VZ Clubsport 0-100kmph times Motor or HSV

[VX11SS]

Hi Fellas
This may have already been posted but here goes. HSV claim 5.1 0-100 for the auto and 5.2 for the manual, has anyone actually managed this is in a stock (no mods) Clubbie. It appears Wheels havent (no surprise as I think they test 2 up) but neither has Motor and I thought they would have got close but I think 5.65 is the fastest they have managed. Now this is near .5 secs off the claimed HSV time, which in my book is a hell of a difference.
My question is how did HSV get this time ie what track, conditions, tyre pressures etc. Are the HSV claims bull**** and mis advertising or to get these times did they lower tyre pressures, remove spare wheel etc (if so its still misleading as thats not mentioned on their website) and its not how you would achieve it in day to day driving.
Anyone in the know and comments from Holden/HSV and Motor would be much appreciated
Cheers Jay
PS not trying to flame or start a war here but genuinely interested as to these times achieved by various people/companies/magazines

[vuster]

I've managed 5.22 which is consistent with HSV's claim of 5.2 for manual. Post me and I'll send you a vid clip of it. See it and you'll believe it.

Also MOTOR managed a 4.99s run in the VZ GTO.

[crisso]

I've managed 5.22 which is consistent with HSV's claim of 5.2 for manual. Post me and I'll send you a vid clip of it. See it and you'll believe it.
Well worth the download too :)

[vuster]

Well worth the download too :)

Crisso,
I haven't uploaded this clip yet. The one I posted was about 5.6. The 5.22s run I had was just done a week ago.

[VX11SS]

Crisso,
I haven't uploaded this clip yet. The one I posted was about 5.6. The 5.22s run I had was just done a week ago.

Mate u just said it was done a week ago, your car is modded is it not? Exhaust?
Cheers Jay :)
PS You refer to a run of 5.6 well thats well below HSVs claim but is lineball with Motor
Soz also not looking at GTO times only four doors thanks

[jasonrouse]

vuster, you wouldnt mind sending them to me would you.
I seen your post in the media forum, but the links didnt work. Would love to see them
email addy in PM

[vuster]

True.
First run I had was with a mate in the car and got 5.6.
2nd run I had was by myself. 5.22. Now the exhaust only gave me 4 more rwkws. I don't think it did much. I think it's more likely that I had less weight in the car. I did not even bother to rev the car when launching as well.

[VX11SS]

Fair enough Vuster, thanks for the info at least we can see the diff between your runs with the extra weight (mind you the Exhaust might have helped with a bit more flow up top)
Just wondering why Motor arent getting closer, maybe they are testing 2 up now? because to me .5 second diff to 100 is a LOT
Cheers Jay

[crisso]

I would give it a decent crack, but unsure how best to time it accurately.

[jasonrouse]

start timing as soon as your revs start to dip.... when you release the clutch

[vuster]

I would give it a decent crack, but unsure how best to time it accurately.

Buy a gtech. Just plug it into the cigarette lighter socket and attach the device to your windscreen. I just bought one from ebay a few days ago. 80 dollars including delivery. It measures 0-60mph which is not exactly the same as 100km/h but will give you a good indication.

[cossmo]

The HSV claims sound about right to me as the VX GTS ran about 5.2 with 300fwkw so the VZ Clubbie with 297 should be similar.

[Mickey T]

to be honest we (MOTOR) don't take quarter mile or 0-100km/h times that seriously. on the other hand, we know everybody else seems to.

it's a very minimal part of testing a car for real-world ownership. in-gear acceleration is more appropriate, but nobody much seems to care to see those numbers in print. so we do the in-gear testing and talk about it in comparative, general terms.

we don't run cars with zero fuel, and we don't fiddle the tyre pressures. cars have always got at least half a tank on board.

because we usually run the numbers as part of the larger test/photo shoot, the cars are usually run with road-test style tyre pressures. normally 36 for road use, 40 for track days.

we know they'd go better with less, but it'd inconvenience us to change them twice and, as i said, it's not something we place a lot of credence on.

if we're doing a comparo, all cars will have the same fuel load and the same pressures.

i know the car company numbers usually come out as the best numbers achieved by the development team during the development process of the car. That can be a time set at any stage of a two-plus year development period and sometimes achieved with parts that, for one reason or other, don't make production. sometimes that's cost related, sometimes engineering, sometimes a supplier change. that sort of thing.

it's never, in my understanding of it, been a dodgy swap of a really fast bit for a really slow one.

[COUPE]

to be honest we (MOTOR) don't take quarter mile or 0-100km/h times that seriously. on the other hand, we know everybody else seems to.

it's a very minimal part of testing a car for real-world ownership. in-gear acceleration is more appropriate, but nobody much seems to care to see those numbers in print. so we do the in-gear testing and talk about it in comparative, general terms.

we don't run cars with zero fuel, and we don't fiddle the tyre pressures. cars have always got at least half a tank on board.

because we usually run the numbers as part of the larger test/photo shoot, the cars are usually run with road-test style tyre pressures. normally 36 for road use, 40 for track days.

we know they'd go better with less, but it'd inconvenience us to change them twice and, as i said, it's not something we place a lot of credence on.

if we're doing a comparo, all cars will have the same fuel load and the same pressures.

i know the car company numbers usually come out as the best numbers achieved by the development team during the development process of the car. That can be a time set at any stage of a two-plus year development period and sometimes achieved with parts that, for one reason or other, don't make production. sometimes that's cost related, sometimes engineering, sometimes a supplier change. that sort of thing.

it's never, in my understanding of it, been a dodgy swap of a really fast bit for a really slow one.


I’d have to agree with this, in-gear figures are a truer reflection of a cars real world performance and flexibility on the street.
That’s why I prefer Wheels performance data (they include in-gear acceleration times) when looking at figures just from a purely reference base, before I test drive a car.
Cars that I have driven with strong in-gear performance data, have never failed to impress.

[dominik]

to be honest we (MOTOR) don't take quarter mile or 0-100km/h times that seriously. on the other hand, we know everybody else seems to.It was a shame track temperatures varied so much in the PCOTY tests. I'm still curious why the SS, GTO, Monaro, and R8 were all run during the hottest time of the day, between 29-35º, while the STi and Evo were run during the coolest time of the day at 18-19º :confused:

You'd think one of the four V8s would have been given a thrash early in the morning down the airport strip. I enjoyed the article but that aspect to the testing left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, sorry :)

[ssblackute]

I just dug out the November issue of Motor and they did a hand timed 5.2 in the manual Clubsport.

[VX11SS]

Thanks Mickey T for your response, I am also more interested in in gear times (I had an LPT 2001 Saab 93 a few years back, the 0-60 wasnt great but overtaking was surprisingly good for a 160hp car, the power was right where you needed it for overtaking at 60-70 mph on narrow uk back roads) but was curious as the figures starting to come out in relation to the VZ Clubbies seem to be steadily dropping from the originals ie GTO (2-door I know) 4.99 , ssblackute mentions a 5.2 in November and we are down to a 5.65 in the last test.
The way you approach your 0-100 times seems fair enough and close to what i would call "real life" bar the track obviously.
Dominik whats your point, we all know turbos would take an extreme hit in high temps plus the fact if the V8s had been done earlier it would just be the turbo boys claiming that they hadnt been given a fair run. In reality the V8s should be less prone to heat soak than the turbos.
Cheers jay

[dominik]

Dominik whats your point, we all know turbos would take an extreme hit in high temps plus the fact if the V8s had been done earlier it would just be the turbo boys claiming that they hadnt been given a fair run. In reality the V8s should be less prone to heat soak than the turbos.
Cheers jayI hear what you're saying but out of 4 Holden V8s and a GT-P, you'd think at least one of them could have been squeezed into the early morning tests to see how a local V8 fares against an Sti or Evo, or they could have saved those two cars for later in the day. I think up to 17º difference (18 to 35 deg) is enough to make a reasonable difference, especially when you're splitting hairs and every tenth of a second stands out in print. 6.24 and 6.30, the SS and GT-P 0-100 times respectively might be the blink of an eye down at the track but Holden fans reading the article would call that a victory to the SS.

Btw, I'm not bagging Motor magazine... I buy it and enjoy the reviews. I just think the conditions varied a little too much to make it as fair as I'd have liked. After all, they said "because the times were all done on the same at the same venue, they are consistent with each other and representative." It's not a big deal like you said but surely it's not a pointless argument either.

[VX11SS]

Yeah I know where your coming from Dominik :) It is weird how the LS motors do seem to be more afected by heatsoak than most non-turbo cars
Cheers Jay