Supercharged HSV? - Part 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag530G

Yep, the AMG's acceleration is a classic example of the fact that the most important thing from an engine to deliver best acceleration is area under the torque curve, not peak power or torque. The AMG basically hits peak torque at around 1800 rpm and stays up there, the benefit of twin turbos really. The HSV just builds to its torque peak, just the nature of supercharging I guess.

Cheers, Matthew

---

What was the speed at the end of the 1/4 for both cars. That should speak volumes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by korrupt

Get down to your newsagent, Pickles. The latest Wheels has the GTS vs E63 S. Looks like a good article.

0 - 100km/h - GTS 4.7 AMG 4.3
0 - 400m - GTS 12.8 @ 183.2km/h AMG 12.2 @ 195.9km/h

Photo on the bottom of page 92 makes me think they should have fitted two bonnet struts...

---

Thats simply bloody sad imho

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthre...48#post2090648.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markone2

Thats simply bloody sad imho

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthre...48#post2090648.

.

---

Yeah and that one you posted is on a dragstrip with dual stage timing beacons, worth at least .2sec - .3sec a run, factor in driver only and minimal fuel that time is still way off and the GTS trap speed is 10km/h faster in the wet.

The magazines test two up (driver and passenger) using GPS timers like the Driftbox and also with at least a half tank of fuel. Those times were also posted on a wet track. The fact the GTS smoked a car more than twice it's Aussie cost and with a serious history and racing pedigree that is AMG it's not sad mate, it's a bloody miracle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bouka

What was the speed at the end of the 1/4 for both cars. That should speak volumes.

---

HSV 12.8 secs at 183.2kph, AMG 12.2secs at 195.9kph

0-100kph HSV 4.7secs, AMG 4.3secs
0-200kph HSV 15.1secs, AMG 12.7secs

So:

100-200kph HSV 10.4secs, AMG 8.4secs, 2 seconds difference in a bracket where grip and getting a good start don't matter much, that's the difference in torque (and the lower gear ratios for the AMG).

Cheers, Matthew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag530G

HSV 12.8 secs at 183.2kph, AMG 12.2secs at 195.9kph

0-100kph HSV 4.7secs, AMG 4.3secs
0-200kph HSV 15.1secs, AMG 12.7secs

So:

100-200kph HSV 10.4secs, AMG 8.4secs, 2 seconds difference in a bracket where grip and getting a good start don't matter much, that's the difference in torque (and the lower gear ratios for the AMG).

Cheers, Matthew

---

Thanks Matt.

So far we have 114.5 and 115.2 (in the wet) mph out of the gts.

The drive article tested at heathcote but does not tell us mph.

It is getting great write ups for handling, and having been in one I can say it deserves every bit of praise it gets for its handling.

The funny thing is, this HSV vs AMG thread is probably going in the same direction as all our old threads on the VE GTS vs FPV GT. The ideal car is the HSV chassis with the other mob's engine and gearbox.

Can't wait for a comparo of the HSV GTS, M-B E63S, BMW M5, Audi RS6 and Jag XF-RS. BMW seems to have lost it a bit with handling and the Jag from the recent drive article is more a "GT" than a road/race car so HSV might be up against the Audi as the best handler, the Audi's AWD will be tough to beat...

Cheers, Matthew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag530G

The funny thing is, this HSV vs AMG thread is probably going in the same direction as all our old threads on the VE GTS vs FPV GT. The ideal car is the HSV chassis with the other mob's engine and gearbox.

Can't wait for a comparo of the HSV GTS, M-B E63S, BMW M5, Audi RS6 and Jag XF-RS. BMW seems to have lost it a bit with handling and the Jag from the recent drive article is more a "GT" than a road/race car so HSV might be up against the Audi as the best handler, the Audi's AWD will be tough to beat...

Cheers, Matthew

---

The Audi RS7 will smoke the GTS, it's near on a too perfect car, it's handling is controlled by so much mechanical wizardry that it nearly drives itself and is bordering on impossible to lose control of!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plenty

Yeah and that one you posted is on a dragstrip with dual stage timing beacons, worth at least .2sec - .3sec a run, factor in driver only and minimal fuel that time is still way off and the GTS trap speed is 10km/h faster in the wet.

The magazines test two up (driver and passenger) using GPS timers like the Driftbox and also with at least a half tank of fuel. Those times were also posted on a wet track. The fact the GTS smoked a car more than twice it's Aussie cost and with a serious history and racing pedigree that is AMG it's not sad mate, it's a bloody miracle!

---

Perhaps said magazines should utilize the more than accurate timing devices as supplied by ANDRA accredited race tracks …?

PS never assume..VE LS3 Senator in question was running over ¾ of a tank of fuel, not to mention another full weight 20” Pentagon in the boot….track visit was a spur of the moment decision ..
We are after all talking a $1500 upgrade to a stock 08 HSV

On the AMG question…..Having had the pleasure of putting my backside in one C 63 for 6 months and being piloted around Phillip Island in the wet by Jamie Brock at full noise in same……….I ‘m starting to wonder how many of the AMG knockers here have actually owned one? Or are these opinions based simply on internet browsing

.

Who is knocking the AMG? I'm sure most are simply amazed at how much the gap (performance wise) has closed. The E63 is a fantastic car (no i have not driven it) but for our GTS to actually out class it on the track is a pretty impressive feat i reckon.

I guess the journo's use the GPS based timers simply for convenience as the strip is not always convenient. The more accurate time to look at is the terminal speed at the 1/4 mile, in the wet it was pretty quick given a dry sticky track it'll drop a couple of tenths i'm sure.

This is what puts it all into perspective for me:

I can have an E63 AMG S

OR

A GTS *and* a CLA45 AMG *and* still have enough change for an SSV Redline if I wanted one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag530G

Yep, the AMG's acceleration is a classic example of the fact that the most important thing from an engine to deliver best acceleration is area under the torque curve, not peak power or torque. The AMG basically hits peak torque at around 1800 rpm and stays up there, the benefit of twin turbos really. The HSV just builds to its torque peak, just the nature of supercharging I guess.

Cheers, Matthew

---

That's why i was asking earlier if anyone knows why the HSV makes peak torque so late, as the FPV manages to make peak torque at 2200 all the way through. Is it the way it's tuned, or more to do with the mechanical components used/set up? Any of the more knowledgeable members have any insight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vulture

This is what puts it all into perspective for me:

I can have an E63 AMG S

OR

A GTS *and* a CLA45 AMG *and* still have enough change for an SSV Redline if I wanted one.

---

Mate you got it in one

I love the AMG, I love the Audi, I love the GTR... (lotta love here) :love:... but I am not in that price range, I could be but I would rather invest the extra coin

The GTS to me is the winner regardless of .2 here or there on the basis of drive it out of a show room, & go so close to beating a car 3 times its price... what else can do that... and I don't want to mod it and possibly send it in the wrong direction based on what HSV have spent squillions getting so right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTS LSA

Mate you got it in one

I love the AMG, I love the Audi, I love the GTR... (lotta love here) :love:... but I am not in that price range, I could be but I would rather invest the extra coin

The GTS to me is the winner regardless of .2 here or there on the basis of drive it out of a show room, & go so close to beating a car 3 times its price... what else can do that... and I don't want to mod it and possibly send it in the wrong direction based on what HSV have spent squillions getting so right

---

Swap the 1900 for a 2300 heartbeat :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkgmh

Swap the 1900 for a 2300 heartbeat :love:

---

sshh dont get me started :up2sum:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkgmh

Swap the 1900 for a 2300 heartbeat :love:

---

Pretty sure that is what Vulture is planning!