Road V Race V8 Shootout - Page 2

snappy · 27-03-2009, 02:08 AM

When i get my mag back from my nieghbour ill read through it again an post the whole article. Seems i have missed quite abit

prydey · 27-03-2009, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieron

Havn't read it all yet, but I thought they said the track was slippery due to sand and a recent drag meeting made the main straight slippery?

makes more sense. no way known that was a wet track given those times. even a damp track would've had times way slower than those.

i haven't read the article but interesting to note that the 8's were all quicker than the 6t on the track. normal order of things has returned.

Falc'man · 27-03-2009, 02:40 AM

Looking at those times the track was far from ideal for a true indication of these cars times... I love the way the overweight under-cubed Boss matches/betters the LS3... in the rolling starts that is.

snappy · 27-03-2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Looking at those times the track was far from ideal for a true indication of these cars times... I love the way the overweight under-cubed Boss matches/betters the LS3... in the rolling starts that is.

I like to know what a stock boss would run with some 275's or 285's on the back . whats the gts got 275's or 285's

AUXRVIII · 27-03-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

Its funny isn't were in the longest lasting drought we have ever had and they still manage to find a wet track.
But at the end of the day they all have to run on the wet track but it does put the ford's at the biggest disavantage because of skinnier treads.

The gt-p still getting killed cause of torque tags and skinner treads . Rolling acceleration times aren't bad though . But hard to put the same price tag as the f6 though . Totally different class of car

Can you please explain the torque tags bit, I had once asked a calibration engineer about these and he gave me a blank look and had no idea what they were and said there wouldn't have any such thing.

4Vman · 27-03-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archilino

For reference sake in january 06 motor tested the BA V8 supercar and was timed
at: 0-100 3.9
0-400 11.4 @ 215km/h

Judging by those times im assuming the track was dry, i think with properly warmed tyres should be quicker again

V8SC's are set up for circuit traction and their suspension is optimized for this, this makes them notoriously hard to get off the line so with decent gearing and altered rear suspension better standing start times would be possible.
Their rolling acceleration would be outstanding.

Falcon SXR8 · 27-03-2009, 09:40 AM

I hope people take note of the GT performance beacuse that thing gets bagged so much for being " not even in the running "

Watto_Cobra · 27-03-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

V8SC's are set up for circuit traction and their suspension is optimized for this, this makes them notoriously hard to get off the line so with decent gearing and altered rear suspension better standing start times would be possible.
Their rolling acceleration would be outstanding.

Only have to look at the 80-120 and 120-160 times to back that up. Awesome.

Wally · 27-03-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Can you please explain the torque tags bit, I had once asked a calibration engineer about these and he gave me a blank look and had no idea what they were and said there wouldn't have any such thing.

I would assume it's the same as PLC talk, only in this instance it's a tag point in the ECU that looks for agressive engine behaviour and back things off?

flappist · 27-03-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

makes more sense. no way known that was a wet track given those times. even a damp track would've had times way slower than those.

i haven't read the article but interesting to note that the 8's were all quicker than the 6t on the track. normal order of things has returned.

When you do read it will explain all about what they did and why they got the results with each vehicle. The pics of the wet track tend to give a bit credibility to the "wet track" statement.

Look for the pages with the R8 and GT-P, they are missing from my copy, it has a GT and GTS instead.

ADSXR8 · 27-03-2009, 11:06 AM

Is the magazine worth the read? Might be the first time on 3 years I have bought a Wheels magazine.

mcnews · 27-03-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon SXR8

I hope people take note of the GT performance beacuse that thing gets bagged so much for being " not even in the running "

What it didn't get whopped by everything again?
I guess a power deficit is much less likely to be shown up on a damp track...

Rev28K · 27-03-2009, 12:24 PM

Steve Richards made some comments that the GT was more predictable in its power delivery than the F6. It was easier to get to the limit of the V8.

For what it’s worth I found the response of the FG XR6T’s (yeah I know they aren’t F6’s) very non-linear. Too much at light throttle applications and a strained further up the rev range.

Quicksand · 27-03-2009, 12:57 PM

Some people want linear power, some people want a kick in the guts with forced induction, other people want both

Its all completely subjective to personal tastes.

The article sounds interesting, but i must admit im put off from buying it due to the wet track and the sub par times.

4Vman · 27-03-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inducted_Breeze

Some people want linear power, some people want a kick in the guts with forced induction, other people want both

Its all completely subjective to personal tastes.

The article sounds interesting, but i must admit im put off from buying it due to the wet track and the sub par times.

The times are all relative... i think the results seem like a pretty realistic comparison, better conditions might have given better "best times" but that applies equally to all the vehicles, for the purposes of comparison it seems pretty close to what most would realistically expect..

flappist · 27-03-2009, 07:51 PM

It does go to show that racing cars on a wet track is no different to racing horses on a wet track.

GT69 · 27-03-2009, 09:01 PM

To put this alittle more into perspective, i grabbed the prices for all (other than the V8 supercars of course)

F6 = (13.79 @ 179km/h).............Price When New (RRP)...........$66,590
GT-P = (14.29 @ 168km/h)..........Price When New (RRP)...........$77,190
GTS = (13.77@166km/h).............Price When New (RRP)...........$78,170
W-427 = (13.34 @180km/h).........Price When New (RRP)...........$155,500
HRT = (12.15 @209km/h).............V8 Supercar
FPR = (11.8 @216km/h )..............V8 Supercar

ADSXR8 · 27-03-2009, 09:25 PM

what really impresses me is the km/hr of the F6. Very fast and comparable to a 370kw v8. Ford need to put some decent rubber on it.

4Vman · 27-03-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT69

To put this alittle more into perspective, i grabbed the prices for all (other than the V8 supercars of course)

F6 = (13.79 @ 179km/h).............Price When New (RRP)...........$66,590
GT-P = (14.29 @ 168km/h)..........Price When New (RRP)...........$77,190
GTS = (13.77@166km/h).............Price When New (RRP)...........$78,170
W-427 = (13.34 @180km/h).........Price When New (RRP)...........$155,500
HRT = (12.15 @209km/h).............V8 Supercar
FPR = (11.8 @216km/h )..............V8 Supercar

Why did you only use 1/4 times??

philstoj · 27-03-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT69

To put this alittle more into perspective, i grabbed the prices for all (other than the V8 supercars of course)

F6 = (13.79 @ 179km/h).............Price When New (RRP)...........$66,590
GT-P = (14.29 @ 168km/h)..........Price When New (RRP)...........$77,190
GTS = (13.77@166km/h).............Price When New (RRP)...........$78,170
W-427 = (13.34 @180km/h).........Price When New (RRP)...........$155,500
HRT = (12.15 @209km/h).............V8 Supercar
FPR = (11.8 @216km/h )..............V8 Supercar

Reading the mag now, they used a GT not a GT-P, so it would be the same price as the F6.

4Vman · 27-03-2009, 10:31 PM

Geez... I think i'll just buy the mag.. apparently the track wasn't really wet and they used a GT not a GT-P and a GTS not a R8... might be better to actually read it then rely on 3rd hand posts...
Is accuracy too much to ask?!!

GT69 · 27-03-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Why did you only use 1/4 times??

Because RRP is RRP and everyone can read the rest of the times. whats more the quarter mile time is the one that really matters, especially from the 'bang for your buck' perspective, which i have

4Vman · 27-03-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT69

Because RRP is RRP and everyone can read the rest of the times. whats more the quarter mile time is the one that really matters, especially from the 'bang for your buck' perspective, which i have

Most roads i drive on are longer than 1/4 of a mile and have corners....
Might want to get your models and RRP right too....

greenfoam · 27-03-2009, 10:37 PM

I had this on a old VHS tape, I recorded it ALONNNNG time ago

, this was run just after Bathurst, same tyres same diff ratio etc nothing changed, no doubt that car would be on for a 10 if it wasn't for the gearing and masses of wheelspin off the line, well maybe a little doubt but it would be close

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRVqOvW_2EI

GT69 · 27-03-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Most roads i drive on are longer than 1/4 of a mile and have corners....
Might want to get your models and RRP right too....

Prices were quoted from Redbook, as to the models, what was listed in the first post are the models to which i got prices for. If they screwed up i cant help that.

snappy · 27-03-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Geez... I think i'll just buy the mag.. apparently the track wasn't really wet and they used a GT not a GT-P... might be better to actually read it then rely on 3rd hand posts...

Buy the mag .
Ive lent my mag to my neighbour cant confirm my mistakes yet.( obviously a little eager to post it up) my bad wont bother next time .
But if it a gt makes bugger all difference just the cost .
Now does it really matter if its wet ,dry,slippery, or damp there all bad times for each car and most likely wont change the varibles in times between for different conditions .

What have we learned any way
we knew the gt get better times on the track than the f6 .( can someone confirm the wet track because the f6 might struggle for traction more)
we knew th f6 was quicker on the quarter
we knew the w427 was overpriced but we learnt it can get good track times.
we knew the gts was quicker than the gt but slower than the f6
surely the full spec race car was going to be the quickest of the lot.

But i think for the best part this proves that the boss 315 is not inferior to the ls3.
In the other wheels mag the boss made more power and torque through the whole rev range then the ls3 .
So what slowing the boss dow my guess it the size of the trends and that little bit of extra weight takes a little bit more to get moving .

greenfoam · 27-03-2009, 11:08 PM

There was a FG GT driven by good drivers at the 12 hour this year, fair bit slower than the Commodores that were up there but was faster than the Turbo, In the race the best lap of the normal XR8 was 3-4 seconds faster than the Turbo, the VE Sport wagon was another 6 seconds faster than that

http://www.bathurst12hour.com.au/live_qualifying.asp

flappist · 27-03-2009, 11:10 PM

Things I have noticed in this thread:

Much of the data is incorrect and is gradually being corrected.

Most of those who are making sage but emotional opinion have not actually read the article.

Most of those who are applauding the results have on previous occasions derided and lampooned WHEELS as biased and inaccurate fiction written by second grade scribes who cannot drive and know nothing about cars.

Now they are respected experts whose judgement is beyond reproach.......

I wonder if they will be crap again if the next article does not produce the desired scores?

snappy · 27-03-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Things I have noticed in this thread:

Much of the data is incorrect and is gradually being corrected.

Most of those who are making sage but emotional opinion have not actually read the article.

Most of those who are applauding the results have on previous occasions derided and lampooned WHEELS as biased and inaccurate fiction written by second grade scribes who cannot drive and know nothing about cars.

Now they are respected experts whose judgement is beyond reproach.......

I wonder if they will be crap again if the next article does not produce the desired scores?

well i get your point .
But another way to look at it is that we were right they were getting times in the mid 14s would you say this is proof that times the achieved before were poor and deserved to be questioned .

4Vman · 27-03-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

well i get your point .
But another way to look at it is that we were right they were getting times in the mid 14s would you say this is proof that times the achieved before were poor and deserved to be questioned .

The cars were (from what i can decipher) measured against 5.. YES 5 different performance disciplines... 1 of those 5 being 1/4 mile.. only 1 car got a 14, the rest were quicker, from what i can see those times were pretty close to what all the mags seem to get for those respective models.
Notably (and reservedly given the accuracy of the details posted) that car recovered on the circuit.
More importantly in my mind were the rolling performance times and to a lesser degree the lap times.. because these represent what most of us experience driving day to day in the real world, where roads have corners.. but ill reserve judgment and opinion on those now till i READ the article.

DISCLAIMER:

Opinions expressed are based solely on the details posted as representative of the magazine article and may vary if and when those details are verified!!!