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

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I believe they would be very close to that. I know McNews paid just on $A3,000 for a set of 4 Michelin Pilot Supersports but only two were the wider rubber like the poster above mentioned and the other two were the standard 245/35/19 for the front tyres.

Its all very well to fit fancy wide rubber but yeah replacement costs can make people's eye's water.

OTOH just for the sake of real world comparison I just scored an amazing deal on a full set of new 245/35/19 Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2's for $999 which are very highly regarded tyres. Tyre sizes / brands can make a huge difference to replacement price !!

If I was asked for $4,000 right at the minute for replacement tyres that would be bloody annoying.

Wow thats expensive considering you can buy them through tirerack.com for around $300ea. I might give them a go when my tyres need replacing.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by GQ_Smooth

not a locally developed add on done on a very tight budget).

40 million on a local product for engine development on a small volume proposition is not a tight budget. IMHO FPV spent up big time on FG .... so much that it probably sunk them in the end.

[PHawk]

And us lucky SC GT owners reap the rewards of that $40 Mil....Love that engine!

[GQ_Smooth]

Originally Posted by ESP

40 million on a local product for engine development on a small volume proposition is not a tight budget. IMHO FPV spent up big time on FG .... so much that it probably sunk them in the end.

ESP

You point is well put, I was trying to compare what Ford/FPV spend on the Miami compared to what GM spent on the LSA. I was under the impression it was 20mil not 40 mil (if they did spend 40mil I'd love to see the business case for it)

While I have no idea what GM actually spent on the LSA, I suspect what FPV spent wouldn't be more than 25% of their budget.

[XR Martin]

Latest Wheels mag has a comparo of the GTS vs the E63 S.

GTS ran 12.8 @ 183kmh.
E63 S was half a second quicker and nearly 10kmh faster.

[bigwil]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Latest Wheels mag has a comparo of the GTS vs the E63 S.

GTS ran 12.8 @ 183kmh.
E63 S was half a second quicker and nearly 10kmh faster.

Yes I got that magazine today and didn't they give it to the XR6, everything from the colour, interior, exterior and price, they had the price at $45000 for a standard XR6 with a few options , the VF could do no wrong, they even thought it look great. Really bad review.

[billkara]

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/new-c...821-2sa9j.html

Not sure if this has been posted. Drive comparo between the AMG and GTS. Good review actually.
12.3 for AMG
12.6 for GTS

AMG sounds tough... GTS sounds meh...
From the pics, seems like a dry drag track.
GTS seems like a decent bit of gear , but for the money, I wouldn't buy either of them... would go for the GT instead

[Sorted]

Motoring loves the HSV GTS in the wet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_l...e_gdata_player

[ebv8]

why are they all comparing the GTS with GT??? the GT is more on par with a Clubsport with 340kw upgrade both on power and price so comparing a GTS to the GT is stupid, why not compare a SV6 with an XR6T...thats not fair is it?
plus with all the tech in a new GTS they will be all junk in 10 years
i'd still love one though!

[Sorted]

Change the god damn title please
HSV GTS 430kw could only manage a 4.6 0-100klm
Same as a FPV GT Rspec 335kw with 100 less kw

[smoo]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Latest Wheels mag has a comparo of the GTS vs the E63 S.

GTS ran 12.8 @ 183kmh.
E63 S was half a second quicker and nearly 10kmh faster.

Too bad a 15 year old girl could run better times than Wheels.
Had a look at a VF Redline ute today, 3 grand cheaper rrp than a GS. Love the interior. I'd still take a GS with leather but shall see what 2014 brings.
The old man works at a Holden dealer, 1st VF in under warranty, broken piston ring, SS sedan, just over 1000km old. Owner wants his money back The same dealer has three new VFs on the showroom floor, out the front on the road is a couple of Colorado and Cruzes on show. Reminds me of the lame effort Ford went thru with the Falcon.

[Rob 351]

Wasn't it Wheels who got 4.52 out of a manual R spec??

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Rob 18

Wasn't it Wheels who got 4.52 out of a manual R spec??

Yep. GTS still hasn't beaten this time yet. As it stands the R spec is still the quickest aussie muscle car ever made, until the day someone can get the GTS to go faster.

LOL at Wheels saying, and i'll quote, of the GTS, "doesn't feel like a 12.3 car".

Probably because HSV's quoted times are absolute bllsht.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by Rob 18

Wasn't it Wheels who got 4.52 out of a manual R spec??

yes and that was on an aborted run too

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by smoo

Too bad a 15 year old girl could run better times than Wheels.

Really?
That must have been a crap driver to have achieved that run in the GT R Spec.
Oh that's right it was in a Falcon so it was legit

[Sorted]

Yep it does mean the Wheels Drivers are crap

With the HSV GTS 430kw
Drive's Driver got 4.6sec 0-100klms
Wheels Driver got 4.8sec 0-100klms

So going by this fact alone the 4.6sec the Wheels Driver got in the FPV GT Rspec could have been .2 sec quicker with a Drive's Driver

[flooded one]

here the thing about the aborted run with the GT-R spec
http://motoring.ninemsn.com.au/cars/...-fpv-gt-r-spec

[anto]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Change the god damn title please
HSV GTS 430kw could only manage a 4.6 0-100klm
Same as a FPV GT Rspec 335kw with 100 less kw

I agree. Same as the other thread,..spanked ? I think not.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Yep it does mean the Wheels Drivers are crap

With the HSV GTS 430kw
Drive's Driver got 4.6sec 0-100klms
Wheels Driver got 4.8sec 0-100klms

So going by this fact alone the 4.6sec the Wheels Driver got in the FPV GT Rspec could have been .2 sec quicker with a Drive's Driver

Wheels test with two people in the car and a full tank of fuel, no adjustments to tyre pressures either. So pretty much what is delivered is run.
Then there is different timing equipment, different tracks, different temps, different conditions, hell you guys seem to bring all these variables up each time a Falcon is run.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Really?
That must have been a crap driver to have achieved that run in the GT R Spec.
Oh that's right it was in a Falcon so it was legit

Your direct and indirect cheap shots at the Falcon and its supporters got old long ago. And btw I was referring to the GTS time of 12.8. But history shows Wheels times should be taken with a grain of salt no matter what the car.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by smoo

Your direct and indirect cheap shots at the Falcon and its supporters got old long ago. And btw I was referring to the GTS time of 12.8. But history shows Wheels times should be taken with a grain of salt no matter what the car.

No cheap shots at all, just comparing the comments made based upon the times posted for varying cars and who ran them.
There is a whole forum for you to search to verify

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Change the god damn title please
HSV GTS 430kw could only manage a 4.6 0-100klm
Same as a FPV GT Rspec 335kw with 100 less kw

I doubt the r spec has 100kw less than the gts, they probably have about the same power as each other going by 1/4 times.

[BHDOGS]

Due to fords understatement and Holden's over statement as usual

[jimmyxr6t04]

Originally Posted by ebv8

why are they all comparing the GTS with GT??? the GT is more on par with a Clubsport with 340kw upgrade both on power and price so comparing a GTS to the GT is stupid, why not compare a SV6 with an XR6T...thats not fair is it?
plus with all the tech in a new GTS they will be all junk in 10 years
i'd still love one though!

Because they're both supercharged V8s... And the at the top of the tree for each manufacturer. We all know that the GT makes a lot more than 335kw...

Originally Posted by Sorted

Change the god damn title please
HSV GTS 430kw could only manage a 4.6 0-100klm
Same as a FPV GT Rspec 335kw with 100 less kw

I wouldn't be surprised if the GTS does manage a 4.4... As for the Rspec having 100kw less, we all know how untrue that statement is. It's been well documented that the GT makes closer to 380kw. There was even a link posted some where that stated the GT actually makes 375kw at one point, but because it doesn't maintain that power for a certain period, FPV didn't have to make it the official power rating.

There was a link on LS1 forums where the GTS did very well against the E63 merc around the track.

Not sure why people are getting so worked up over all this? Reminds me of my school days!

How about we all wait and see what it does when the car has been available for a while.

How lucky we are for those that can afford either of the two we have such good options. And those that can't afford a new one, imagine the options in a few years times!

[blk6t]

It's always risky when car manufacturers quote 0-100 times and throw it out there like HSV do. It's a time the average man will not achieve and it would be a little disappointing for the owner.

That's one thing FPV always did right, under promised and over delivered where it mattered....power figures...because as they say, numbers don't lie...

[Glen 5150]

FFS, why are most members on this Forum so obsessed with performance numbers? Everybody comparing times and dyno figures, and making excuses and accusations and only quoting or discrediting reviews that suit their own mindset and argument? All I see is a bunch of GT SC owners with premature inferiority complex issues? Be proud of what you own. Honestly, does it really matter if one car is a tenth or two slower in a straight line, seriously? There's more to a performance vehicle than the numbers. And for those that say the GTS isn't worth $92k, the market or public always decides a vehicles value by 'supply and demand', so i'm sure HSV know what they are doing.

What amazes me, is not one GT SC owner has come out and said they actually take a 'moral victory' from what HSV are doing with the GTS. The GT R-Spec is a wonderful vehicle, a straight line brute, hence HSV has lifted the bar with the GTS, is the way I see it. If HSV manage to beat FPV at their own game, and give their buyers a vehicle with greater performance and superior technology and a greater all-round package, just see that as evolution and great for those in the market for one of these vehicles. A great opposition whether it be FPV or HSV can only breed greater competition, and as always, we will all be the winners eventually. Why can't people see the glass as being half full, rather than half empty all the time?

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by ebv8

why are they all comparing the GTS with GT??? the GT is more on par with a Clubsport with 340kw upgrade both on power and price so comparing a GTS to the GT is stupid, why not compare a SV6 with an XR6T...thats not fair is it?
plus with all the tech in a new GTS they will be all junk in 10 years
i'd still love one though!

Your right they should be comparing the GTS to the GTP as they are the flagship models from each company

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by Glen 5150

FFS, why are most members on this Forum so obsessed with performance numbers? Everybody comparing times and dyno figures, and making excuses and accusations and only quoting or discrediting reviews that suit their own mindset and argument? All I see is a bunch of GT SC owners with premature inferiority complex issues? Be proud of what you own. Honestly, does it really matter if one car is a tenth or two slower in a straight line, seriously? There's more to a performance vehicle than the numbers. And for those that say the GTS isn't worth $92k, the market or public always decides a vehicles value by 'supply and demand', so i'm sure HSV know what they are doing.

What amazes me, is not one GT SC owner has come out and said they actually take a 'moral victory' from what HSV are doing with the GTS. The GT R-Spec is a wonderful vehicle, a straight line brute, hence HSV has lifted the bar with the GTS, is the way I see it. If HSV manage to beat FPV at their own game, and give their buyers a vehicle with greater performance and superior technology and a greater all-round package, just see that as evolution and great for those in the market for one of these vehicles. A great opposition whether it be FPV or HSV can only breed greater competition, and as always, we will all be the winners eventually. Why can't people see the glass as being half full, rather than half empty all the time?

Mate.. Performance comparisons between Ford & "the others" have been the nature of the beast since Adam was a boy.. It'll never change!
Geez, people STILL rattle on about HO 1/4 mile times compared to Charger, about L34s & A9Xs Vs XB GT etc...
It is ALWAYS going to happen, AND by both camps... It isn't just THIS forum.
I'll guarantee LS1 have exactly the same sort of posts regarding their newest "GT or F6 beater".
I do agree that both sides offerings are currently the absolute ducks nuts for us enthusiasts.. Never have we been SO spoilt.

[Rodge]

Glen 5150 - Can't speak for other SC FPV owners but as far as i'm concerned its great that HSV has finally delivered a vehicle that's worthy of comparison with FPV.
What's a bit of a **** is the way HSV try and compare their cars to the Euro's, make claims regarding engine power, acceleration e.t.c. that don't appear to add up and that is why people are enjoying taking the **** from this car.
There's also the "minor" matter of its extremly ugly rear end and much like the ugliest kid at school, that's another reason it'll cop some flak.
Then there's the price...
Besides that as Charliewool has suggested above, its the nature of the beast to compare FPV with HSV, always has been and always will be...

[Glen 5150]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Glen 5150 - Can't speak for other SC FPV owners but as far as i'm concerned its great that HSV has finally delivered a vehicle that's worthy of comparison with FPV.
What's a bit of a **** is the way HSV try and compare their cars to the Euro's, make claims regarding engine power, acceleration e.t.c. that don't appear to add up and that is why people are enjoying taking the **** from this car.
There's also the "minor" matter of its extremly ugly rear end and much like the ugliest kid at school, that's another reason it'll cop some flak.
Then there's the price...
Besides that as Charliewool has suggested above, its the nature of the beast to compare FPV with HSV, always has been and always will be...

I understand what you're saying, i've owned enough performance cars in my life, and taken enough flak from my Holden mates over my Fords for the past 25 years of ownership. I just think it gets so childish at times, and i'm obviously in the minority, but the final performance numbers just don't appeal to me when purchasing a vehicle, and are not the be all and end all in choosing a car on that alone.

With regards to HSV comparing themselves to Euro's, good luck to them, can I suggest if FPV took this route years ago and expanding their market share, rather than boxing themselves into a corner in a straight Ford v Holden dogfight, FPV may be in a better financial position than they currently are and have a viable future. As I've said it before, call it slick marketing, big budget advertising or smoke and mirrors, but HSV make a great product also.

Credit to them both.