapping a big430 badge on it).

This ISNT a DRAG race or TRACK times.....it's "POWER" wars (rwkws NOT torque)

[mik]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

It may or may not be relevant what run it was. Maybe I should have expanded on that a bit more. If these tests are under the same conditions then logic dictates they should run both the same amount of times and that being 9.

If you're trying to prove consistency and/or highest peak for the GT-F then why would you not do the same for the GTS.

I'm just trying to take a more objective view rather than the usual argument that tends to play out.

Yes indeed, or to heat soak the **** out of the GT.

[dragons90]

They said they did the 9 runs to make sure it was consistent.
Mosts 335 gt make over 310RwKw

[dragons90]

I love that fords getting burred up over the wheels dyno, hopefully it makes them bring out the intercooled motor and completely out power the gts.

[futura]

Most stock GT335s make anywhere from 315 to 335 at the rear wheels depending upon transmission choice and kms. Add Fords new 351 tune for the 351 GTF and 348.6rwkws is easily achievable.

[jmack]

im over all this which one is more powerful,in the real world dosnt matter how good you think your car is,there will be someone with more power,bigger balls or less brains take your pick.just enjoy the choices we have at the moment cause who knows what they will dish us up in the future

[BHDOGS]

As i suspected another ford victory.

[chopstar87]

The way i read the 9 runs for the gtf, was because they wanted to keep checking the result, because it was a surprise... surprised a 351/404kw gtf was out powering a 430kw gts and to make sure it wasn't a 1 off thing and then it kills the power because of heat soak (as not intercooled)

[rancidpunx]

GTS has 275 tyres as well and Launch control is just the same traction control system as the GT. Foot on the brake and floor it.

THe mag times are BS and owners will go faster, theres no doubt about it, some will beat GTS's some wont.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by prydey

if its the blue GT-F against the silver GTS on drive, then its auto v manual, with the GT-F being manual. not a real apples v apples comparison. auto's are quicker these days.

GTS has wider rubber and better launch control.

I will be stuffed why they don't do auto vs auto or manual vs manual in these comparos because it is invariably the one of the first things that is picked apart.

My only guess is because it was the latest and greatest from FPV and they wanted to get out a comparo as quick as possible and perhaps that's is all they had available to them.

But still if that was the case they should have used a manual GTS which there are plenty of now.

[Charliewool]

Geeesh.. How many people get howled down on this forum for quoting dyno figures for their modded pride & joy with the old.. "get it down the backtop and let's see it's mph?
Dyno-queens when it suits (or doesn't in Wheels case!) methinks?

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Geeesh.. How many people get howled down on this forum for quoting dyno figures for their modded pride & joy with the old.. "get it down the backtop and let's see it's mph?
Dyno-queens when it suits (or doesn't in Wheels case!) methinks?

Pretty much summed up most arguments/posts/threads here.

Journos, magazines, dynos, businesses, every day people, cops and just about anyone else is right only if it suits the agenda of select few on this forum. If not then world is biased against Falcon
Becomes tiresome and shows the lack of maturity some have here. Funnily enough these same people trash talk LS1/Holden people for the doing the same thing.

[CyberWasp]

There certainly needs to be a new standard in how car companies power out put figures are quoted.
Ford are on the money, but Holden should be ashamed of themselves.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

There certainly needs to be a new standard in how car companies power out put figures are quoted.
Ford are on the money, but Holden should be ashamed of themselves.

why?

340rwkw is reasonably close to 430fwkw.

GTS has also got a 12.1 @194km/h to its credit already. i don't think there is too much wrong with the figure.

[Dave R]

Being that the GTS was consistent in both tests (330rwkw & 339rwkw), the low reading that Wheels got from the GTF seems like the odd one out.

[fgpsi]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Being that the GTS was consistent in both tests (330rwkw & 339rwkw), the low reading that Wheels got from the GTF seems like the odd one out.

Vcm's dyno always puts out lower figures

[Falcman0o7]

So the raptor craps on the T-rex...

Just because you're bigger it doesn't mean you can run faster :P

[Rodge]

What a surprise that the vehicle fitted with 20 inch wheels, the heavy duty gearbox, driveshaft, half shafts and 9 1/2 inch diff...all stuff that won't break in five minutes under duress or won't overheat and doesn't require heaps of interference from the PCM and TCM to keep itself held together actually soaks up more driveline losses

How many medium duty FPV drivelines have been busted already...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Rodge

What a surprise that the vehicle fitted with 20 inch wheels, the heavy duty gearbox, driveshaft, half shafts and 9 1/2 inch diff...all stuff that won't break in five minutes under duress or won't overheat and doesn't require heaps of interference from the PCM and TCM to keep itself held together actually soaks up more driveline losses

How many medium duty FPV drivelines have been busted already...

before you gloat too much, the LSA is developing a bit of a habit of lunching itself
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/06/...ered-vehicles/

no word on aus vehicles but given its effectively the same motor....

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Rodge

What a surprise that the vehicle fitted with 20 inch wheels, the heavy duty gearbox, driveshaft, half shafts and 9 1/2 inch diff...all stuff that won't break in five minutes under duress or won't overheat and doesn't require heaps of interference from the PCM and TCM to keep itself held together actually soaks up more driveline losses

How many medium duty FPV drivelines have been busted already...

Way to miss the point...

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Way to miss the point...

lol
It's always the way when FPV come out on top - remember the FPV GT Rspec vs VE HSV Club sport - FPV was faster & had more power BUT HSV won as better chassis lol ha ha ha

I think Rodge actually works for Wheels lol