FPV F6 Performance Figures . Does HSV/Holden have to worry?

[mustanger]

The performance figures are in for the new FG FPV F6 310kw, 565nm of Torque.

With all the hype and build up,we have been waiting for months for the figures to come in and here they are :
0-100kmh 5.2 secs
0-400M 13.3 @178 kmh

Figures are from the latest wheels magazine.

I was expecting better times :yup:. With all the hooharr that has been going on over in FF forum, I thought a 12 sec pass was going to be a certainty. I dont think the Holden boys have anything to worry about:lol:

[CV860L]

That is with 2 people, half a tank of gas and sympathetic testers.......I bet Motor's test shows up a different set of figures.

[Ghosn]

Those figures mean F all unless u have a HSV handy to compare on the same day, same conditions.

[smokiebbear]

:bow:
The performance figures are in for the new FG FPV F6 310kw, 565nm of Torque.

With all the hype and build up,we have been waiting for months for the figures to come in and here they are :
0-100kmh 5.2 secs
0-400M 13.3 @178 kmh

Figures are from the latest wheels magazine.

I was expecting better times :yup:. With all the hooharr that has been going on over in FF forum, I thought a 12 sec pass was going to be a certainty. I dont think the Holden boys have anything to worry about:lol:

I remember a certain post of STunas about how when these guys test cars they get heaps of heatsoak etc so times are generally way out. I bet if you rolled one up to the 1/4 and hit the loud pedal it'd do a 12 sec pass. Maybe ST could elabourate on the testing methods these guys use

[mustanger]

Don`t get me wrong, I love the new F6, but I was dissappointed with the times. The last six months has been F6 this, and F6 that , and now the numbers are in I am dissappointed :nutkick:

[CV860L]

The 80-120km/h figure of 2.7sec's gives a better indication of how quick it is.
Go and find out how many cars can match or better that time........there ain't many!

[cosmo vyss]

Don`t get me wrong, I love the new F6, but I was dissappointed with the times. The last six months has been F6 this, and F6 that , and now the numbers are in I am dissappointed :nutkick:

The torque figure tells the story John. I think off memory 565nm available from2400 all the way. A couple of small mods and viola a giant killer.

Its still not a V8 though.

[vecommo]

All that hype over what??? :sleep:

13.3 second 0-400m.... the same time that was posted by the VTII GTS 300 back in 2000.

And what happened to the sub 5 second 0-100 that everyone was harping on about?

[Ghosn]

All that hype over what??? :sleep:

13.3 second 0-400m.... the same time that was posted by the VTII GTS 300 back in 2000.

And what happened to the sub 5 second 0-100 that everyone was harping on about?

I think you and mustanger are getting ahead of yourselves. 13.3 is nothing to sneeze at and you have no idea what the conditions were that those times were run at. You don't know if the conditions were really bad which if that is the case, those times are pretty impressive. But since we don't know and never will know the conditions, take it with a grain of salt. Like i said before, u need to have both cars tested on the same day same conditions for a true performance comparison.

[macca33]

I reckon HSV does have something to worry about in the market demographic that cares little about brand name perhaps, but who want an affordable performance 4-door. The F6 does look the goods, but we'll have to see some further results to quantify them I'd reckon. I actually prefer the look of the G6E (albeit not an FPV product) - performance AND luxury, almost as good as a Senator...:stick:

Cheers,

Macca

[mustanger]

The G6ET might be the pick of the bunch there Macca. At around $55K it is great value. The Typhoon they tested with a few options came in at $75K plus on road .Options included leather,brembo brakes and graphite finish wheels .

[CV860L]

The G6ET might be the pick of the bunch there Macca. At around $55K it is great value. The Typhoon they testesd with a few options came in at $75K plus on road .Options included leather,brembo brakes and graphite finish wheels .

I agree, the G6ET actually matched the 1/4 time of the Typhoon and was a tenth quicker to 100k's.......That's pretty good for a luxo model.

[DR-vyss-108]

if the f6 does 80-120 in 2.7 thats a WHOLE second quicker than what the gt and gts did it in from what i read in the mag

[LJCHSV]

Is it wrong to be a holden man...and loving the sound of this new F6?:)

Im not much of a times man or anything like that as i dont have the skills to drive a car to its full potential...but for some reason i just find the F6 an exciting car.

[CV860L]

Is it wrong to be a holden man...and loving the sound of this new F6?:)

Im not much of a times man or anything like that as i dont have the skills to drive a car to its full potential...but for some reason i just find the F6 an exciting car.

I just traded my BF Typhoon for an SSV Ute 3 weeks ago, now i want to go and buy an FG Typhoon :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

[macca33]

The G6ET might be the pick of the bunch there Macca. At around $55K it is great value............

Yep John, I did actually mean the G6ET, as you indicated. It looks like a great package for the price too - probably something that would have sold well in previous Fairmont models, no doubt.

I've just received a copy of Wheels that shows the new Falcons and I am impressed with that model in particular.

Cheers,

Macca

[quantanemo]

Im sorry - but it means bugger all. If the G6ET is capabale of 5.1/13.3 the F6 will be quicker.

Not even Ford are stupid enough to get that wrong.

Laugh now while you can.









I hope Ford are not that stupid....

[mustanger]

Im sorry - but it means bugger all. If the G6ET is capabale of 5.1/13.3 the F6 will be quicker.

Not even Ford are stupid enough to get that wrong.

Laugh now while you can.


Being capable is one thing, actually doing it ,is another:teach:

Figures were taken from wheels magazine, so no bias here.

I am sure they may do better times but at the moment ,the magazine says 13.3 :argue:

[vlcalais8]

I dont think anyone can pass judgement and jump to conclusions just from one single test, there is plenty to come. I think it depends if HSV are to worry - if your the V8 loving bloke who will take nothing else (which is fair enough, each to thier own) then you will buy the HSV, if your open to new things and can appreciate a car for what it is and dont care about brand name then it wouldnt surprise me if many pick up an F6 over the GTS

[macca_779]

Was the mag testing an A6 or an M6 F6 (thats alot of 6's hehe). I reckon the A6 will be the quicker of the two especially in the hands of useless journos who have proven time and time again they can't launch a car that great.

[BadMac]

Im sorry - but it means bugger all. If the G6ET is capabale of 5.1/13.3 the F6 will be quicker.

Not even Ford are stupid enough to get that wrong.

Laugh now while you can.









I hope Ford are not that stupid....

I heard a rumour (so treat it with a grain of salt), but the non FPV cars used by Motor/Drive/Wheels (they were the same cars) had a problem with the Turbo over boosting. Ford aren't talking about it, but it may help explain why the XR6T seems faster than the F6, perhaps best to wait for some customer cars to be delivered, plenty on FF have ordered them so real numbers will appear as soon a Ford restarts (or actually starts first time) the Turbo production line (Turbo cars have still not been delivered). Note I am not knocking Ford and am sure the F6 will dip below 5.0, its just that the 5.1 was a little too fast for Ford compared to where they had pitched the car (too keep a lid on the "too powerful brigade" (politicians+ do gooders).

[Excellent]

The performance figures are in for the new FG FPV F6 310kw, 565nm of Torque.

With all the hype and build up,we have been waiting for months for the figures to come in and here they are :
0-100kmh 5.2 secs
0-400M 13.3 @178 kmh

Figures are from the latest wheels magazine.

I was expecting better times :yup:. With all the hooharr that has been going on over in FF forum, I thought a 12 sec pass was going to be a certainty. I dont think the Holden boys have anything to worry about:lol:

It's the fastest time recorded for an F6 by a magazine. It's not far from 12s territory with just the right traction. Terminal speed is better than anything I've seen tested for FPV/HSV.

It doesn't really matter because it's the rolling acceleration that will be hard to beat. It will take a good Euro to stay with the F6.

[RAPHOON]

And for the first time for a while the manuals will be quicker than the auto's thanks to the factory launch control function.

Clutch in, accelarator flat to the floor, the car will hold revs at 3000RPM and deactivate 2 cylinders. This allows the car to build 20% boost prior to launch.

Never mind the F6, the XR6T will be tough to catch off the line.

What a fantastic country we live in. 2 local manufacturers making awesome cars at great value for money.

[Wonky]

if the f6 does 80-120 in 2.7 thats a WHOLE second quicker than what the gt and gts did it in from what i read in the mag

Manuals or autos? If manuals and one of them had to make a gear change in that range and the other(s) didn't that could account for the difference.

[bouka]

Although the 0-100 and 1/4 mile times are a little slower than some may have expected, the testing regime that Wheels uses is, by there own admission, not the most conducive to extracting the "best" numbers. No doubt these numbers could be better. As some stated earlier, perspective would have been gained had they tested the LS3 on the same day under the same conditions.

What is very impressive is the 80-120 time. Going on the figures quoted in this thread (i haven't seen the article) a figure of 2.7 for the 80-120klm test is nothing short of stunning for a local FI 6. It will shame most cars on the road (in standard form) with very few exceptions (think exotic and very expensive euros).

The price tag is not as impressive as the performance figures. At 75k (approx with some options, plus on roads) it is right in the GTS LS3 (and Senator) price range and doesn't seem, in my opinion, to offer the same levels of kit.

No doubt an brilliant engine.

It does make the XR6T (and to a large extent the G6ET) look like the performance bargains of the day.

Credit where credit is due. The I6T is, in the early stages, running off some great performance figures. It is no doubt a good time to be an enthusiast of fast four door aussie made family cars. We are certainly spoilt for choice and making the euros nervous.

[CarlFST60L]

I am so sick of people thinking the F6/XR6t is better in some way because they roll on better 80km/h/120km/h in 3rd. Its a f#$king NA V8, it must have rev's, it MUST be done in 2nd otherwise the test just proves that turbo cars are better at roll in in lower gear, which most of us know. Unfortunatly, some people just search for anything better and cling onto it :hide:

To all you Motor/Wheels test drivers, give us a break, learn to get the most out of a car, do the test in the right gear... You guys should know better :teach:

[bouka]

The XR6T, G6ET and F6 are quick cars. Regardless of what gear, road speed etc they are a quick production car. I am sure we can at least concede that.

Are they quicker than a stock LS2? Are they quicker than a stock LS3? Stock L98? Who cares! Surely we are mature enough to appreciate a good performance car.

[CarlFST60L]

Surely we are mature enough to appreciate a good performance car.

They are great cars, no question. I just cant handle so many people that have opinion's based on poor testing bench marks. I would normally let this go, but it seems so many people are caught up on this, and I feel it is because it is not clear.

Here is an example for those of you that like to read about performance.

My car is a 300kwrw cam only and runs low 12's as driven factory 19's @ 1950kg. I raced a VY with edit exhaust and diff etc, low 13 second car. So this is low 12 second car verses low 13 second car. We both rolled on at 80km/h, i thought I would test out third, what do you know, he smoked me to 120km/h, though I caught up by about 160kmh. Lets do this again, but this time I start in second, what do you know, I smoked him by 2 full car lengths to 120km/h, the car literally jumped in front almost instantly. So you can see how much difference the gear selection makes!

I have also done this test with my low 13 second VY and another low 13 second VX, same test, except it was even when we both used second, when I used third, he smoked me easily, it was a joke. The moral of the story, you'd have to be a retread to roll on in 3rd gear, which leaves only one conclusion about the Motor/Wheels or who ever is publishing this crap :teach:

Let me say this one more time, I love the new XR6t, great BFYB. Cant wait to drive one. Also, im not saying it wont still be faster, im just saying it wont be ownage where it counts.

[Carby]

I have no doubt he F6 will be quicker than any of the HSV's. I have a new GTS LS3 and I reckon it is no better than the old LS2's, having just swapped with a mate for a run in his VE R8 LS2.

Lets face it - Ford has got the jump on HSV this time and HSV's detuned LS3 will not live with the F6 anywhere - all the time apparently using far less fuel at the same time.

At least the LS3 sounds good................ :)

[Alex(AUS)]

"WHEELS" with the "SAME" "TESTING PROCEDURE" recorded 5.2 / 13.4 in the HSV Senator almost 2 years ago (Wheels October 2006 page 59) ... so whats new or better here???

It was also posted that the VT2 GTS recorded a 13.3 in 2000 (for very close to 75k but a much better package). From memory there were two magazine tests where the C4B recorded 111+mph passes.

Alex

[Carby650]

I have no doubt he F6 will be quicker than any of the HSV's. I have a new GTS LS3 and I reckon it is no better than the old LS2's, having just swapped with a mate for a run in his VE R8 LS2.

Lets face it - Ford has got the jump on HSV this time and HSV's detuned LS3 will not live with the F6 anywhere - all the time apparently using far less fuel at the same time.

At least the LS3 sounds good................ :)

I think it is a great that fraud and FPV are taking it up to GM and HSV. Competition is a good thing. Stops GM and HSV from getting complacent.
I read the Motor review on the XR6T and they said it is the best 4 door road car going around and it sounds like it handles like a dream.
I do wonder though if Fraud have extracted everything they possibley can from the 6 turbo whereas I think that the holden V8 and LS3 are seriously detuned.
Point being that it wouldn't take much to get our V8 going a lot quicker. I doubt the same could be said for the Fraud 6 turbo.
chers
Carby650

[PASHEN]

We're living in the best era for Australian performance cars ever - we should appreciate it and pay credit where it's due.

I was a HSV V8 man thru and thru...I still love the sound - nothing like it.

But there's something special about these turbo charged 6's.

Those of you who would NEVER own an FPV should ATLEAST take an F6 for a drive - you'll see what all the fuss is about. I will.

[Shane QLD]

Yep John, I did actually mean the G6ET, as you indicated. It looks like a great package for the price too - probably something that would have sold well in previous Fairmont models, no doubt.

I've just received a copy of Wheels that shows the new Falcons and I am impressed with that model in particular.

Cheers,

Macca


Look closer at the specs on the G6ET & you will find that there is no LSD or a option for one. Hate to control one on wet road with the TC turned off. Also there is no option for a larger Transmission cooler, it is only available on the XR6T. Also the FG seems to be prone to Rack Rattle on most cars that have been tested. Try & get a test drive of a Turbo & none are available untill end of the month. ( rumour! steering probs). Rack problems are not new, I had a BA XR8 & BF XR6T with clunks in both. Ended up going to a GM product after being a Ford man for years,( structural faults in BF XR6T) & with no complaints so far with the VE.

[RobboXR6T]

I think it is a great that fraud and FPV are taking it up to GM and HSV. Competition is a good thing. Stops GM and HSV from getting complacent.
I read the Motor review on the XR6T and they said it is the best 4 door road car going around and it sounds like it handles like a dream.
I do wonder though if Fraud have extracted everything they possibley can from the 6 turbo whereas I think that the holden V8 and LS3 are seriously detuned.
Point being that it wouldn't take much to get our V8 going a lot quicker. I doubt the same could be said for the Fraud 6 turbo.
chers
Carby650

I'm reasonably sure the turbos are also detuned from factory. That is why they are so easy to extract more power from. I don't see the FGs as any different. Time will tell.

[SICK SS]

you goto rember to that ford arnt very renown for uping the power when new models come out so expect power levels to remain the same for a few models

[sh|tbmxrider]

another thread, another chance for vecommo and Alex(Aus) to jump all over the FG hehe.


Im waiting for a group test, Clubby/GTS vs. GT & F6, so we can see the cars in the same conditions, with the same driver, on the same day to see how they go...

I, personally, have no worries thinking that there is more in the F6 than the 5.2/13.3 wheels pulled out of it(just like the GT *should* do better than the 14's it did in the same edition)


I think it is a great that fraud and FPV are taking it up to GM and HSV. Competition is a good thing. Stops GM and HSV from getting complacent.
I read the Motor review on the XR6T and they said it is the best 4 door road car going around and it sounds like it handles like a dream.
I do wonder though if Fraud have extracted everything they possibley can from the 6 turbo whereas I think that the holden V8 and LS3 are seriously detuned.
Point being that it wouldn't take much to get our V8 going a lot quicker. I doubt the same could be said for the Fraud 6 turbo.
chers
Carby650


Carby,

I suggest you make your way to the XR6Turbo forums, you may be surprised...

From what I can tell, in a Modification Dollar vs Result, they are on par/maybe a bit better or a bit worse than your LS1 etc...

[payaya]

Yep John, I did actually mean the G6ET, as you indicated. It looks like a great package for the price too - probably something that would have sold well in previous Fairmont models, no doubt.

I've just received a copy of Wheels that shows the new Falcons and I am impressed with that model in particular.

Cheers,

Macca


Look closer at the specs on the G6ET & you will find that there is no LSD or a option for one. Hate to control one on wet road with the TC turned off. Also there is no option for a larger Transmission cooler, it is only available on the XR6T. Also the FG seems to be prone to Rack Rattle on most cars that have been tested. Try & get a test drive of a Turbo & none are available untill end of the month. ( rumour! steering probs). Rack problems are not new, I had a BA XR8 & BF XR6T with clunks in both. Ended up going to a GM product after being a Ford man for years,( structural faults in BF XR6T) & with no complaints so far with the VE.

Why the heck would you have traction control turned off in the wet? I cant see the rack on the NA to the Turbo being any different so why believe theres steering probs in the Turbo?

Why assume the FPV F6 is slow?? A lot of people on this forum thought the FG was going to be a dud as it was an update. They were proven wrong, now the FPV doesnt get into the 12's which makes it a dud. Wait for the comparo, that trap speed is good for a 13 flat at least.

So WHEELS did the F6 review and also GT/HSV comparo

So F6 gets:
0-100kmh 5.2 secs
0-400M 13.3 @178 kmh

GT gets:
0-100kmh 6.4 secs
0-400M 14.4 @169 kmh

HSV gets:
0-100kmh 5.5 secs
0-400M 13.7 @167 kmh?

So must quicker speeds will be had just not from Wheels on that given day.

[sh|tbmxrider]

"WHEELS" with the "SAME" "TESTING PROCEDURE" recorded 5.2 / 13.4 in the HSV Senator almost 2 years ago (Wheels October 2006 page 59) ... so whats new or better here???

It was also posted that the VT2 GTS recorded a 13.3 in 2000 (for very close to 75k but a much better package). From memory there were two magazine tests where the C4B recorded 111+mph passes.

Alex



Wasn't the VT2 GTS with the c4b close to 100k? That figure sticks in my mind for some reason

[blkVEute]

I have just read every post in this thread and I dont know why you guys are all arguing about this, its just a game of cat(Holden) and mouse(Ford) that has been going on for almost all of my teen and adult years.
Ford have had the better part of a year and a half to out perform Holden's and HSV's just like holden did to BA and BF with the VX VY VZ, so wait another year and there will be a sub 5sec holden or HSV running around and all the member's on FF with be having the same arguments that we are having here about the ford.

Realistically its great to have a car that we can all look at and think is almost too good to be true from a i6 and to think what is on the cards for holden in the next few years. Good on Ford they needed something to get the blood pumping for all their enthusiast and if that come in the shape of a 6 instead of an 8 well good luck to them, personally i perfer the sound of my V8 when a give it a bit instead of a turbo spooling up and i guess thats something as members on this site we all have in common....

[Penko]

"WHEELS" with the "SAME" "TESTING PROCEDURE" recorded 5.2 / 13.4 in the HSV Senator almost 2 years ago (Wheels October 2006 page 59) ... so whats new or better here???

It was also posted that the VT2 GTS recorded a 13.3 in 2000 (for very close to 75k but a much better package). From memory there were two magazine tests where the C4B recorded 111+mph passes.

Alex


So in having said that you must be dissapointed in the new GTS's not being able to match that either, 2 years on?

[Alex(AUS)]

We're living in the best era for Australian performance cars ever - we should appreciate it and pay credit where it's due.

I was a HSV V8 man thru and thru...I still love the sound - nothing like it.

But there's something special about these turbo charged 6's.

Those of you who would NEVER own an FPV should ATLEAST take an F6 for a drive - you'll see what all the fuss is about. I will.

Absolutely. I have driven the BA/BF F6 many times. It is a great car ... no doubt about it. I am just sick of the way some Ford fans come on here and crap on about the possible potential of upcoming models while rubbishing the VE ... as you said ... respect where respect is due ... Ford has done well with the T6.


So in having said that you must be dissapointed in the new GTS's not being able to match that either, 2 years on?

Yeah ... I am actually ... the benchmarks that c4b set still have not been matched to date. It rained supreme for 8 years. I am hopeful the W427 and perhaps other upcoming cars will do the same ... an LS7/LS9/LSA based Senator would get my money.

Alex

[SSWAGON]

80 - 120 in 2.7 thats damn quick..

[CarlFST60L]

80 - 120 in 2.7 thats damn quick..

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=1235871&postcount=28

Thats the advantage of Turbo's. Lets get them to do the right test in the right gear as per my above link.

[SV805]

I am so sick of people thinking the F6/XR6t is better in some way because they roll on better 80km/h/120km/h in 3rd. Its a f#$king NA V8, it must have rev's, it MUST be done in 2nd otherwise the test just proves that turbo cars are better at roll in in lower gear, which most of us know. Unfortunatly, some people just search for anything better and cling onto it :hide:

To all you Motor/Wheels test drivers, give us a break, learn to get the most out of a car, do the test in the right gear... You guys should know better :teach:

CarlFST60L,

Can a M6 Manual SS/HSV do 120km/ph in 2nd. ? Mine certainly can't.

This may be the reason they do the 80 to 120 test in 3rd. ???

[CV860L]

The 80-120km/h test in 3rd 4th 5th and 6th is a great test, it's showing where the engine is making torque at different revs.

[YMK]

To answer the OP, no. HSV have a good car and if every buyer was to base his/her/it's purchase off some acceleration test then we'd all buy the VE SS as it's the quickest car in Aus. It did 13.2 when it was released, that's quicker than the C4B GTS and the FG F6.

[CV860L]

To answer the OP, no. HSV have a good car and if every buyer was to base his/her/it's purchase off some acceleration test then we'd all buy the VE SS as it's the quickest car in Aus. It did 13.2 when it was released, that's quicker than the C4B GTS and the FG F6.

If your talking about the Motor test I'm pretty sure it was 13.4.........

[YMK]

If your talking about the Motor test I'm pretty sure it was 13.4.........Yes, there was one test that got 13.4. I'm thinking of a test which was done earlier, which I'm certain was 13.2.

[CarlFST60L]

CarlFST60L,

Can a M6 Manual SS/HSV do 120km/ph in 2nd. ? Mine certainly can't.

This may be the reason they do the 80 to 120 test in 3rd. ???

Come on, are you serious? Changing gears in a race, who would have thought :confused:

You CANNOT compare larger capacity TURBO cars with NA cars with his kind of test, it is NOT "Apples with Apples" its NA with Turbo's.

[RobboXR6T]

Come on, are you serious? Changing gears in a race, who would have thought :confused:

You CANNOT compare larger capacity TURBO cars with NA cars with his kind of test, it is NOT "Apples with Apples" its NA with Turbo's.


But you have no problem comparing 5.4ltr against 6.2ltr. If the power output is similar, then what is the problem? Similar sized cars. Similar weight. Who cares whether is it NA, Turbo or Supercharged. Holden put their best unit forward and you compare it to Fords best unit. Similar price range, similar market. That is a comparo. On the other hand if you had a $150,000 unit against a $65,000 unit, that might seem lopsided.

[payaya]

Come on, are you serious? Changing gears in a race, who would have thought :confused:

You CANNOT compare larger capacity TURBO cars with NA cars with his kind of test, it is NOT "Apples with Apples" its NA with Turbo's.

So should the Bugatti Veyron is cheating using 16 cylinders and 4 turbos?

[sjhugh]

I’m a Holden man through and through but I’d be happy to have any of these new cars. I see this as a wasted argument, performance cars today for the money are great value and choice often comes down to personal appeal. I’ve got a VE R8 with a head & cam job, VE SSV Ute with exhaust, CAI & tune, across the road is a fellow with a VL turbo that rattles the windows when he starts her up, my next door neighbour has a stroked VX Clubby and his son has a Lexus Soarer which sh@ts over all of us. Admittedly he’s thrown a lot of money at it and my point is most of us on here are performance orientated wether it’s something as simple as a CAI, a tune, to a mega buck FI setup or whatever, the thing is we do fiddle with our cars. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Ford or Holden or how fast they are in stock trim, the winner will always be the fellow who has the most money to spend with the know how to back it up. They are all good cars and all good for modding and regardless of how quick they are, if they are street cars most of us will never really know unless we wish to run the risk of the cops hauling them away. If it’s bragging rights you’re interested in then let’s wait until the Fords start appearing at the track. Personally I’d love to own a F6 but when I’m cruising in a car, I love the sound of a V8.

[CarlFST60L]

But you have no problem comparing 5.4ltr against 6.2ltr. If the power output is similar, then what is the problem? Similar sized cars. Similar weight. Who cares whether is it NA, Turbo or Supercharged. Holden put their best unit forward and you compare it to Fords best unit. Similar price range, similar market. That is a comparo. On the other hand if you had a $150,000 unit against a $65,000 unit, that might seem lopsided.

I dont mean to start sounding rude, but open your eye's, I like both car's, but I do so with both eyes open. I have driven and raced BOTH. I am trying to help the 'uniformed racer' to see that a turbo car will roll on better at low RPM, its a turbo, they have that effect. However, here in the real world, when these two car's meet and roll on in a real race, it will be neck and neck, and neither person should be stupid enough to roll on in the wrong gear, this is why cars have gear box's FFS, would you ride your mountain bike up a hill in the longest gear :lol:

I have actually raced with F6's, XR6t's in my VY and a couple in my R8, but they were not fair, it was nothing special, believe it or not, it was neck and neck (oh no, but motor said, but wheels said, but but but....)

More beer for me

Also, all the other test's are pretty valid, just low RPM roll on's, they favour the turbo. Thats all.

[Alex(AUS)]

would you ride your mountain bike up a hill in the longest gear :lol:


That is because you dont have megga torque in your legs like me ... i will out bike race you in 31st gear at 2km/h any day of the week ...

Alex

[CarlFST60L]

That is because you dont have megga torque in your legs like me ... i will out bike race you in 31st gear at 2km/h any day of the week ...

Alex

I read that my blue bike is faster in this cool magazine, so I know I will beat you!

[Alex(AUS)]

I read that my blue bike is faster in this cool magazine, so I know I will beat you!

That is obviously because you are using undercover gearing ... and I cant get traction on the street (even in 31st).

HOWEVER, if we go down to the track and the following was to occur;
- It is negative 30 outside
- I eat some Martini sausages
- I port and polish the whole bike
- I get my little speedo and shimano gear changes calibrated
- I use a 3.9 sprocket
- Thongs that slip to give torque multiplication
- I install a second hole mod to my Y fronts
- I remove my jumper and let the air hit me directly over the handlebars (OTHCAI)
- I push my bike to the line
- I dont put on my helmet to drop the weight
- ET Streets for bikes with lower pressures labeled as Dunlop SP9000s
- Spray some water from my drink bottle on my thighs
- I use my top secret 1st to 3rd to 2nd to 5th launch
- I take off right after a beer when I am cool

You are going down for sure.

Alex

[Shane QLD]

[QUOTE=Shane QLD;1235977]

Why the heck would you have traction control turned off in the wet? I cant see the rack on the NA to the Turbo being any different so why believe theres steering probs in the Turbo?

Why assume the FPV F6 is slow?? A lot of people on this forum thought the FG was going to be a dud as it was an update. They were proven wrong, now the FPV doesnt get into the 12's which makes it a dud. Wait for the comparo, that trap speed is good for a 13 flat at least.

So WHEELS did the F6 review and also GT/HSV comparo

So F6 gets:
0-100kmh 5.2 secs
0-400M 13.3 @178

GT gets:
0-100kmh 6.4 secs
0-400M 14.4 @169 kmh

HSV gets:
0-100kmh 5.5 secs
0-400M 13.7 @167 kmh?

So must quicker speeds will be had just not from Wheels on that given day.

If you read my Post again you will see that I said the FG series was prone to Rack Rattle & still is on bumpy surfaces ! Read a few Reviews & it comes up as a problem, with something Fraud should look into.

[CarlFST60L]

That is obviously because you are using undercover gearing ... and I cant get traction on the street (even in 31st).

HOWEVER, if we go down to the track and the following was to occur;
- It is negative 30 outside
- I eat some Martini sausages
- I port and polish the whole bike
- I get my little speedo and shimano gear changes calibrated
- I use a 3.9 sprocket
- Thongs that slip to give torque multiplication
- I install a second hole mod to my Y fronts
- I remove my jumper and let the air hit me directly over the handlebars (OTHCAI)
- I push my bike to the line
- I dont put on my helmet to drop the weight
- ET Streets for bikes with lower pressures labeled as Dunlop SP9000s
- Spray some water from my drink bottle on my thighs
- I use my top secret 1st to 3rd to 2nd to 5th launch
- I take off right after a beer when I am cool

You are going down for sure.

Alex

Shhh, your letting out all the secrets out of how run the 'good' numbers :lol:

[matt.vzss]

The dramas that ford are having with the supply of the turbo vehicles is the new garrett turbo thay have on the new FG.

Apparently they were havng problems with gudgen bearings they then got that sorted but then had a couple of turbos fly to pieces due to fault internals. Garrett had to re engineer the problem parts but can only supply around 70 a week and ford are wanting to built around 200 pf the turbos a week.

Supply is going to be very tight on the turbo models for quite a few weeks to come.

Matt

[Swordie]

Mid $40's for the Ford is great buying. If only they could build a wagon with the motor.

[turbo6]

Come on, are you serious? Changing gears in a race, who would have thought :confused:

You CANNOT compare larger capacity TURBO cars with NA cars with his kind of test, it is NOT "Apples with Apples" its NA with Turbo's.

Geez, you don't want to let this go do you? ha ha ha ha

Mate, you have a cammed LS1? I would imagine then that that alone has moved your power up the rev range so yes, 2nd in the 80-120 would be more appropriate. Mate, these are STANDARD cars and this is more real world than most other tests.

I have a bigger turbo on my F6 which has moved my power up also and would be happy to do the same 80-120 in 2nd as you. How do you reckon you would fare?? Apples vs apples.

[CarlFST60L]

Geez, you don't want to let this go do you? ha ha ha ha

Mate, you have a cammed LS1? I would imagine then that that alone has moved your power up the rev range so yes, 2nd in the 80-120 would be more appropriate. Mate, these are STANDARD cars and this is more real world than most other tests.

I have a bigger turbo on my F6 which has moved my power up also and would be happy to do the same 80-120 in 2nd as you. How do you reckon you would fare?? Apples vs apples.

Cammed LS1? Top right of every post it says what ride people have if you cared to read, or are you just another FF stirrer? I guess this thread has finally been linked to on FF?

I have a low 12 second street trim (factory tyres) Cammed VE HSV R8 which this thread is not about, so I don't know why your talking about it, or your modified F6. Or is this about your epenis? :lol:

If you read all of my posts in this thread, I have said what I wanted to say with no bias, no BS and nothing that is not true (to my knowledge). If there is something that I have specifically said that you want clarification on, please feel free to ask :cheers:

If you really do want to race, we have hired out Wakefield park on the 6th June, PM for details. Will be a great day out. Just noticed your in Brisvegas, so no chance of racing ;)

[turbo6]

Cammed something mate, sorry. The fact remains it is still cammed which by all rights moves your power higher in the rev range?

I have been around here from time to time and the guys that know me know that I am not a sh1t stirrer. You seem very aggressive though.

All I was trying to point out (and that other people have done) is that these tests are on standard cars - not cammed ones or modified turbo ones. By all means, test the 80-120 in 2nd even if it requires a gear change and I think you will find the comparable result would be the same.

Don't worry, my F6 is by no means slow.:)

[CarlFST60L]

Cammed something mate, sorry. The fact remains it is still cammed which by all rights moves your power higher in the rev range?

I have been around here from time to time and the guys that know me know that I am not a sh1t stirrer. You seem very aggressive though.

All I was trying to point out (and that other people have done) is that these tests are on standard cars - not cammed ones or modified turbo ones. By all means, test the 80-120 in 2nd even if it requires a gear change and I think you will find the comparable result would be the same.

Don't worry, my F6 is by no means slow.:)

Aggressive :lol: Im very passive! Although, text on forums makes it hard to see the person behind the keyboard ;)

Again, I am not talking about my car, and will not talk about it as its way off topic, not sure why you keep bringing it up.

If you go back a few post's there is a link I posted that goes into detail about this exact argument. I clearly say the 6T kick's ass at low RPM due to a long stroke turbo'd motor, but in fairness and to add some balance, it is going to be door to door in a real world race as only a retread would roll on in 3rd at 80km/h. So, just adding balance to that test for those that don't realise why the 6T is so much quicker in THAT test, when in a REAL RACE it will be door to door SS v F6/XR6t. Obviously, if you go around racing 3rd gear, you will loose, but at least if you read this, you will know why ;)

IMO, it is the responsibility of Motor/Wheels etc to keep a fair an balanced comparison so the readers are properly informed, all they did was to test and show results of a long stroke FI 6cyl beating an NA V8 at low RPM and no explanation of why or how, now the Ford boy's jump up and down like they have won the ultimate victory, but the informed racer knows exactly why. That specific test is NOT fair and balanced, sure the other tests are 'ok'.

The main reason for roll on is to show roll on performance to remove launch and driver out of the equation. It also is good to show the torque curve, but even then you must have identical gearing/final drive ratio as we all know gearing multiply's torque! not to mention the Turbo and long stroke 6cyl. If your going to roll on race to show outright performance with no launching bias, at least make it fair and roll on in the right gear. If you want to do it properly, use EFI Live (or similar) to show gear change duration and exact graph's including gear changes :teach: If you want to get technical, do it properly. If they did things like this, put a bit of effort into the technical aspect with their data, I would start buying the magazine again.

I told myself I wasnt going to post again, dam it.

[Holden Man]

I wonder if the W427 is feeling the pressure ?

A CSV 7ltr VE did 2.6sec 80-120k (auto/left in drive) which is basically the same as the FG's 2.7secs, so it should be interesting.

With all the power modern cars have, I would like to see the 0 - 250kph times. (100 comes too quickly)

[turbo6]

"I told myself I wasnt going to post again, dam it. "

ha ha ha. Couldn't help it!:)

I do understand where you are coming from though.

Mate, I am a fan of the VE's don't worry. I don't care what badge is on a car - I drive an Audi Q7 (twin turbo V8 one at that - see, I love 'em), I just appreciate em all. The local car industry is the winner here - see, guys are all arguing over this that and the other - who cares, we all win in the end. We just drive what we want to.

I just love what my spastic F6 is capable of - over 500rwkw's will see to that..............

[BadMac]

It would be good if the mags were to do the following tests and publish them, they tell you a lot more about the real world performance of the car.

0-100.
80-120, 3rd
80-120, 4th
80-120, 5th
80-120, 6th (if available)
80-120, fastest (using auto or gear changes if necessary).
100-0, ie braking.

The reason for each range tells about torque and what will happen if you pull out to pass in a higher gear.

Here is a test from the Latest NZ Autocar.

G6ET versus Calais V.
0-100, 5.29 v 5.72
80-120, 2.86 v 3.35 (gearbox in sports auto).
100-0, 35.06m v 34.00m

They note the Calais V was hesitant to unlock the torque converter and change down which hurt its 80-120. The ZF equiped Ford was brillant. Note the review concluded the G6ET winner (great engine/gearbox, fresher centre console), but noted they would prefer the Calais V due to its handling, response, steering and seat position. Also noted that if they were comparing XR6T versus SS the result would possible have been different.

[VYII_R8]

I do wonder though if Fraud have extracted everything they possibley can from the 6 turbo whereas I think that the holden V8 and LS3 are seriously detuned.
Point being that it wouldn't take much to get our V8 going a lot quicker. I doubt the same could be said for the Fraud 6 turbo.
chers
Carby650

I think that is a very wrong statement. Tune only BA/BF XR6T's are pulling 275rwkw. With hardware changes (ie cooler, exhaust, injectors) the sky is the limit!

The turbo 6 is also seriously detuned! Put 15psi in any FG turbo and see what power it makes! :)

[turbo6]

Completely agree.

The limiting factor in tune-only in the BA-BF was the injector size.

Apparently the FG's have bigger squirters. If that is in fact correct, then the tune-only in the FG will go to 300rwkw's and above - depending on the actual size........

Now that is some cheap ass performance - around $1500 for a good quality custom tune complete with three maps. Cheaper if you have your flash tuner already. Can't beat that!

[CarlFST60L]

I hear they use a smaller turbo on the FG? Could this limit the amount of boost they can run? Maybe they will not be 'as good' for making cheap power due to a turbo upgrade being required... (I really have no idea about this comment, just heard this somewhere)

[Jet6T]

the xr6 turbo will more than likely attract people awat from the f6 with it not so nice nose.... not to mention spend the change of mods to smoke it.

HSV should worry, except may the coupe 60... but thats another thread.

[RAPHOON]

You are correct, The turbo is different in the new model.

The duty cycle on this unit is much higher, reducing the top end increase scope.

[Jet6T]

I hear they use a smaller turbo on the FG? Could this limit the amount of boost they can run? Maybe they will not be 'as good' for making cheap power due to a turbo upgrade being required... (I really have no idea about this comment, just heard this somewhere)



I think your right, thats why they are quicker to boost up, people will set back to the ba-bf turbo for size if its a real problem i guess.

[VYII_R8]

I think your right, thats why they are quicker to boost up, people will set back to the ba-bf turbo for size if its a real problem i guess.

I heard it is the same size turbo, but with a slightly smaller compressor cover to enable quicker spool up - so in essence, yes.. this will limit max top end power compared to BA/BF. How much though is the question... I personally still think the factory turbo will be good for at least 350rwkw seeing as the BA/BF turbo is good for 420-430rwkw

[CarlFST60L]

HSV should worry

Let revisit this in 3 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years and review sales figures, at the end of the day, its a business, so this is what counts.

FPV outselling HSV... mmmmm..

[CS1234]

I think its good for the consumer as I bet we are all waiting to see what holden will do.

Think about it, if Ford didn't make the BA, Holden might not have built the VE.

Remember that ford scrapped its V8 during the late eighties and Holden pushed on with it and created a great V8 and have the upper hand over ford

Ford played around with turbo's so of course they have the upper hand over holden with turbo's.

[sh|tbmxrider]

Let revisit this in 3 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years and review sales figures, at the end of the day, its a business, so this is what counts.

FPV outselling HSV... mmmmm..


Thats a pipe dream, I reckon

[FG Turbo Ute]

You had better check out the Wheels June issue, they put the FPV and HSV on the dyno and HSV has less power.

[CarlFST60L]

You had better check out the Wheels June issue, they put the FPV and HSV on the dyno and HSV has less power.

Yay, dyno queen's will be lining up.

[EASTWOOD]

Yay, dyno queen's will be lining up.

Fact is it made more power and torque through the entire rev range.

New boss V ls3.

[Ghosn]

You had better check out the Wheels June issue, they put the FPV and HSV on the dyno and HSV has less power.


Fact is it made more power and torque through the entire rev range.

New boss V ls3.

Guys, if that's the best u got. That's pretty sad.

[YMK]

Fact is it made more power and torque through the entire rev range.

New boss V ls3.And more MPH down the quarter. It had a very bad 0-60km/h (3.8sec) which cost it dearly over the quarter.

[EASTWOOD]

Guys, if that's the best u got. That's pretty sad.

Got better quarter mile times to,so for now we have bragging rights:moon:

[YMK]

Got better quarter mile times to,so for now we have bragging rights:moon:In the Wheels mag the GTS got the quicker time over the 1/4.

[EASTWOOD]

In the Wheels mag the GTS got the quicker time over the 1/4.

I am yet to see a ve gts run a 13.2 or 13.3,three fords have run those times, if we are talking magazine bragging rights,ford have it over holden at the moment.

[Ghosn]

Got better quarter mile times to,so for now we have bragging rights:moon:

Err, From what I read, the GTS was into the 13 sec bracket and the GT only made it into the 14 sec bracket. I'm no maths teacher but from those figures, it would suggest to me that the GTS covered the track in a shorter time? I'm happy to be corrected tho.

[YMK]

I am yet to see a ve gts run a 13.2 or 13.3,three fords have run those times, if we are talking magazine bragging rights,ford have it over holden at the moment.Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Boss, it appears you were implying the turbos... and if that's the case you're right.

[Dassvnip]

The performance figures are in for the new FG FPV F6 310kw, 565nm of Torque.

With all the hype and build up,we have been waiting for months for the figures to come in and here they are :
0-100kmh 5.2 secs
0-400M 13.3 @178 kmh

Figures are from the latest wheels magazine.

I was expecting better times :yup:. With all the hooharr that has been going on over in FF forum, I thought a 12 sec pass was going to be a certainty. I dont think the Holden boys have anything to worry about:lol:

tell ya what guys and girls...... fark the figures.... the car looks like shite! LOL
the VE is so much sexier!

[PASHEN]

****, the "mine's bigger than yours" posts are getting stupid.

[Dassvnip]

all jokes a side gotta give ford credit for the build though pretty damn quick ....

[CarlFST60L]

I am yet to see a ve gts run a 13.2 or 13.3,three fords have run those times, if we are talking magazine bragging rights,ford have it over holden at the moment.

Your talking about the Turbo right? The Boss ran 14.X :lol:

There are plenty of people that have ran low 13's in VE's/HSV. Mine ran 13.5 @ 52C (F#$KING HOT). I have heard of 13.0's, heaps of 13.2's. A Forum member recently ran 13.2 in his VE SS ute. There is more to life that Motor/Wheels you know :stick:


Fact is it made more power and torque through the entire rev range.

New boss V ls3.

The BA's/BF's have been making more power on the dyno for years, its nothing new.


****, the "mine's bigger than yours" posts are getting stupid.

Correct.

[PBoB]

I really couldn't give a rats ass how much more or less power the new Fords will have, my car goes good enough for me and it puts a smile on my face, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters.

[BlownLS7]

How many on this forum will consider buying a Ford to replace their LS Series car in Future? (NOT work Car but Personal ride.!!!!!!!!)

i say stop the comparisons ,if you want to know about the fords go to fvckedorrundown.com and have a look .fords are shite always have been always will be IMO.(although i wouldnt mind a few GTHO's sitting in storage LOL)

Long live the King of the Australian Road.

cheers

[Freaky]

How many on this forum will consider buying a Ford to replace their LS Series car in Future? (NOT work Car but Personal ride.!!!!!!!!)

i say stop the comparisons ,if you want to know about the fords go to fvckedorrundown.com and have a look .fords are shite always have been always will be IMO.(although i wouldnt mind a few GTHO's sitting in storage LOL)

Long live the King of the Australian Road.

cheers`

speak about one eyed. You should change your username to cyclops.

[GODSMACK]

`

speak about one eyed. You should change your username to cyclops.
There are plenty of them here, so perhaps Cyclops with a numeral afterwards to cater for all the others..

[CarlFST60L]

`

speak about one eyed. You should change your username to cyclops.

:rofl: P!sser

[Freaky]

:rofl: P!sser


How are you Carl. Long time no speak.

Actually Im not a fan of the racoon front on these new cars. I liked them at first maybe from the wow factor, but have grown to dislike them. Abit to ricerboy for me..

The new FPVs are still lacking content compared to HSV. And the carry over rims have caused alot of controversly.

Perfomance wise, we know the F6 will be quick, whether that equates to sales for FPV though is another story.

[BlownLS7]

well its not a ford forum is it???????????
im not 1 eyed,im making a point,
this is such a bitchy forum getting to be you cant have an opinion without being flogged,
go suc a wet fart from a goats azz, i say
if you dont like what i write dont read.

[vecommo]

well its not a ford forum is it???????????
im not 1 eyed,im making a point,
this is such a bitchy forum getting to be you cant have an opinion without being flogged.

I agree with you, it's getting ridiculous.
If a person dislikes Fords then so be it, they have a right to that opinion and a right to say whatever they like to voice that opinion, without being ridiculed or abused.
It's a Holden forum FFS. Don't expect people to get down on their knees and worship Fords. If thats what you want then go to AFF.

go suc a wet fart from a goats azz, i say


lol thats gold

[sszute]

why do the mods let these threads happen its a holden forum who cares about the fords if you want to know about them go to the ford forum ffs

[RobboXR6T]

why do the mods let these threads happen its a holden forum who cares about the fords if you want to know about them go to the ford forum ffs

I think it is because most people on this and the Ford Forum are enthusiasts and give credit where due. The Ford guys who bag Holdens because they are Holdens look just as dumb as the Holden guys who bag Fords for being Fords.

[sszute]

All these threads about the fords on a holden forum turn into a slaging match which would work both ways holdens on a ford forum like why not just keep this forum about holdens and the ford one about fords then we could all live happily ever after

[vecommo]

All these threads about the fords on a holden forum turn into a slaging match which would work both ways holdens on a ford forum like why not just keep this forum about holdens and the ford one about fords then we could all live happily ever after

Sounds like a good idea to me.:)

[Belzey]

It really gets me when people do the "One eyed" line in here just look up the top of the screen :confused: what does it say? You are not going to get an unbiased opinion from approx 90% of the people on this forum..

Anyway how about we keep it civil..

[Ghosn]

All these threads about the fords on a holden forum turn into a slaging match which would work both ways holdens on a ford forum like why not just keep this forum about holdens and the ford one about fords then we could all live happily ever after

Well they are the direct competitor to your beloved Holden, am I right? So why can't Holden fans discuss any info related to their competitors?

[sszute]

I like them both but it just gets so one eyed its annoying this is my first holden i had a ba xr ute i loved it couldnt fault it then i had to buy a 4x4 for work so sold it i was going to wait for the fg ute but didnt like it so i thought why not try a holden so brought the ssz great ute only thing i dont like about it is the room behind the seats you cant put much in there but you get use to it. I like talking about fords but when its so bias and just putting them down how is that comparing the two makes?

[mustanger]

I seriously hope that the new F6 is a real weapon. HSV have had it too good for too long. It might make HSV lift the bar again :woot:

[vlcalais8]

For everyones information those 14 sec times in the June wheels were recorded in the wet, GT running 245 all round GTS running 245 up the front and 275 at the rear. Testers state the GT was spinning too much, no doubt each car has more in it over dry conditions

[FG Turbo Ute]

I think it is because most people on this and the Ford Forum are enthusiasts and give credit where due. The Ford guys who bag Holdens because they are Holdens look just as dumb as the Holden guys who bag Fords for being Fords.
I agree, one thing I notice the Holden guys stay away from is the VE front with it's BA look.

[GODSMACK]

I agree, one thing I notice the Holden guys stay away from is the VE front with it's BA look. VE front with its BA look.... :rofl: what drugs you on mate.... Actually, the Alloytech does have quite a resemblance to Ford's I6..

[Carby]

Well they are the direct competitor to your beloved Holden, am I right? So why can't Holden fans discuss any info related to their competitors?

Exactly right!! It is only natural to discuss competitors on this forum - lets face it there are aspects on both marques that are superior to the other so by highlighting them, people can decide what they consider more important for their own decisions on what car they would like to purchase.

[Knight Phlier]

I agree, one thing I notice the Holden guys stay away from is the VE front with it's BA look.

Huh?? I don't see the BA on the front of the VE at all. Is that what you were trying to say?

[SICK SS]

I agree, one thing I notice the Holden guys stay away from is the VE front with it's BA look.

what lol. im still wondering how ford when from the au shape to the ba if you ask me theres alot of holden in there styling but i guess if you carnt beat them join them

[windsorace]

Remember that ford scrapped its V8 during the late eighties and Holden pushed on with it and created a great V8 and have the upper hand over ford

Ford played around with turbo's so of course they have the upper hand over holden with turbo's.

I find it weird that you say holden pushed on with ITs V8 when the Holden V8 was scrapped with the introduction of the Chev Ls1. Also holden sort of played around with turbo's, be-it on the Nissan 6 so most engine argument's with holden engines are basically non-existant after the black 6 and the injected 308. It's a case of lets just find an engine from anywhere and plonk it in. Lets not forget their little foray into supercharged versions of the Buick V6, so on your theory holden should have a world class Supercharged V6 by now! :moon:

[vlcalais8]

what lol. im still wondering how ford when from the au shape to the ba if you ask me theres alot of holden in there styling but i guess if you carnt beat them join them

If your talking about VE cues in FG, FG was deisgned long before any release of the VE

[whitels1ss]

None of our cars improve without competition, healthy competion between the car makers makes better cars.

[SICK SS]

If your talking about VE cues in FG, FG was deisgned long before any release of the VE

im talking about how simular the ba is to the last vt - vz shape of holden

[Brendan24688]

VE front with its BA look.... :rofl: what drugs you on mate.... Actually, the Alloytech does have quite a resemblance to Ford's I6..

What drugs are you on mate? Alloytech is a boat anchor. :jester:

[sh|tbmxrider]

Huh?? I don't see the BA on the front of the VE at all. Is that what you were trying to say?


the headlights look a little similar.



If you squint.



Hard

[sandmanls1]

weird how most of the tests so far have shown it to be no quicker for the 0-100 and 0-400m tests than the xr6t and g6et etc, except for in gears. You think the extra 40kw should help..

[Ghia351]

weird how most of the tests so far have shown it to be no quicker for the 0-100 and 0-400m tests than the xr6t and g6et etc, except for in gears. You think the extra 40kw should help..Did someone mention a wet track?

[quantanemo]

These initial tests/results are all well and good... but IMO the real numbers emerge at around the 15-20k mark. The Bosses are notorious for taking their damn time to tick over properly...

Plenty of stock Boss's run excellent times (mid 13) once theyve been run in.

[VYII_R8]

Did someone mention a wet track?

That's correct, they quote in the article that it was a fairly damp track they were testing on, and that without doubt, they would go a lot quicker on a dry road.

[vlcalais8]

Do people realise the F6 does 2.7 sec from 80-120km/h (almost matches 2.6 for the CSV 7litre) and has a trap speed of something like 177Km/h down the strip? those are big indications of its true potential, if you ask me its way under tired and has more left in it. Single driver, low fuel and more rubber will probably drop times in the mid 12's easy

[Ghosn]

Do people realise the F6 does 2.7 sec from 80-120km/h (almost matches 2.6 for the CSV 7litre) and has a trap speed of something like 177Km/h down the strip? those are big indications of its true potential, if you ask me its way under tired and has more left in it. Single driver, low fuel and more rubber will probably drop times in the mid 12's easy

So then it wouldn't be stock anymore, yes? Every car has more left in it with the right conditions, right driver, right fuel, right weight etc etc But that's really out of scope if u are trying to get a fair comparison, let's just wait til both cars get tested and compared same day, same conditions instead of constantly jumping to conclusions and living in dream land which I see many people are.

[CV860L]

Do people realise the F6 does 2.7 sec from 80-120km/h (almost matches 2.6 for the CSV 7litre) and has a trap speed of something like 177Km/h down the strip? those are big indications of its true potential, if you ask me its way under tired and has more left in it. Single driver, low fuel and more rubber will probably drop times in the mid 12's easy

The article I read quoted CSV's 80-120km/h time as 3.2 (third gear).

[vlcalais8]

So then it wouldn't be stock anymore, yes? Every car has more left in it with the right conditions, right driver, right fuel, right weight etc etc But that's really out of scope if u are trying to get a fair comparison, let's just wait til both cars get tested and compared same day, same conditions instead of constantly jumping to conclusions and living in dream land which I see many people are.

No mate no one is living in dream land here, just noting basic physics and can actually see what cars are capable of. EVEN with stock rubber, with a single driver and a bit of juice (which will keep everything dead stock) the car will run 12's no worries, simple. Its not like people are saying "wack up the boost to 30 PSI and it will go much better", just mentioning a few minor changes that are very easy to achieve. How bout them sad people wake up and lose the denial and giving credit where its due.


The article I read quoted CSV's 80-120km/h time as 3.2 (third gear).

Sounds a bit slow? Im pretty sure i remember 2.6 but could be wrong

[CV860L]

Sounds a bit slow? Im pretty sure i remember 2.6 but could be wrong

Taken from: http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car-review/2882933.aspx

The results? Pretty spectacular, for a home-grown sedan less than half the price of equivalent muscle from Germany. The 0-100km/h time is 4.89 seconds; the standing 400 metres takes 12.90 at a terminal speed of 187km/h. But then there are a couple of other numbers to consider. The standing 200km/h - a speed few cars are able to reach in less than 500 metres - comes up in just 14.7sec, and the 7.0-litre GTS is still hauling hard. But then there's the elasticity afforded by all that torque, too. In third gear, the 80-120km/h overtaking increment is demolished in 3.2 seconds, but in sixth (the auto's manual shift mode allows no kick-down) the same speed range is covered in just 7.3 seconds.

[offshore]

The article I read quoted CSV's 80-120km/h time as 3.2 (third gear).

In comparison the GT2 does the 80-120km/h time in 3rd gear in 1.8 seconds.:bow:

[payaya]

Dunno why everyone thinks the F6 is slow. HSV/Holden have only managed mid to high 13s in recent tests.

[michaels1v8]

Wasnt that 3rd gear 80-120 in a auto car?

Are we quoting F6 M6 figures and comparing them to A6 figures?

seems a little silly because the box ratios could be different.

Anyway F6 does sound mighty impressive and is delivering the goods.

Unfortunately I can really say I like the look of it :(

Maybe it will grow on me?

And I still imagine HSV will have no problem shifting stock. The amount of export programs they have going and high local demand is good business for them.

[CV860L]

Wasnt that 3rd gear 80-120 in a auto car?

Are we quoting F6 M6 figures and comparing them to A6 figures?

seems a little silly because the box ratios could be different.

Anyway F6 does sound mighty impressive and is delivering the goods.

Unfortunately I can really say I like the look of it :(

Maybe it will grow on me?

And I still imagine HSV will have no problem shifting stock. The amount of export programs they have going and high local demand is good business for them.

The 2.7sec in the Typhoon was an A6
The 3.2sec in the CSV 7 L was an A6

[michaels1v8]

Ahh ok thanks :)

Well thats a little embarrasing then

[mustanger]

Dunno why everyone thinks the F6 is slow. HSV/Holden have only managed mid to high 13s in recent tests.

Not everyone is saying that the F6 slow. In fact , a lot on here are even praising the car.

I just think that, with all the hoohaa the F6 has been generating, everyone was expecting a 12 sec pass ,first up. No doubt the F6 times will improve ,but for now , this is all we have .

[YMK]

Ahh ok thanks :)

Well thats a little embarrasing thenNo its not embarrassing, it does 80-120 in 2.6 using kickdown and not 3rd gear (as shown in an above post) on its own. Wheels tested the F6 in "drive" where kickdown is also utilised.

Apples for apples...

80-120km/h...
So it's LS7 2.6 seconds.
And F6 2.7 seconds.

0-140km/h...
LS7...7.9 seconds.
F6.....8.7 seconds.

Edit: These times are from Motor magazine for the CSV LS7 and Wheels for the FPV F6, and are not done on the same day by the same drivers. Baring in mind also that Wheels use half a tank of fuel and a passenger in their tests. Without this weight the F6 may record a better time for the rolling acceleration however I don't think it could keep up with a 400kW, 660Nm 7L V8 past 120km/h....

Motor quote the CSV LS7 as having about 400kW, slightly more than the what HSV have quoted for the W427.

I think the W427 will replicate these times as it does have the TR6060 which may give it a better launch?

[CarlFST60L]

Ahh ok thanks :)

Well thats a little embarrasing then

How is it?

Please remember your talking bout an 'easy' mid 12 second 500hp 7L V8 verses a low 13 second car (yes, I know it can run 12's)... Why are people so caught up in racing in the wrong gear? I dont get it, did people just discover the advantaged of a turbo'd long stroke 6cyl motor? The turbo's have been kicking ass in this test since they first performed this test on the BA XR6t many years ago. Its like the FG is doing something 'new'.

Maybe its just the beers talking :lol:

[payaya]

Ahh ok thanks :)

Well thats a little embarrasing then


170k vehicle compared to a 60k car. Its embarrassing to even start comparing the two vehicles.

[YMK]

Taken from: http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car-review/2882933.aspx

The results? Pretty spectacular, for a home-grown sedan less than half the price of equivalent muscle from Germany. The 0-100km/h time is 4.89 seconds; the standing 400 metres takes 12.90 at a terminal speed of 187km/h. But then there are a couple of other numbers to consider. The standing 200km/h - a speed few cars are able to reach in less than 500 metres - comes up in just 14.7sec, and the 7.0-litre GTS is still hauling hard. But then there's the elasticity afforded by all that torque, too. In third gear, the 80-120km/h overtaking increment is demolished in 3.2 seconds, but in sixth (the auto's manual shift mode allows no kick-down) the same speed range is covered in just 7.3 seconds.Another "comparison".

80-120km/h.... using 3rd gear.
CSV LS7, 3.2 seconds
FG XR6T, 3.0 seconds (Motor Mag, June '08)

80-120km/h... using 6th gear.
CSV LS7, 7.3 seconds
FG XR6T, 9.7 seconds (same issue of Motor)

Again, different drivers on different days and conditions... the one thing I can conclude from these figures (and those from my other post) is the power/acceleration available from as low as $45K is nuts. In no way am I undermining the GM product since personally I'd rather the sound of a 7L 500HP V8, but credit where it's due, Ford have delivered with these turbos.

[vlcalais8]

How is it?

Please remember your talking bout an 'easy' mid 12 second 500hp 7L V8 verses a low 13 second car (yes, I know it can run 12's)... Why are people so caught up in racing in the wrong gear? I dont get it, did people just discover the advantaged of a turbo'd long stroke 6cyl motor? The turbo's have been kicking ass in this test since they first performed this test on the BA XR6t many years ago. Its like the FG is doing something 'new'.

Maybe its just the beers talking :lol:

Ofcourse what the FG turbos are doing is "new", since when have we seen mutliple Ford FPV turbo 6's running low 13's straight off the bat? ofcourse people will be talking about it, just like people will be talking about W427's fast times when it comes out


Taken from: http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car-review/2882933.aspx

The results? Pretty spectacular, for a home-grown sedan less than half the price of equivalent muscle from Germany. The 0-100km/h time is 4.89 seconds; the standing 400 metres takes 12.90 at a terminal speed of 187km/h. But then there are a couple of other numbers to consider. The standing 200km/h - a speed few cars are able to reach in less than 500 metres - comes up in just 14.7sec, and the 7.0-litre GTS is still hauling hard. But then there's the elasticity afforded by all that torque, too. In third gear, the 80-120km/h overtaking increment is demolished in 3.2 seconds, but in sixth (the auto's manual shift mode allows no kick-down) the same speed range is covered in just 7.3 seconds.

very nice indeed lets hope the W427 can match them times

[CV860L]

How is it?

Please remember your talking bout an 'easy' mid 12 second 500hp 7L V8 verses a low 13 second car (yes, I know it can run 12's)... Why are people so caught up in racing in the wrong gear? I dont get it, did people just discover the advantaged of a turbo'd long stroke 6cyl motor? The turbo's have been kicking ass in this test since they first performed this test on the BA XR6t many years ago. Its like the FG is doing something 'new'.

Maybe its just the beers talking :lol:

Carl I haven't been saying it is anything new and I'm not really talking about racing either.
While the turbo sixes have always had greater torque at low rpm the Typhoon's 2.7 sec's is way ahead of anything that has come before it.
Maybe in 2nd gear it would be a different story but the fact that it produces those figures in 3rd shows the effortless power on tap which is what I find impressive, not the 0-100 & 1/4 times.

In actual fact I prefer the progessive nature of the 6.0 as i think the FPV's power delivery is way too aggressive for wet weather driving, nothing then everything............

P.S. The Wheels 80-120km/h test between the Calais V & G6ET were both done in 'Drive' and produced a 3.1 Vs 3.6 respectively.

[YMK]

Carl I haven't been saying it is anything new and I'm not really talking about racing either.
While the turbo sixes have always had greater torque at low rpm the Typhoon's 2.7 sec's is way ahead of anything that has come before it.
Maybe in 2nd gear it would be a different story but the fact that it produces those figures in 3rd shows the effortless power on tap which is what I find impressive, not the 0-100 & 1/4 times.

In actual fact I prefer the progessive nature of the 6.0 as i think the FPV's power delivery is way too aggressive for wet weather driving, nothing then everything............

P.S. The Wheels 80-120km/h test between the Calais V & G6ET were both done in 'Drive' and produced a 3.1 Vs 3.6 respectively.It wasn't done in 3rd, it was in auto where kickdown to 2nd was used. But still, you do make a good point, it's nothing to be sneezed at.

[vlcalais8]

Another "comparison".

80-120km/h.... using 3rd gear.
CSV LS7, 3.2 seconds
FG XR6T, 3.0 seconds (Motor Mag, June '08)

80-120km/h... using 6th gear.
CSV LS7, 7.3 seconds
FG XR6T, 9.7 seconds (same issue of Motor)

Again, different drivers on different days and conditions... the one thing I can conclude from these figures (and those from my other post) is the power/acceleration available from as low as $45K is nuts. In no way am I undermining the GM product since personally I'd rather the sound of a 7L 500HP V8, but credit where it's due, Ford have delivered with these turbos.


Good points, also I think it was Herald Sun thats tested an XR6T which achieved 0-100 in under 5 secs, for 45g talk about great performance for cheap

[michaels1v8]

Sorry guys I meant my comments were embarrassing

2 totally different cars and I dont think comparison between the 2 is really very fair

Everyone seems a little wound up in here with figures for everything imaginable so I might just stay out of here haha

[The-V8-Power]

The June Wheels says that the GTS is capable of 5 sec 0-100kmh quite easily since it gets its power down really well with little spin it says.

Wait for Motor Performance car of the year. Im sure itll contain the F6, W427 and the GTS and GT.

Look forward to it actually.:)

[YMK]

Good points, also I think it was Herald Sun thats tested an XR6T which achieved 0-100 in under 5 secs, for 45g talk about great performance for cheapThere was talk of that but truth is they (the Herald Sun) were quoting numbers achieved by Ford themselves, so that doesn't count. Just like the HSV's 4.96 second claim for the 0-100km/h for the 307kW doesn't count.

Note: Ford didn't officially "CLAIM" this but an insiders claim... that's what I understood from it but I could be wrong.

[CV860L]

It wasn't done in 3rd, it was in auto where kickdown to 2nd was used. But still, you do make a good point, it's nothing to be sneezed at.

You're right, I just re-read it, it doesn't actually state what gear it was in, so we can assume it would have kicked back to 2nd.

I think the Calais VS G6ET still shows a great difference in the way the torque is spread across the entire rev range.

I think they both have pro's and con's but I'll happily give credit where credit is due.

[YMK]

You're right, I just re-read it, it doesn't actually state what gear it was in, so we can assume it would have kicked back to 2nd.

I think the Calais VS G6ET still shows a great difference in the way the torque is spread across the entire rev range.

I think they both have pro's and con's but I'll happily give credit where credit is due.Yes, when either magazine do this test they either say it's "auto" which means kickdown, or they advise which gear they did the test in. So without assuming you can bet it kicks down to 2nd. I still can't get over the fact at 45k there's something this quick... reading further into the times from various tests in Motor, the XR6T is as quick as the new M3 and AMG C63. Crazy! :shock:

[CarlFST60L]

reading further into the times from various tests in Motor, the XR6T is as quick as the new M3 and AMG C63. Crazy! :shock:

The "new" M3 has ran 12.4.

[M&Ms]

The "new" M3 has ran 12.4.

Not in Australia....Come to think of it, not even an M5 has done those times here in the hands of magazine testers...Maybe in sub-zero European winters, but not 30+ deg Aus weather

[YMK]

The "new" M3 has ran 12.4.Maybe it has and I won't dispute this. I was just comparing the times Motor did for the XR and the times Motor did for the M3. Although they weren't done on the same day, it is still a better indicator and comparison between the two than the 12.4 done on the other side of the planet where it is made certain track surface is the best it could be and temps are nice and cold, wouldn't you think? The only other explanation for the "slow" 13.2 for the M3 is BMW supplying detuned M3s... I doubt it.

[VYII_R8]

Not in Australia....Come to think of it, not even an M5 has done those times here in the hands of magazine testers...Maybe in sub-zero European winters, but not 30+ deg Aus weather

Exactly right.

[Alex(AUS)]

The article I read quoted CSV's 80-120km/h time as 3.2 (third gear).

Different magazine ... either Motor or Wheels did actually do 2.6 in drive. Considering the trouble they had with the auto and the fact that the HSV will perform one extra shift to 120 as compared to the F6 ... it did very well. I think the 187km/h trap speed says the WHOLE story. They are not even close!!!

Alex

[CV860L]

Different magazine ... either Motor or Wheels did actually do 2.6 in drive. Considering the trouble they had with the auto and the fact that the HSV will perform one extra shift to 120 as compared to the F6 ... it did very well. I think the 187km/h trap speed says the WHOLE story. They are not even close!!!

Alex

Well I was quoting CSV figures not HSV and considering the driveaway price on an HSV is looking at around $170K I think it's more than close.

[Wonky]

...... and the fact that the HSV will perform one extra shift to 120 as compared to the F6 ...
It is absolutely pointless with such evenly matched cars to single out just one relatively narrow speed range (eg. 80 to 120) because if one car shifts within that range and one doesn't it is likely the one that doesn't shift will be quicker.

However, in the next equal speed interval it is likely the situation will be reversed and the car that had to shift previously probably won't have to and the other one certainly will (unless it's running a 2 speed Powerglide! :eek:) so the figures will probably then favour the other car.

You have to look at the results as a whole, not just pick the bit that suits your particular argument! :D Of course if they both shift at about the same speed then game on!!

[Alex(AUS)]

Well I was quoting CSV figures not HSV and considering the driveaway price on an HSV is looking at around $170K I think it's more than close.

I am talking about CSV figures ... I am sure they did 2.6 ... and you can have the CSV for alot less. Remember that CSV is actually a fully legal car manufacturer in Australia just like HSV. Actually, I can remember the glory days of CSV ... it is unfortunate that things have turned around and now they only do the LS7 GTS ...

10km/h increase in trap speed is night and day on the road.

Alex

[CV860L]

I am talking about CSV figures ... I am sure they did 2.6 ... and you can have the CSV for alot less. Remember that CSV is actually a fully legal car manufacturer in Australia just like HSV. Actually, I can remember the glory days of CSV ... it is unfortunate that things have turned around and now they only do the LS7 GTS ...

10km/h increase in trap speed is night and day on the road.

Alex

Well your previous post says HSV...............

[CarlFST60L]

Maybe it has and I won't dispute this. I was just comparing the times Motor did for the XR and the times Motor did for the M3. Although they weren't done on the same day, it is still a better indicator and comparison between the two than the 12.4 done on the other side of the planet where it is made certain track surface is the best it could be and temps are nice and cold, wouldn't you think? The only other explanation for the "slow" 13.2 for the M3 is BMW supplying detuned M3s... I doubt it.

I honestly don't know. Maybe its the "new" version..? i.e. hasn't been released in AU, maybe even EU... Not sure. I only quoted this as I was previously picked up on the time's I quoted, and shown a couple of time slips of 12.4 and 12.5 to back it up.

[quantanemo]

What a pissing contest this is... F6 cant be compared to this because of this, this time was done on a different day so it cant be compared, this time means nothing...ra ra ra


In respect to the original topic - The XR6T, G6ET, and F6 are pushing these kind of low 13 numbers in initial (barely ideal) tests - all cars within the pricerange of $45K to $65K.

Now ppl can compare these times and the methods and whatnot to whatever they damn well like - but that kind of performance, for that kind of money is excellent. This should apply if you 'support' Ford or Holden... it is still bloody good for an Australian made car - and yes, HSV/Holden might have to start worrying if all they care about is leading the pack. Ford/FPV have an absolute cracker of a car/engine available for as low as $45k.

Personally I dont think Holden/HSV do have to worry. The VE is a great car, with great V8 engines - but like I said - if they are anal about being the absolute king then they will have to worry and I dunno (upgrade their engines again or something again :hide:

Simple fact is - they do still have the W427 on its way - perhaps that might put their nose in front again - for $150k+ it should. And if it does - why cant we compare say and $65K F6 to it. They both (SHOULD) offer the same (with a bees dick difference) performance, they both have 4 doors, they are both made by premium Australian manufacturers. Becuase one is nigh on $100k dearer is no reason not to compare them - in fact it raises more questions than answers that the comparison can even be attempted....

:)

And yes, like all of you I am waiting to see what these new turbos can do in the real world - I dont give much credit at all to magazines.

[Alex(AUS)]

What a pissing contest this is... F6 cant be compared to this because of this, this time was done on a different day so it cant be compared, this time means nothing...ra ra ra


In respect to the original topic - The XR6T, G6ET, and F6 are pushing these kind of low 13 numbers in initial (barely ideal) tests - all cars within the pricerange of $45K to $65K.

Now ppl can compare these times and the methods and whatnot to whatever they damn well like - but that kind of performance, for that kind of money is excellent. This should apply if you 'support' Ford or Holden... it is still bloody good for an Australian made car - and yes, HSV/Holden might have to start worrying if all they care about is leading the pack. Ford/FPV have an absolute cracker of a car/engine available for as low as $45k.

Personally I dont think Holden/HSV do have to worry. The VE is a great car, with great V8 engines - but like I said - if they are anal about being the absolute king then they will have to worry and I dunno (upgrade their engines again or something again :hide:

Mate, just relax. The VE SS ran 13.4 almost 2 years ago for less money than FG XR6T and much less than the $74k F6. There is nothing new here ... You guys just get wound up and accuse the LS1 forum for not recognizing the XR6T/F6 performance when in reality we do ... it is you who totally dismissed the 13.4 the SS ran in the magazines 2 years ago for less money. If you were truly unbiased and you really like the current magazine times/value why werent you raving about the SS 2 years ago?

Alex

[quantanemo]

:)

And yes, like all of you I am waiting to see what these new turbos can do in the real world - I dont give much credit at all to magazines.


Mate, just relax. The VE SS ran 13.4 almost 2 years ago for less money than FG XR6T and much less than the $74k F6. There is nothing new here ... You guys just get wound up and accuse the LS1 forum for not recognizing the XR6T/F6 performance when in reality we do ... it is you who totally dismissed the 13.4 the SS ran in the magazines 2 years ago for less money. If you were truly unbiased and you really like the current magazine times/value why werent you raving about the SS 2 years ago?

Alex

'us guys'...awesome. Not one to jump to conlcusions are you? Im not accusing anyone of anything - let alone attacking the 'ls1 forum; :rofl:.

Reason I dismissed the VESS 13.4 (or more took it with a grain of salt) was it seemed to me (and more or less prooven to be) a one off time for a magazine. Yes a time like that can be had out of a SS today with a good driver (prolly even a lower time), but at the time it reeked of being one of those 'special cars' or a freak. No other 'testing' got similar times from what I recall...recall the other extra fast GTO.

But now we have 3 difference groups all testing the Turbos to be around the 13.2/3 mark - which gives an indication that these times are acheived easily. But that said... from here it can go either way, they can either get better (empty tank, single occupant etc etc) or worse (these turn out to be 'special' press cars)...hence why I said Im waiting to see what they do in the real world.

[vecommo]

Reason I dismissed the VESS 13.4 (or more took it with a grain of salt) was it seemed to me (and more or less prooven to be) a one off time for a magazine. Yes a time like that can be had out of a SS today with a good driver (prolly even a lower time), but at the time it reeked of being one of those 'special cars' or a freak. No other 'testing' got similar times from what I recall...recall the other extra fast GTO.

But now we have 3 difference groups all testing the Turbos to be around the 13.2/3 mark - which gives an indication that these times are acheived easily. But that said... from here it can go either way, they can either get better (empty tank, single occupant etc etc) or worse (these turn out to be 'special' press cars)...hence why I said Im waiting to see what they do in the real world.


There are a number of rumors going around claiming that the FG turbo press cars were boosted up and filled with 100 octane fuel by Ford. Whether or not the VE SS was a 'special press car', well who knows, it might have been or it might not have been (I personally doubt it), but don't think for a second that Ford is completely innocent of doing such a thing.

[CarlFST60L]

If you were truly unbiased and you really like the current magazine times/value why werent you raving about the SS 2 years ago?

Alex


:rofl: Yeah, its funny how things pan out

[VYII_R8]

There are a number of rumors going around claiming that the FG turbo press cars were boosted up and filled with 100 octane fuel by Ford. Whether or not the VE SS was a 'special press car', well who knows, it might have been or it might not have been (I personally doubt it), but don't think for a second that Ford is completely innocent of doing such a thing.

Actually it was 98, not 100RON fuel.

From: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=52138&comparisonID=1482
However, we recorded a 5.1-second time in the same XR6 Turbo only a few days earlier at the end of Ford's media preview drive. We put the difference down to the following: the surface on which we recorded the faster time was smoother and we know the car had been drinking racing-grade, 98 octane unleaded fuel at the time. When we did our 5.4-second run, we had been forced to fill the tanks of all three cars with 95 octane fuel because that's all that was available at the remote petrol stations between Melbourne and Bathurst.

[BA$TAD]

There are a number of rumors going around claiming that the FG turbo press cars were boosted up and filled with 100 octane fuel by Ford. Whether or not the VE SS was a 'special press car', well who knows, it might have been or it might not have been (I personally doubt it), but don't think for a second that Ford is completely innocent of doing such a thing.

Why would the falcon be the one that has been boosted and the commo the standard unworked one? Why is it impossible for the T to be quick?
:slap:
Know something we don't? Do you have something to backup your claim?
Or is just your typical drivel again? I'd bet it's the latter.

[Pickles]

Not really interested in the HSV Vs Ford issue, & IMHO you simply CANNOT compare a turbo 6 with a V8. There's so many different characteristics.
I reckon it's probably fair to say the new Ford 310kw turbo 6 could be quicker in a staight line than HSVs LS3,--- but so what.
If you want a quick turbo, then obviously you'll go FPV, but until FPV get a decent V8, they're not in the ball park,-if you want a V8..
And, at the moment, that is why HSV have the upper hand,--because they've got a magnificent V8.
Cheers, Pickles.

[vecommo]

Why would the falcon be the one that has been boosted and the commo the standard unworked one? Why is it impossible for the T to be quick?
:slap:
Know something we don't? Do you have something to backup your claim?
Or is just your typical drivel again? I'd bet it's the latter.

If you read my post properly you will see that I was speaking hypothetically and nowhere did I state that what I was claiming were cold hard facts.
Also, FYI the rumors of the turbos being boosted and filled with 100 octane originated on the ford forum from ford fans themselves.

[Party Pete]

I agree with the V8 sentiment, I just love the sound. Having said that, I am glad Ford has come up with something so good. Good competition will make Holden work harder. Maybe they might even turn up the wick on the LS3 a bit quicker.

[Three]

Reason I dismissed the VESS 13.4 (or more took it with a grain of salt) was it seemed to me (and more or less prooven to be) a one off time for a magazine. Yes a time like that can be had out of a SS today with a good driver (prolly even a lower time), but at the time it reeked of being one of those 'special cars' or a freak. No other 'testing' got similar times from what I recall...recall the other extra fast GTO.

Motor magazine ran a 13.4 @ 108.5 mph from a M6 VE SS. Many private owners have matched that time at the track. To me it was the unmatched mph of 108.5 that made me very suspicious that the car was a 'special/tweaked car'.

[Alex(AUS)]

Reason I dismissed the VESS 13.4 (or more took it with a grain of salt) was it seemed to me (and more or less prooven to be) a one off time for a magazine.

Ohhhh right ... so why are you crapping on about the new F6 times which has only been tested once in the magazines??? For all you know, it could be slower than the BA XR6T, just like the original BA F6 ...

Alex

[payaya]

BA F6 slower than the Xr6T??

[vlcalais8]

Not really interested in the HSV Vs Ford issue, & IMHO you simply CANNOT compare a turbo 6 with a V8. There's so many different characteristics.
I reckon it's probably fair to say the new Ford 310kw turbo 6 could be quicker in a staight line than HSVs LS3,--- but so what.
If you want a quick turbo, then obviously you'll go FPV, but until FPV get a decent V8, they're not in the ball park,-if you want a V8..
And, at the moment, that is why HSV have the upper hand,--because they've got a magnificent V8.
Cheers, Pickles.

Interesting statement here, something alot of people tend to get mixed up with. If your comparing motors then I agree 100%, there both not motors that can be compared since they are based on two different methods of engineering. However we all know obviously the engine is not the only thing that makes up the car, there is the interior, exterior etc etc you all know and also the price bracket each come into, now if two cars with different engines, ofcourse in this case it may be GTS vs F6, are in the same league well then let the comparisons go on till the cows come home

[Alex(AUS)]

BA F6 slower than the Xr6T??

The original version (before the clutch issues). By all magazine accounts (which quantanemo values so much) it ran slower times ... Dynos and street meets all proved this (it made no more power/et/mph even with the "claimed" 9psi of boost) then it was recalled, the clutch issues were fixed and miraculously all the power came back.

Alex

[payaya]

Motor magazine ran a 13.4 @ 108.5 mph from a M6 VE SS. Many private owners have matched that time at the track. To me it was the unmatched mph of 108.5 that made me very suspicious that the car was a 'special/tweaked car'.

Well 108mph is a tad over 170km/h. In June Motor the VE SSV did a 13.9 sec 400m at 166.9km/h. Im guessing with better conditions i dont see a reason why an extra 5km/h at the traps is not possible?

The Ford XR6T did a 13.5 sec 172.1. So im guessing 108.5 is more than possible is the SS can do a 13.4.

[vlcalais8]

If you read my post properly you will see that I was speaking hypothetically and nowhere did I state that what I was claiming were cold hard facts.
Also, FYI the rumors of the turbos being boosted and filled with 100 octane originated on the ford forum from ford fans themselves.

Personally I dont think the test cars were boosted since other tests in different cars have producing very close results. Even if they were boosted it would of been the smallest amount. If the press cars ran high 12's no fuss then other Fords are cracking low 13's then there would be no doubt the press cars were tampered with.

[payaya]

The original version (before the clutch issues). By all magazine accounts (which quantanemo values so much) it ran slower times ... Dynos and street meets all proved this (it made no more power/et/mph even with the "claimed" 9psi of boost) then it was recalled, the clutch issues were fixed and miraculously all the power came back.

Alex

The clutch issues were brought up at the very beginning of the F6's launch. You can say it was slower and it was a fault which was fixed.


It is absolutely pointless with such evenly matched cars to single out just one relatively narrow speed range (eg. 80 to 120) because if one car shifts within that range and one doesn't it is likely the one that doesn't shift will be quicker.

However, in the next equal speed interval it is likely the situation will be reversed and the car that had to shift previously probably won't have to and the other one certainly will (unless it's running a 2 speed Powerglide! :eek:) so the figures will probably then favour the other car.

You have to look at the results as a whole, not just pick the bit that suits your particular argument! :D Of course if they both shift at about the same speed then game on!!

The tests are done without shifting.

The XR6T XR8 and SS require a 2nd to 3rd shift at around 110km/h.

With shifting if you work out with shifting 80-120 times as follows:

XR6T - 3.3
XR8 - 3.7
SS - 3.5


Different magazine ... either Motor or Wheels did actually do 2.6 in drive. Considering the trouble they had with the auto and the fact that the HSV will perform one extra shift to 120 as compared to the F6 ... it did very well. I think the 187km/h trap speed says the WHOLE story. They are not even close!!!

Alex

Why would the Holden perform an extra shift? The Ford will require a 2nd to 3rd shift too. The Ford will hit rev limter in 2nd at 116km/h.

[Alex(AUS)]

The clutch issues were brought up at the very beginning of the F6's launch. You can say it was slower and it was a fault which was fixed.

No, hold on, you misunderstand. I know the BA F6 is faster. However, Quantanemo would not come to a positive conclusion with the single SS test but is happy to do the same with a single FG F6 test ... did he do the same with the initial slower BA F6 tests ... I bet not.

Alex

[payaya]

Ah ok! Thats fair enough! Thats what comparos are for I guess to really determine which vehicle is quicker under the same conditions.

[Alex(AUS)]

The clutch issues were brought up at the very beginning of the F6's launch. You can say it was slower and it was a fault which was fixed.



The tests are done without shifting.

The XR6T XR8 and SS require a 2nd to 3rd shift at around 110km/h.

With shifting if you work out with shifting 80-120 times as follows:

XR6T - 3.3
XR8 - 3.7
SS - 3.5



Why would the Holden perform an extra shift? The Ford will require a 2nd to 3rd shift too. The Ford will hit rev limter in 2nd at 116km/h.

Both XR6T and F6 will cover 120km/h before they start to accelerate in 3rd due to its transient shift and momentum. I can show you a video if you like ...

Alex

[payaya]

Both XR6T and F6 will cover 120km/h before they start to accelerate in 3rd due to its transient shift and momentum. I can show you a video if you like ...

Alex

Ah just read it from the mag in front of me I believe you. The CSV must run awefully soft ratios or high diff ratios to actually fully engage 3rd gear by 120km/h.

[Alex(AUS)]

Ah just read it from the mag in front of me I believe you. The CSV must run awefully soft ratios or high diff ratios to actually fully engage 3rd gear by 120km/h.

Yeah it has the same gears as my car ... 106km/h limited in 2nd (actually I think even less because they were having issues with the box).

Alex

[quantanemo]

Do you struggle Alex??? Im not attacking you or 'the forum'

I dunno, but Ive made clear I think magazine times are a load of bull in general. The reason I take that SS with a grain of salt is becuase no other 'magazine' matched it consistantly.

The turbos on the other hand have consistantly hit these times with various testers (albiet magazine testers). This could mean they really are that good (due to them so far consistantly getting those times out of the box with different ppl), or like has been discussed they are tickled versions - they might even be slower than a Camry in the real world....

Im well aware that real world times matter more than magazine times. Im well aware that SSs are that quick and even better. But in the situation with that SS - a one off time that seems perculiar at the time with repsect to other magazine tests, holds less significance than 3 magazine testers that acheive similar times out of the box.

Thats really all Im trying to say.

But Ill say it again. Lets wait until the cars get into private hands.

[payaya]

I was just looking at the figures at the back of Motor mag which have me puzzled.

The XR6T was quicker to 100 than the SS benchmark time but the XR6T is noticably quicker car from 100-180km/h (1.5 seconds). So that would mean the SS would have been doing something pretty special somewhere near the end of the strip.

So to match the Xr6T to 100 but beat it across the line its trap speed must have been near the 175 km/h mark considering the XR6 got 172 km/h.

[Ghosn]

and I dunno (upgrade their engines again or something again :hide:

Why on earth would they need a new engine to obtain more speed? Let's see how educated u really think you are.

[F6 Hoon]

Mate, just relax. The VE SS ran 13.4 almost 2 years ago for less money than FG XR6T and much less than the $74k F6. There is nothing new here ... You guys just get wound up and accuse the LS1 forum for not recognizing the XR6T/F6 performance when in reality we do ... it is you who totally dismissed the 13.4 the SS ran in the magazines 2 years ago for less money. If you were truly unbiased and you really like the current magazine times/value why werent you raving about the SS 2 years ago?

Alex

Probably, because Holden have the reputation of releasing special 'press' cars, who's performance figures are never able to be repeated by anyone else in a similar equipped vehicle. I watch with much interest stock VE SS sedans and utes run low 14's at Perth Motorplex. Dud driving.........dunno unless all SS drivers can't pedal a car. Unlikely, as I know a heap of V8 Holden drivers who can pedal a car down the 1/4 mile.

Then again, whom I to talk. My ute is supposed to run mid 14's stock; I manage to do 13.4's repeatedly.

I'd say a stock FG F6 will comfortably beat any stock VE HSV bar perhaps the W427 provided the driver can drive.

[payaya]

Ok easy way of solving this. Who has a stock VE SS and has gotten close to the Motor mark? If no one then car was rigged, if members have then the car was not tempered with.

[sh|tbmxrider]

this is tedious fellas...

[F6 Hoon]

Ok easy way of solving this. Who has a stock VE SS and has gotten close to the Motor mark? If no one then car was rigged, if members have then the car was not tempered with.

Valid only if the same timing equipment is used. Motor/Wheels don't use a drag strip.

[BadMac]

Ok easy way of solving this. Who has a stock VE SS and has gotten close to the Motor mark? If no one then car was rigged, if members have then the car was not tempered with.

Remind me again what the mark is and also what are the stakes?

[payaya]

No stakes think the mark was 5.1 & 13.2.


Valid only if the same timing equipment is used. Motor/Wheels don't use a drag strip.

You would think timing equipment they use will be right. Even if they were out it wouldnt be by much???

[Excellent]

Probably, because Holden have the reputation of releasing special 'press' cars, who's performance figures are never able to be repeated by anyone else in a similar equipped vehicle. I watch with much interest stock VE SS sedans and utes run low 14's at Perth Motorplex. Dud driving.........dunno unless all SS drivers can't pedal a car. Unlikely, as I know a heap of V8 Holden drivers who can pedal a car down the 1/4 mile.

Then again, whom I to talk. My ute is supposed to run mid 14's stock; I manage to do 13.4's repeatedly.

I'd say a stock FG F6 will comfortably beat any stock VE HSV bar perhaps the W427 provided the driver can drive.

I don't think Holden would be that stupid. How many times to Motor take these cars on a dyno and quite often the Holden's numbers are underwhelming compared to the Ford's. Yet the Holden's were generally quicker.

That claim is quite often from those jealous types who have nothing better to write about (not saying you are that type) and just preach hearsay. You have to wonder why Motor can't run your fast times as well? Maybe Motor are sandbagging and you are being truly honest? :1peek:

The XR6T's terminal speed is quite awesome. Tricked up or not the Holden V8s can't match the turbo twins mph.

[Alex(AUS)]

Ok easy way of solving this. Who has a stock VE SS and has gotten close to the Motor mark? If no one then car was rigged, if members have then the car was not tempered with.

There have been plenty ...

Just recently an SS ute 13.2 (both ute and sedan weigh the same). Considering the 2.0 60", 100km on the clock and dealer E10 fuel a 13.0 is definitely possible out of a stocker. So I cant see how those times were press specials ... In the same thread another guy (ATOMICSS) ran 13.30 with a 2.127 60".

Australian LS1 and Holden Forums (http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=98834)

Alex

[lethal66]

I can't beleive you tossers are comparing a normally aspirated engine against a forced aspirated engine.It was just a matter of time before the f6 phoon would take the bull by the horns and unleash the fury.


Honestly who really cares as i stated before the phoon looks the goods and goes like the clappers but as soon as you open the door you think to yourself what were they smoking to come up with such and ugly interior.

To make it fair strap a couple of turbo's to a ve clubby and see what happens.A child could work out what the outcome would be if that happened.

[cams290]

I can't beleive you tossers are comparing a normally aspirated engine against a forced aspirated engine.It was just a matter of time before the f6 phoon would take the bull by the horns and unleash the fury.


Honestly who really cares as i stated before the phoon looks the goods and goes like the clappers but as soon as you open the door you think to yourself what were they smoking to come up with such and ugly interior.

To make it fair strap a couple of turbo's to a ve clubby and see what happens.A child could work out what the outcome would be if that happened.

Why not compare a FI engine to a NA, the LS3 has a 2.3 litre displacement advantage, we are comparing off the showroom factory cars here and it looks like an Aussie built and designed 6 cylinder is going to have the edge on a imported LS3 crate motor.

Interior looks are subjective to personal taste, imo the bloke who designed the orange and black two tone dash on the VE SS must of been on some pretty good stuff too.

[BA$TAD]

If you read my post properly you will see that I was speaking hypothetically and nowhere did I state that what I was claiming were cold hard facts.
Also, FYI the rumors of the turbos being boosted and filled with 100 octane originated on the ford forum from ford fans themselves.

In all honesty I don't believe a word you said. Judging by your history of posts it wouldn't surprise me if you believed everything you said to be gospel.



I can't beleive you tossers are comparing a normally aspirated engine against a forced aspirated engine.It was just a matter of time before the f6 phoon would take the bull by the horns and unleash the fury.


Honestly who really cares as i stated before the phoon looks the goods and goes like the clappers but as soon as you open the door you think to yourself what were they smoking to come up with such and ugly interior.

To make it fair strap a couple of turbo's to a ve clubby and see what happens.A child could work out what the outcome would be if that happened.

Why wouldn't you? Generally it measured 1.5 times a NA engine to compare to a turbo. So in this case, the 4.0 I6 x 1.5 is 6.0.
Comparable to me, the I6 is 2 litres smaller and has 2 less cylinders but as a turbo added. The turbo makes it comparable to a 6.0 litre engine.

As for interiors I think both HSV and FPV looks ok. Ford and Holden interiors I would prefer the FG ones. Look a little more classy IMO, especially the G6e vs Calais.

[Alex(AUS)]

In all honesty I don't believe a word you said. Judging by your history of posts it wouldn't surprise me if you believed everything you said to be gospel.

Generally it measured 1.5 times a NA engine to compare to a turbo. So in this case, the 4.0 I6 x 1.5 is 6.0.

It is around 1.7 in racing circles ... so you can compare it to a 6.8 ... closer to W427 than LS3 ...

Just an example -> http://www.amrs.net.au/tsoview.htm (read the very small print at the bottom of the table).

and another -> http://www.osca.co.nz/Articles.htm

and the rally championship -> http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/Cars_Background3.html

Alex

[ti0350]

Lets face it, Holden and Ford make some quick cars..
You just compare a N/A V8 with a turbo 6, if you compare box as N/A the V8 wins hands down.. If Holden were to bring out a Forced induction V8 it would hands down basically the 6 needs forced induction to be able to compete with the V8.

[F6 Hoon]

Why wouldn't you? Generally it measured 1.5 times a NA engine to compare to a turbo. So in this case, the 4.0 I6 x 1.5 is 6.0.
Comparable to me, the I6 is 2 litres smaller and has 2 less cylinders but as a turbo added. The turbo makes it comparable to a 6.0 litre engine.


Because you should 'run what you brung' and not make excuses. The I6T has a static comp of 8.5:1 vs. the 10.9:1 of the LS3. Hardly fair when you look at it on that basis. One could argue the turbo simply restores the lost compression, thus eliminating the boost advantage. Further to that, the LS3 still has a 2.2 litre capacity advantage.

Looks like the G6ET had an overwhelming win over the Calais V in Wheels magazine.

[Three]

Well 108mph is a tad over 170km/h. In June Motor the VE SSV did a 13.9 sec 400m at 166.9km/h. Im guessing with better conditions i dont see a reason why an extra 5km/h at the traps is not possible?

The Ford XR6T did a 13.5 sec 172.1. So im guessing 108.5 is more than possible is the SS can do a 13.4.

108.6mph is nearly 175km/h. It could be possible but most private owned VE SSs run 104-105mph.

[BA$TAD]

It is around 1.7 in racing circles ... so you can compare it to a 6.8 ... closer to W427 than LS3 ...

Just an example -> http://www.amrs.net.au/tsoview.htm (read the very small print at the bottom of the table).

and another -> http://www.osca.co.nz/Articles.htm

and the rally championship -> http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/Cars_Background3.html

Alex

Fair enough, I wasn't sure of the exact multiplicator.
Still the W427 will want to be a bloody good car for the extra $$.

[vlcalais8]

You guys saying that the I6T should be compared to a LS3 turb must be joking yes? That right there is a very wrong comparison and completely unfair especially if you have an extra 2.3ltr of capacity which would turn out more with the turbo boost. Thats like comparing a blown boss to a blown Alloytech, i wonder what would pump out more power, and it would have to any way

[windsorace]

All this carry on is pointless!! Why don't we just get onto the topic of AUSTRALIAN built engines:) What is the best Holden Australia have to offer:sleep: an compare that to the best Ford of Australia have designed and built in house:woot: I wouldn't be suprised if the mods now ban me! Is there a competition really, Give it a couple of years and it will be the best crate engine thats bolted in for both brands but I think the blue oval mob may have a few more shops to shop at other than uncle G.M.:eyes:

[vecommo]

You guys saying that the I6T should be compared to a LS3 turb must be joking yes? That right there is a very wrong comparison and completely unfair especially if you have an extra 2.3ltr of capacity which would turn out more with the turbo boost. Thats like comparing a blown boss to a blown Alloytech, i wonder what would pump out more power, and it would have to any way

I actually agree with this.... comparing a turbo LS3 to the I6T is a little over the top. But I still agree that FI shouldn't be compared to NA.


All this carry on is pointless!! Why don't we just get onto the topic of AUSTRALIAN built engines:) What is the best Holden Australia have to offer:sleep: an compare that to the best Ford of Australia have designed and built in house:woot: I wouldn't be suprised if the mods now ban me! Is there a competition really, Give it a couple of years and it will be the best crate engine thats bolted in for both brands but I think the blue oval mob may have a few more shops to shop at other than uncle G.M.:eyes:

Ahhh, I see you've come back to spew more of your drivel...

I think an engine's country of origin is the last thing people care about.
If it's got the goods and does the job then where it was made is rather irrelevant.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.....:limpy:

[SICK SS]

what are they going to replace the i6t with in 2010

[Freaky]

what are they going to replace the i6t with in 2010


they are looking at the Duratec Twinforce. It's a 3.5l v6 TT, i think it comes in 3.7l configuration as well.

The 3.5 puts out 321kW and 542Nm.

[Excellent]

You should compare the turbo to V8s. Both the same types of cars, same price range and same performance target market. Traditional rivals as well, Ford vs Holden. So they should be directly compared.

Just like some compare WRXs to V8s. Similar price range and both appeal to performance enthusiasts. Just depends on the buyers mood when it comes time to sign the paperwork. :D

[Metal]

Lets face it, Holden and Ford make some quick cars..
You just compare a N/A V8 with a turbo 6, if you compare box as N/A the V8 wins hands down.. If Holden were to bring out a Forced induction V8 it would hands down basically the 6 needs forced induction to be able to compete with the V8.

saying it can't be compared because it has a turbo, is like saying a standard v8 can't be compared with a fuel injected v8 for example, because the fuel injection increases power to the v8??? The turbo is part of the design.. sure it adds power to the 6, but that's the way it is packaged from factory... the i6t has a turbo, the v8 has 2 cylinders extra... different, but nothing wrong with comparing two similarly priced cars in a similar/same class.

Also, would a 'factory' FI v8 be in the same ballpark 'cost' figure as the 6 turbo? Going by the way Holden seems to be pricing its 7.0 Litre, I wouldn't think so.. so basically, yeah, the 8 forced might be better, but is it out?? no... is it going to be in the same price range if done from the factory?? unlikely.. stock for stock I6t vs v8 can be compared IMO, no questions asked.


I don't know what everyone is so defensive about to be honest. I love my V8, but just like there's nothing like the feeling of the 8, the typhoon offers something different (and great as well).. Engine wise, I think ppl need to chill with the defensiveness and realise that the I6T is a genuine competitor (not better or worse necessarily, but a realistic alternative for price/power.

yep.. my 2cents for the night =P

[YMK]

You should compare the turbo to V8s. Both the same types of cars, same price range and same performance target market. Traditional rivals as well, Ford vs Holden. So they should be directly compared.

Just like some compare WRXs to V8s. Similar price range and both appeal to performance enthusiasts. Just depends on the buyers mood when it comes time to sign the paperwork. :D




saying it can't be compared because it has a turbo, is like saying a standard v8 can't be compared with a fuel injected v8 for example, because the fuel injection increases power to the v8??? The turbo is part of the design.. sure it adds power to the 6, but that's the way it is packaged from factory... the i6t has a turbo, the v8 has 2 cylinders extra... different, but nothing wrong with comparing two similarly priced cars in a similar/same class.

Also, would a 'factory' FI v8 be in the same ballpark 'cost' figure as the 6 turbo? Going by the way Holden seems to be pricing its 7.0 Litre, I wouldn't think so.. so basically, yeah, the 8 forced might be better, but is it out?? no... is it going to be in the same price range if done from the factory?? unlikely.. stock for stock I6t vs v8 can be compared IMO, no questions asked.


I don't know what everyone is so defensive about to be honest. I love my V8, but just like there's nothing like the feeling of the 8, the typhoon offers something different (and great as well).. Engine wise, I think ppl need to chill with the defensiveness and realise that the I6T is a genuine competitor (not better or worse necessarily, but a realistic alternative for price/power.

yep.. my 2cents for the night =PI agree with the both of these chaps.

Saying the turbo has an advantage and shouldn't be compared with the 6.2 because of a 1.7 multiplier and so it's closer to comparison to the 7L, then why can't we say the same for the 6.2 v 5.4 since the 6.2 is closer to 6.8 than it is to 5.4? In other words, even if we take into account this multiplier business the LS3 must be compared to the turbo and not the Boss... which of course I disagree with.

[CarlFST60L]

I have no problem comparing turbo's and V8's as long as its fair an balanced, and if its unbalanced in a turbo's favour, explain WHY the results are so different in a fair and balanced way. I dont know if "they" read this forum, but if you do, please, please, use a few graphs from EFI live or similar, and roll on the right gear FFS. Leaving 2nd gear out of the roll on has made so many people misleadingly think they are going to be the king of roll on's, when, in fact, its total f#$king BS, which tard roll's on @ 80km/h in third??? And unfortunately, not everyone realizes that the turbo's like the roll on's @ low RPM, which they seem to have forgotten to mention.

[RobboXR6T]

Wouldn't a performance test be done using the best method to achieve the quickest time. Why do the cars need to be in the same gear?

[CarlFST60L]

Wouldn't a performance test be done using the best method to achieve the quickest time. Why do the cars need to be in the same gear?

Exactly right. 'the best gear' is exactly what a car should be in during any performance test.

[RobboXR6T]

So you are saying that in some tests published, they are not using the optimal gear and therefore not printing the best results? That sounds a bit odd to me.

[vlcalais8]

Wouldn't a performance test be done using the best method to achieve the quickest time. Why do the cars need to be in the same gear?

They do it for comparisons sake, just to give people an idea how both cars perform in the particular gear. Just like a car with more torque than another will be alot faster in top gear from 80-120, its just to show a particular characteristic of the motor. Yes not the best idea but what can you do. Its very similar to how wheels test thier cars with half a tank of juice and two people, they try give you an idea how it will perform in more "real world" situations. Surely you wont take your car to the strip and have half a tank with a mate in the passenger seat. I actually think its good they do tests like that, you get the idea how the car performs in a range of situation instead of being best prepped running down a sticky drag strip.

[windsorace]

Ahhh, I see you've come back to spew more of your drivel...

I think an engine's country of origin is the last thing people care about.
If it's got the goods and does the job then where it was made is rather irrelevant.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.....:limpy:


What ever makes you feels better, If your mob built a world class engine you you'd have to be a bit prouder for Aussie engineering. Go on our boys for staying the course and keeping good old Aussie know-how to the fore. unfortunately that soon comes to an end then as I said it's all who's got the better crate engine.

[CarlFST60L]

Just like a car with more torque than another will be alot faster in top gear from 80-120, its just to show a particular characteristic of the motor. Yes not the best idea but what can you do. Its very similar to how wheels test thier cars with half a tank of juice and two people, they try give you an idea how it will perform in more "real world" situations. Surely you wont take your car to the strip and have half a tank with a mate in the passenger seat. I actually think its good they do tests like that, you get the idea how the car performs in a range of situation instead of being best prepped running down a sticky drag strip.

Yeah, but its misleading, Holden/HSV purposely use lower top gears to improve fuel economy. Why the f#$k would any retread roll on in 6th? Its a fuel saving/cruise gear, yet they time it? :lol:

They should be looking at fuel usage as thats the only relevant data imo. And they dont even take into account the final drive ratio, so the test it totally unbalanced unless you share identical ratio's. If you are going to test performance like that, at least do it 'off idle' in second gear and use graphing software to overlay them verses speed, even thats wrong and pointless as gear ratio's pay a big part.

If they want to show a torque curve, do what the rest of the world does and use a dyno. If you want to show performance, use the right gear and right RPM so people are not mislead into thinking one car is faster at rolling on when it is simply misunderstood and misrepresented data.

Anyway, no more posting on this topic, i think i post once a day, thats enough :lol:

[flappist]

Is this crap still going on????

Two things are certain:

1) Either the F6 is quicker than the GTS or the GTS is quicker than the F6

2) Holden people will buy Holdens, Ford people with buy Fords and the only people who will really care about point 1 will be internet keyboard warriors, school kids, maccas car park doof doofs and fat furry guys in teams colous from K-Mart, drinking flat beer at V8supercars before climbing into their unroadworthy VK/EB for the long trudge home.

As far as the 2010 falcon 6, well oh no what will happen in 2006 when the LS1 will not be available, oh the LS2, that right.

Technology marches on. Alloytec is better than ecotec, LS3 better than LS2, LS1 better than whatever the old 308 was. My current car has a 230kw 3.5litre N/A V6 so if they can do it then I am sure Ford and for that matter Holden can do so also.

P.S. No one other than journos has actually really driven any of the new Falcons, like the VE release, the final results were not exactly the same as the propaganda. I am sure in 12 months we will all know the real story.

[vlcalais8]

Yeah, but its misleading, Holden/HSV purposely use lower top gears to improve fuel economy. Why the f#$k would any retread roll on in 6th? Its a fuel saving/cruise gear, yet they time it? :lol:

They should be looking at fuel usage as thats the only relevant data imo. And they dont even take into account the final drive ratio, so the test it totally unbalanced unless you share identical ratio's. If you are going to test performance like that, at least do it 'off idle' in second gear and use graphing software to overlay them verses speed, even thats wrong and pointless as gear ratio's pay a big part.

If they want to show a torque curve, do what the rest of the world does and use a dyno. If you want to show performance, use the right gear and right RPM so people are not mislead into thinking one car is faster at rolling on when it is simply misunderstood and misrepresented data.

Anyway, no more posting on this topic, i think i post once a day, thats enough :lol:

I just said they do it for comparisons sake, you didnt read the post?? If thats how they do it good luck to them, its not harming any one. And they do performance tests from standstill the best they can except with the half tank of juice and the extra guy in the passenger seat. As for the dyno funny you mention it because chances are that if people see thier favourite car doesnt make the most power all of a sudden dyno testing is useless and should be taken with a grain of salt

[CarlFST60L]

I just said they do it for comparisons sake, you didnt read the post?? If thats how they do it good luck to them, its not harming any one. And they do performance tests from standstill the best they can except with the half tank of juice and the extra guy in the passenger seat. As for the dyno funny you mention it because chances are that if people see thier favourite car doesnt make the most power all of a sudden dyno testing is useless and should be taken with a grain of salt

Sorry, i didnt mean the hole post to be directed at you, sorry.

[vlcalais8]

Sorry, i didnt mean the hole post to be directed at you, sorry.

no harm done

[mustanger]

Latest edition of Motor Magazine
F6 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.4
HSV 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.5
FPVGT 0-100 5.5sec 400m -13.8


Very close indeed :lol:

[F6 Hoon]

Latest edition of Motor Magazine
F6 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.4
HSV 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.5
FPVGT 0-100 5.5sec 400m -13.8


Very close indeed :lol:

How close? What were the terminal speeds of each vehicle? We all know the VE HSV's are going to get a better launch thanks to wider rubber. FPV's wheel offering on the FG is :spew:

[mitchtj]

Latest edition of Motor Magazine
F6 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.4
HSV 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.5
FPVGT 0-100 5.5sec 400m -13.8


Very close indeed :lol:

they almost cracked the magical 4 second barrier for the HSV's. But it seems Ford has got the slight upper hand.

In real world conditions that turbo torque will become MUCH more obvious.

[EASTWOOD]

FPV's wheel offering on the FG is :spew:

Yes they are, but throw some 275's on the FPV's and goodbye HSV.

[ssdamo]

You should compare the turbo to V8s. Both the same types of cars, same price range and same performance target market. Traditional rivals as well, Ford vs Holden. So they should be directly compared.

Just like some compare WRXs to V8s. Similar price range and both appeal to performance enthusiasts. Just depends on the buyers mood when it comes time to sign the paperwork. :D

very valid point :) i tend to agree with this :hide:

[CarlFST60L]

Yes they are, but throw some 275's on the FPV's and goodbye HSV.

Its funny how you boys can do the same, and even better 60ft times in your stock F6's as the HSV VE's with 275 rubber :1peek:

[SV346]

Theres a simple answer here, fords suck :) and even if it is faster its still a ford, its like their new ute ad, the blokes are too embarrased to get out. :eyes: :smilesandbanana:

[Ghosn]

Yes they are, but throw some 275's on the FPV's and goodbye HSV.

So that would be modified Vs stock? Nice comparo.


Latest edition of Motor Magazine
F6 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.4
HSV 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.5
FPVGT 0-100 5.5sec 400m -13.8


Very close indeed :lol:

The important part u didn't mention is if those times r same day same conditions? If so, there is **** all in it. The F6 and GTS are that close it would really come down to the driver on the day I guess. Another good thing about them being so close is we can hopefully have less d1ck pulling on either side of the fence and hopefully have all the Ford and Holden boys rejoicing together that we have such awesome performance cars to choose from, Amen.

[mitchtj]

Holden needs to add another 10kw to the R8 to pull that time in.

Were these auto or manual or what? Trap times? :P

[mustanger]

Holden needs to add another 10kw to the R8 to pull that time in.

Were these auto or manual or what? Trap times? :P

All three were Manuals and testing was done on the same day.

Trap speeds, F6 179.4kmh..........HSV R8 176.3kmh.........FPV GT 174.0kmh

[Carby]

Yes they are, but throw some 275's on the FPV's and goodbye HSV.

Having read the full article it is doubtful the wider tyres would make much difference - the article clearly states that the F6 is harder to apply power down more progressively. They can only report on how the car comes standard anyway - add anything to the Ford and it is not a like comparison anymore.

Shame they did not test against HSV's top performance gun the GTS - I'm sure the MRC would make a difference in braking around the track.

[nang3]

Latest edition of Motor Magazine
F6 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.4
HSV 0-100 5.1sec 400m -13.5
FPVGT 0-100 5.5sec 400m -13.8


Very close indeed :lol:

im pretty disapointed in those times - didnt the FG XR6T get a similar 0-100 time with less power??

does it say anything in the article about why the more kw/nm'd phoon didnt pull a better time??

[mustanger]

im pretty disapointed in those times - didnt the FG XR6T get a similar 0-100 time with less power??

does it say anything in the article about why the more kw/nm'd phoon didnt pull a better time??

There was no real reason given as why the F6 did not pull a better time. This was the manual version and they did say they would expect the Auto to be a bit quicker down the QTR.

Another interesting fact was the lap times around Winton . The F6 did 1:43.5 and the HSV did a 143:6 . Yep, very close indeed.

[SHANESVZSS]

There was no real reason given as why the F6 did not pull a better time. This was the manual version and they did say they would expect the Auto to be a bit quicker down the QTR.

Another interesting fact was the lap times around Winton . The F6 did 1:43.5 and the HSV did a 143:6 . Yep, very close indeed.

Just going over an motor mag from a couple of years ago , when they where comparing the vy 2 r8 with 285kw it posted a 13.5 down the qtr , these times are quick by the f6 and 6.2 ltr but its nothing we having seen before really.

[Dacious]

This makes some published times for the Falcon turbo sixes extremely suss. Like the much-bandied about time for the G6ET of 5.1. How is a presumably heavier luxury car (the Calais-V is heavier then the SS-V) with smaller and less performance oriented rubber quicker than a car with a $hitload more power?

Either the F6 chassis can't get the extra herbs to the ground which seems extremely unlikely or there is some massaging of test vehicles or times going on. At the acceleration times listed below, even a XR6T based on various test results would be lineball with the F6 in most performance measures. Unless the F6 has now been tuned to the point of diminishing returns at sub-100km/h, below 3,000rpm speeds.

As for laptimes, Winton is a great little joint but not a big car track, all these things would be running around in first-third probably. A test of brakes and turn-in, peel-out certainly, but not of true high-speed handling. You don't make much time in slow corners, you make time in fast ones. I'd like to see times from Phillp Island, with that run up to Lukey and into MG, full throttle exit out onto the main straight and the flat-knacker run from Southern Loop up to Honda. That track sorts the men from the boys.

[HSV Listy]

Not unheard of before at all. VT11 GTS in year 2000, VX GTS in 2001, VY manual GTS all did 5.1 over and over again in mags. Auto VY GTS did 5.4s. Still the gods car IMO and it is only now 8 years later that there are cars equilising the C4Bs. For their day they kicked but.

The F6 sure is quick so I might take one for a spin just to see what all the fuss is about.

[Knight Phlier]

Wow. XR6T is just as quick as F6 ! :confused:
Won't be suprised if XR6T takes out BFYB gong. Something wrong with these results though!

[mitchtj]

Just going over an motor mag from a couple of years ago , when they where comparing the vy 2 r8 with 285kw it posted a 13.5 down the qtr , these times are quick by the f6 and 6.2 ltr but its nothing we having seen before really.
that seems to be the case.

The VT2 300kw HSV GTS were every bit as fast as a modern HSV GTS. Maybe not as flexible in the mid end, but as far as acceleration figures are concerned. And that was 10 years ago.

[VYII_R8]

Wow. XR6T is just as quick as F6 ! :confused:

The G6ETurbo that was tested @ 5.1s 0-100km/h and 13.3s 1/4mile was an AUTO.

The F6 MANUAL will be very hard to launch and change gears without it breaking into wheelspin. With the auto the power application and gear changes are much much smoother thus not abruptly applying the power causing the tyres to break traction.

Also as has been said many times before, the autos don't drop boost on gear changes.

One more little trick the FG's have is a new cylinder spark cut on gear change. This cylinder cut is performed within 0.25s, and has cut upto 50% off the gear change times in some gears.

[YMK]

For those who haven't read the magazine the F6 felt alot more powerful than the R8 on the road, but failed to show this in the test due to wheelspin... The torque delivery was said to be superior and lethal... what more would you expect for a car that's got 565Nm at 1950rpm? In a manual, that's not easy to get clean launch. It lost more time - estimated close to 0.4 seconds - with the change to 2nd gear due to more wheelspin.

[Excellent]

Launch was always a problem with the Boss too. Too much wheelspin or not enough revs bogged it down.

[Dacious]

Then it appears the chassis may not be able put the power down - whcih it should after ten or so years development. Not much point in having the power if you can't effectively use it.

The same was true of the old semi-trailling arm chassis in the VT-VZ which might have lost out in ride compliance due to unsprung weight and geometry issues but certainly provided grip and effectively put the power down at the track; probably one reason Holdens kept whooping much gruntier and more powerful (on paper) BA/BFs in A-B comparisons. The V8's always been a lead-tipped arrow but even the straight six layout is far from ideal.

This is where you pay for that long nose and cast-iron motor way out front, with a lot of hardware perched high on top. You can add more power to the Holden to even up the score, but you can't reposition the CofG in the Falcon easily. Ford seem very reticent to actually publish any weight distribution figures.

Many people in the Ford camp have also commented the double-wshbone AU type IRS setup is superior to the Control Blade rear, which was originally developed for FWD cars like the Fiesta and Focus.

[Alex(AUS)]

The G6ETurbo that was tested @ 5.1s 0-100km/h and 13.3s 1/4mile was an AUTO.

The F6 MANUAL will be very hard to launch and change gears without it breaking into wheelspin. With the auto the power application and gear changes are much much smoother thus not abruptly applying the power causing the tyres to break traction.

Also as has been said many times before, the autos don't drop boost on gear changes.

One more little trick the FG's have is a new cylinder spark cut on gear change. This cylinder cut is performed within 0.25s, and has cut upto 50% off the gear change times in some gears.

Wheels got the same time out of an F6 auto (or perhaps even slower) even though they also were able to extract 13.3 out of the G6ET ...

Alex

[F6 Hoon]

Then it appears the chassis may not be able put the power down - whcih it should after ten or so years development. Not much point in having the power if you can't effectively use it.
The same was true of the old semi-trailling arm chassis in the VT-VZ which might have lost out in ride compliance due to unsprung weight and geometry issues but certainly provided grip and effectively put the power down at the track; probably one reason Holdens kept whooping much gruntier and more powerful (on paper) BA/BFs in A-B comparisons. The V8's always been a lead-tipped arrow but even the straight six layout is far from ideal.

This is where you pay for that long nose and cast-iron motor way out front, with a lot of hardware perched high on top. You can add more power to the Holden to even up the score, but you can't reposition the CofG in the Falcon easily. Ford seem very reticent to actually publish any weight distribution figures.

Many people in the Ford camp have also commented the double-wshbone AU type IRS setup is superior to the Control Blade rear, which was originally developed for FWD cars like the Fiesta and Focus.

Ever thought it might be something as simplistic as an under-tyred setup?

[mitchtj]

Launch was always a problem with the Boss too. Too much wheelspin or not enough revs bogged it down.

except even when you get the BOSS's launched they still don't have the power

[Alex(AUS)]

One thing that EVERYONE (particularly the Ford fans) has failed to mention is that the F6 in both Motor and Wheels cost $5000 more than the R8!!! This is because it is optioned with premium brakes which are still smaller than the stock units on the HSV (the brakes on the back of the HSV are almost as big as the ones on the front of the FPV).

Imagine what you can do with $5000 ... there are some PWR positive displacement supercharger kits selling for $5000 ... the R8 would still cost the same as a stock F6.

Alex

[Holden Man]

That's surprising !

I thought the F6 was always a fair bit cheaper than the R8.

I also would have liked to see the GTS invloved aswell.

They used both cars from FPV (F6 / GT) but why no GTS plus Clubsport. It'd be interesting to see how the extra GTS bits would have gone (like MRC, 20" wheels, brakes etc)

[EASTWOOD]

One thing that EVERYONE (particularly the Ford fans) has failed to mention is that the F6 in both Motor and Wheels cost $5000 more than the R8!!! This is because it is optioned with premium brakes which are still smaller than the stock units on the HSV (the brakes on the back of the HSV are almost as big as the ones on the front of the FPV).

Imagine what you can do with $5000 ... there are some PWR positive displacement supercharger kits selling for $5000 ... the R8 would still cost the same as a stock F6.

Alex

You could buy a XR6T for 45k, pump up the boost and smoke both the F6 and R8 for a fraction of the cost........

You could by a second hand vy ss spend 10k on mods and smoke them to .......

Fairly pointless comment.

[Ghia351]

Ever thought it might be something as simplistic as an under-tyred setup?Why look for simple when you can blame the chassis, CofG, overhang lengths, thickness of a-pillar, undersized brake rotors, lack of major differentiation to BF, ingrown toe nail of roadtester....:jester:

[VYII_R8]

Wheels got the same time out of an F6 auto (or perhaps even slower) even though they also were able to extract 13.3 out of the G6ET ...

Alex

Can you please point me to which month and which page as I have them all here and I haven't seen one F6 Auto tested??

[michaels1v8]

You could buy a XR6T for 45k, pump up the boost and smoke both the F6 and R8 for a fraction of the cost........

You could by a second hand vy ss spend 10k on mods and smoke them to .......

Fairly pointless comment.

I dont think its pointless.

He is comparing 2 similar cars that are aimed at the same market (up market performance cars).

You are comparing a middle level performance car to the uplevel ones.

5k though is sweet FA in the scheme of things and when your buying a new car, its rare to purchase it at the RRP.

[Alex(AUS)]

That's surprising !

I thought the F6 was always a fair bit cheaper than the R8.

I also would have liked to see the GTS invloved aswell.

They used both cars from FPV (F6 / GT) but why no GTS plus Clubsport. It'd be interesting to see how the extra GTS bits would have gone (like MRC, 20" wheels, brakes etc)

GT is equivalent to R8 ... GTP = GTS ...


You could buy a XR6T for 45k, pump up the boost and smoke both the F6 and R8 for a fraction of the cost........

You could by a second hand vy ss spend 10k on mods and smoke them to .......

Fairly pointless comment.

$5000 is $5000 it always feels cozyer when it is in you pocket as opposed to someone else's ... dont spend it on mods then ... save $5000 to run virtually the same 0-100, 0-400m and track times ...


Can you please point me to which month and which page as I have them all here and I haven't seen one F6 Auto tested??

Wheels, June 2008, page 52 ... Auto F6 ... 0-100; 5.2, 0-400m; 13.3@178 ...

Alex