Apparently the Gen F GTS just got spanked by 0.6sec over the 1/4 mile by the new AMG E63 S. The GTS pulled a 12.7 in the wet for the test against the FPV GT r-spec, the AMG must be near on into the 11's.
Printable View
Apparently the Gen F GTS just got spanked by 0.6sec over the 1/4 mile by the new AMG E63 S. The GTS pulled a 12.7 in the wet for the test against the FPV GT r-spec, the AMG must be near on into the 11's.
Our tech department’s educated guess predicts that the E63 can hit 60 mph in 3.4 seconds, the S in 3.3, and either version can complete a quarter-mile blitzkrieg in fewer than 12 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plenty
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 3.3–3.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.2–8.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.8–11.9 sec
Top speed: 155–186 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review
So your comment about 0.6sec rings reasonable for a 12.4 / 12.5 - 1/4 for the GTS in the dry...
Agreed ... straight line on a freeway you could MAYBE understand, but that's poor form on a track!Quote:
Originally Posted by GTS LSA
I reckon 0/60 in 3.4 for the RWD car is optimistic.....I've read 3.9 for the AWD car....I'll do some checking!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jkgmh
Cheers, Pickles.
Yeah those times are for an AWD E63??? but this is an Australian RWD car vs the GTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by jkgmh
Here is the LINK to the small article.
I'm still tipping the AMG pulled a very very low 12 as one would imagine the GTS would drop at least a few 1/10 in the dry. Obviously depends on driver and transmission of course.
Get down to your newsagent, Pickles. The latest Wheels has the GTS vs E63 S. Looks like a good article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickles
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...
Wet road ?Quote:
Originally Posted by korrupt
Latest Wheels I've got is August..with orange Mustang on the front cover....Aug 2013)...you have later?Quote:
Originally Posted by korrupt
September Motor has the AWD 412KW Audi RS7 doing it in 3.9, which they say, is quicker than the new E63?
They're all bloody quick!!
Cheers, Pickles.
I haven't read the article yet, but it looks that way from the photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by jkgmh
September issue is out now. I just grabbed a copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickles
In the past year or so everything has shifted by about a second ... 3's are the new benchmark, 4's are no longer solely the domain of the supercars, 5's are everyday sportscars, 6's are runabout hatch backs!
Unbelievable really, just when you think they can't possibly get any faster ... surely now they can't possibly get any faster!
How about an HSV for the road and then a second one for the track only!
Spend another $50K getting it right and you'd still have change for a couple of 44Gl tanks of E85 and a few sets of track rubber.
Then we've spent the same amount - after that put them both down the 1/4 :driving:
GTS vs E63 Review
GTS 4.6s 0-100 12.6s 1/4 mile
E63 4.4s 0-100 12.3s 1/4 mile
http://theage.drive.com.au/new-car-c...821-2sa9j.html
Apparently the Nismo Nissan GT-R will be capable of a sub 2.1 sec 0-100km/h... It really is unbelievable. When i think back to 2004, my XR6T had 300rwkw and it felt like a rocket. Imagine what a 0-100km/h in about 2 seconds would feel like!!Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
I think the GTS is great for what it is. A large RWD aussie sedan, capable of some fantastic times/performance...
My old man bought an e55 brand new in 1998, back then was one of a few sedans doing 0-100 in sub 6 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Incredibly these things in 2013 are heavier and albeit with more power but have shaved off almost 2 seconds, imagine if they were 500kgs lighter!!
Just go's to show you Torque wins races 800nm@1750 rpm is crazy.
I notice that the GTS doesn't hit peak torque until over 4000rpm. Even the GT makes peak torque about 2200rpm.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaness8
Can anyone shed light on why the GTS makes peak torque so late, would it be to assist with traction? Or other reasons? Is it mechanical, or engine type? Obviously a huge amount of peak torque early on is harder for the car maintain traction.
Fuel consumption on the test is very interesting :hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by shaness8
I guess this isn't really an issue if you're getting 80-90% of it at 2,000-odd rpm ... I'll reserve judgement until I see a chart plotting it all the way along the rev range.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyXR6T04
MkVIII Golf R is supposedly 0-100 in 4.9km, thats amazing out of a little hatchback.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
yeah i suppose, i didn't really look at it that way, especially with 740 odd Nm!! Even 80% of that is near on 600nm... Will be interesting to see how it does go in the hands of owners and on the dyno/track.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Had a read of the Wheels Mag article and in terms of acceleration the HSV stays with the AMG up to 60kph but then falls behind. I suspect part of the problem is the HSV's taller second (123kph vs 104kph) and third gear (169kph vs 155kph). Forth gear looks pretty similar (219kph vs 217kph and 5th/6th/7th all top out at a limited 250kph.
I wonder if a shorter diff ratio would help the HSV beat the AMG over the quarter mile? Is the manual actually quicker than the auto for HSV over the quarter? I wonder if the auto is actually quicker with the snappier changes.
I was more impressed by the lap time and often higher cornering speeds of the HSV, especially as the AMG is 86kg lighter, 109mm shorter and 45mm narrower. That's a superb effort by HSV.
Cheers, Matthew
Haven't read that analysis,.....but on a $ for $ basis, how good does that make the GTS?.....I mean, for the money, NOTHING comes close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag530G
Cheers, Pickles.
Yep, dead right. Even if you were to knock out the "Australia Tax" out of the AMG it still wouldn't come close to the $93K the HSV is, and it isn't an all round better car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickles
Oh, and another difference between the AMG and HSV, HSV has the same make of tyres as the AMG but the rears are 10mm narrower than the AMG (HSV: 275, AMG 285). Along with the fact that HSV is a bigger, heavier car with a worse torque curve, to achieve better cornering speeds and lap time shows HSV have absolutely belted AMG in chassis set up.
Cheers, Matthew
Read it on the plane coming home from work. The fact that the GTS was faster 'round Winton (GTS: 1:40.9 vs E63 S: 1:41.2) in the hands of John Bowe certainly does give it some credibility. General consensus is the the Mercs motor is stronger, but the HSV has the better of the fight when it comes to handling.Fairly soundly trounced on the (wet) strip though, but a very positive review of the GTS overall (but then it is wheels and they have a reputation of being pro holden), well worth a read.
Interesting to note that the SV6 vs XR6 comparo a bit later on listed handling as one major area where the SC got beaten by the XR. Seems a bit odd.
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 Jag530G
Thats simply bloody sad imhoQuote:
Originally Posted by korrupt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by markone2
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!
HSV 12.8 secs at 183.2kph, AMG 12.2secs at 195.9kphQuote:
Originally Posted by bouka
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag530G
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 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
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.
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 Jag530G
Mate you got it in oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Vulture
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 GTS LSA
sshh dont get me started :up2sum:Quote:
Originally Posted by jkgmh
Pretty sure that is what Vulture is planning!Quote:
Originally Posted by jkgmh