WHEELS MAG! (street cars vs race cars)

[SHANESVZSS]

just brought the new wheels mag , they have done a comparsion between race cars and street cars..

it was HRT car driven by tander vs ford castrol driven by steve richards vs hsv W427 vs gts vs f6 vs gt-p.. (all manual cars)

using the VBOX results where.. (best recored times on the day.)

0-100km/h 80-120km/h 120-160km/h 0-400m
f6.. 5.65 3.14 4.10 13.79 @ 179km/h
gt... 6.19 3.58 4.87 14.29 @ 168
gts.. 5.64 3.57 4.99 13.77 @ 166
w427..5.17 2.96 3.48 13.34 @ 180
hrt car..4.58 1.83 2.31 12.15 @ 209
fpr.. 4.44 1.56 2.01 11.8 @ 216

sorry if its hard to read..it looked different in the preview :confused:

[korrupt]

Around Calder, the W427 was 6 seconds a lap slower than the HRT car and the GTS was 9 seconds slower than the HRT car. The HRT car is the one they use for ride days with two seats in it, so it is slower than the FPR car.

[SHANESVZSS]

just brought the new wheels mag , they have done a comparsion between race cars and street cars..

it was HRT car driven by tander vs ford castrol driven by steve richards vs hsv W427 vs gts vs f6 vs gt-p.. (all manual cars)

using the VBOX results where.. (best recored times on the day.)

0-100km/h
f6.. 5.65
gt... 6.19
gts.. 5.64
w427..5.17
hrt car..4.58
fpr.. 4.44
80-120km/h

80-120km/h

f6 3.14
gt 3.58
gts 3.57
w427 2.96
hrt car 1.83
fpr 1.56

120-160km/h
f6 4.10
gt 4.87
gts 4.99
w427 3.48
hrt 2.31
fpr 2.01

0-400m

f6 13.79 179km/h
gt 14.29 @ 168km/h
gts 13.77@166km/h
w427 13.34 @180km/h
hrt 12.15 @209km/h
fpr 11.8 @216km/h

thats better.

[Excellent]

The GTS looks down on speed.

[132OFT]

just brought the new wheels mag , they have done a comparsion between race cars and street cars..

it was HRT car driven by tander vs ford castrol driven by steve richards vs hsv W427 vs gts vs f6 vs gt-p.. (all manual cars)

using the VBOX results where.. (best recored times on the day.)

0-100km/h

fpr.. 4.44
hrt car..4.58
w427..5.17
gts.. 5.64
f6.. 5.65
gt... 6.19


80-120km/h

fpr 1.56
hrt car 1.83
w427 2.96
f6 3.14
gts 3.57
gt 3.58


120-160km/h

fpr 2.01
hrt 2.31
w427 3.48
f6 4.10
gt 4.87
gts 4.99


0-400m

fpr 11.8 @216km/h
hrt 12.15 @209km/h
w427 13.34 @180km/h
gts 13.77@166km/h
f6 13.79 179km/h
gt 14.29 @ 168km/h


That's better again, thanks for posting :)

[youngstar]

I hate to say it but the F6 gives the GTS a real pasting in the 80-120, 120-160 and terminal speed after 400m ! :bawl:

No doubt the wider rear rubber kept it in the hunt getting off the line but once moving it was loosing ground fast.

Impressive numbers for the W427 though - did not think it would be so much quicker than the GTS (1.5 seconds quicker between 120-160) :confused:

[SHANESVZSS]

i thought the 1/4 mile was a bit dissapointing from the w427! id did extremly well in the rolling acceleration..traction was a problem perhaps or lack of driver skill??

[Rub]

who drove the GTS and W427 etc?

They must have been shit drivers :p

[Hi Octane]

Pretty crappy 400m times for the W427 & below.

id expect more than that out of a $150k, 427Ci car.

[Evman]

When you think that most rear driver supercars of similar power have rear tyres over 300mm wide you'll begin to realise why the W427 seems slow.

[mustanger]

Good to see the W427 give the F6 a hiding :whip: in ALL of the comparisons . (SAME TRACK, SAME DAY NO EXCUSES) :hide:

[Trek52]

Good to see the W427 give the F6 a hiding :whip: in ALL of the comparisons . (SAME TRACK, SAME DAY NO EXCUSES) :hide:

Please tell me you are taking the piss....The W427 should beat the F6 in everything, including the price !!!

The F6 is a monster of the car for the price, I could imagine the chat in here if it had a Holden badge on it.

[steves87]

Yeah, i would have expected much better results from the w427.... the old 'driver mod' maybe?

[korrupt]

Maybe Tander was a bit gun shy with the W427 after he stacked last time...

[Penko]

F6's trap speed is up there, imagine it with wider rubber. But it doesn't, so o well.

Cheers.

[GPT]

Not meant as excuse but those GTS times and terminal speed seem down compared to others previosly tested. Its possible it sat around idling befroehand ,IAT was up and timing was being pulled?

[SHANESVZSS]

GTS was a bit dissapointing with its rolling start.. would have thought it would have gotten away from the gt a bit easier than that! having said that it beat the f6 in in the standing start comparo's..

PS the HRT car seems slow comapred the FPR :confused:

[Big_Valven]

When you think that most rear driver supercars of similar power have rear tyres over 300mm wide you'll begin to realise why the W427 seems slow.
it's all about the compound and in that regard they shit all over road cars.

[steves87]

Maybe Tander was a bit gun shy with the W427 after he stacked last time...

Tander?.... dont think it was 'driver mod' then....:confused:

[SHANESVZSS]

just had a proper read of the mag and the reason the FPV kicks the HRT is that the HRT is a "ride car" with extra seats and the FPR is a full spec supercar!! :werd: not a fair comparision between the two!!

[ssberlina]

Was it a wet or slippery track?

The 0-100 times are a bit poor right across the board if you ask me. I mean a stock C63 should have been able to keep up with the FPR based on those numbers !!!!!!!!! :confused: Its published time is 4.5 sec with real life tests putting it as low as 4.3 sec.

[mickeyVX350]

They state at the strat of the article that the straight had been wet down for the drags, therefore times were going to be down.

[nang3]

yeh those times all seem a bit off?? 13.7 is farken slow 1/4 for the F6 - a local one here runs consistent 12.6-12.7's stock as a rock.


Good to see the W427 give the F6 a hiding :whip: in ALL of the comparisons . (SAME TRACK, SAME DAY NO EXCUSES) :hide:


haha yeh no shit, it even gives the buyer's wallet a hiding to the tune of over 200% !!!

[steves87]

They state at the strat of the article that the straight had been wet down for the drags, therefore times were going to be down.

id almost call that a waste of a comparison test...

[Ewok]

guess they ran out of time and ideas for the month pretty quickly...

[Holden Man]

I suppose the only good thing in the story is that it shows that the W427 is another step up from the GTS & F6 in terms of performance and not just price.

Please do another comparo between M3, C63 & W427

[bloosted]

I suppose the only good thing in the story is that it shows that the W427 is another step up from the GTS & F6 in terms of performance and not just price.

Please do another comparo between M3, C63 & W427

and a auto F6,it's no secret the F6 is a LOT quicker in auto

[tuff304]

I suppose the only good thing in the story is that it shows that the W427 is another step up from the GTS & F6 in terms of performance and not just price.

Please do another comparo between M3, C63 & W427

that is one comparo i would love to see.

From the figures shown (400m terminal speed) the w427 was a real disappointment 180km/h is not as quick as I thought it was.

[Jag530G]

I suppose the only good thing in the story is that it shows that the W427 is another step up from the GTS & F6 in terms of performance and not just price.

Please do another comparo between M3, C63 & W427

I would think a comparo with the M5, E63 and the new Jag XFR would be in order all full size cars and roughly 375kw.

Cheers, Matthew

[Excellent]

yeh those times all seem a bit off?? 13.7 is farken slow 1/4 for the F6 - a local one here runs consistent 12.6-12.7's stock as a rock.


I've yet to see even the W427 get down to those numbers. The F6 must be quicker than the W427 to use your logic or are you saying the times should be at least a second quicker for all the cars tested? I don't understand your logic considering the track was slippery. What's the point of having a comparo if all you are hung up about is the ultimate times? :confused:

[nang3]

I suppose the only good thing in the story is that it shows that the W427 is another step up from the GTS & F6 in terms of performance and not just price.

Please do another comparo between M3, C63 & W427

yeh they really should have used the auto F6 as it is quicker than the manual..
Is the GTS quicker in auto or manual??
bascially they should have just used the quickest example of each cars configuration.


as for the comparo, i reckon it should be a $150k shootout including R35 GTR as well.. plus the Audi RSx equivalent of whats around that coin too..

i'll volunteer to help test drive if theres too many cars !!!!

[steves87]

I've yet to see even the W427 get down to those numbers. The F6 must be quicker than the W427 to use your logic or are you saying the times should be at least a second quicker for all the cars tested? I don't understand your logic considering the track was slippery. What's the point of having a comparo if all you are hung up about is the ultimate times? :confused:

all times definitely should have been quicker in dry conditions, but for 'wet' times they arent that bad.... but again, wet conditions are very dificult to get consistancy across the board from multiple runs and cars.... hence why i think that a wet track comparison is near on useless.....


yeh they really should have used the auto F6 as it is quicker than the manual..
Is the GTS quicker in auto or manual??
bascially they should have just used the quickest example of each cars configuration.


as for the comparo, i reckon it should be a $150k shootout including R35 GTR as well.. plus the Audi RSx equivalent of whats around that coin too..

i'll volunteer to help test drive if theres too many cars !!!!

r35 gtr would probably post better times than the racers:)

[Excellent]

all times definitely should have been quicker in dry conditions, but for 'wet' times they arent that bad.... but again, wet conditions are very dificult to get consistancy across the board from multiple runs and cars.... hence why i think that a wet track comparison is near on useless.....


Nobody said the track was wet. It was just slippery. Are you saying you are a better driver than Tander and Richards?
:rofl:

[steves87]

Nobody said the track was wet. It was just slippery. Are you saying you are a better driver than Tander and Richards?
:rofl:

yes they did, a few post back...
no, i said they are good times for a wet track....

[GODSMACK]

all times definitely should have been quicker in dry conditions, but for 'wet' times they arent that bad.... but again, wet conditions are very dificult to get consistancy across the board from multiple runs and cars.... hence why i think that a wet track comparison is near on useless.....



r35 gtr would probably post better times than the racers:)

I read a comparo between the F6, GT2 & R35. Needless to say, the R35 was given an awesome review and rated the best. The F6 received suspension and handling critisizm (moreso that it needed to be addressed due to the power it has, so not all bad) and the Porsche was a good review all round..

[Holden Man]

yeh they really should have used the auto F6 as it is quicker than the manual..

Maybe would have been closer (probably very close!) in acceleration but wouldn't an auto be slower around the track ?


as for the comparo, i reckon it should be a $150k shootout including R35 GTR as well......

The GTR would trump all in that price range and $200k above that ! - so lets leave the GTR out , it only encourages ST !!!!

[spookware]

um no, the GTR would only launch twice with the warranty then void.

[Excellent]

yes they did, a few post back...
no, i said they are good times for a wet track....

No where did I read the tracks were wet. Did I miss something the others picked up on? :confused:

[steves87]

No where did I read the tracks were wet. Did I miss something the others picked up on? :confused:

I Dont know... post page two or something.... something about a wet drag strip... im going to have to go out and read a wheels mag by the looks of it... (i prefer motor...)
i read wet strip or something similar in this thread.... thats why i assumed it was wet....:confused:

[Excellent]

I Dont know... post page two or something.... something about a wet drag strip... im going to have to go out and read a wheels mag by the looks of it... (i prefer motor...)
i read wet strip or something similar in this thread.... thats why i assumed it was wet....:confused:

No it said the track was slippery due to the drag strip. That's my recollection anyway.

[steves87]

No it said the track was slippery due to the drag strip. That's my recollection anyway.

ok, thats fine...
i was going on the post by mickyvx350 which mentioned a wet strip... i havnt read the actual article yet...