Muscle car masters: FPV GT F v HSV GTS

[johnydep]

Let the mud slinging begin

http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/c...rm=Read%20more

The ultimate FPV is also the brand's most powerful ever. But is the thundering GT F capable enough to eclipse HSV's paradigm-changing GTS?

It started simply enough: Take an Aussie family sedan, spike it with a loping, large-capacity V8 and finish with a badge that would leave no doubt about the vehicle's Grand Touring credentials. Then take it racing.

It was the limited-edition 1967 Ford XR Falcon GT, with its 289ci (4.7-litre) Windsor V8, which introduced the phrase 'Australian Muscle Car' to the national conscience. A Bathurst winner that year, it gave Ford Australia a much-needed halo car with which to do battle with its red-blooded rival on the showroom floors............

A final fling
Hard as it is, our intention for this comparison was to view it with a degree of indifference. By analysing both contenders dispassionately, we'd be able to deliver our verdict more definitively.

The truth is, despite the evocative 351 badges and that dyno result, the GT F is bettered in nearly every conceivable way by the lion-hearted GTS.

The big, burbling FPV is a hero car in its own right, a fitting final fling to its illustrious brethren. But the truth is, the HSV GTS in Gen-F form feels about at least decade further down its development trail.

It's more comfortable, better equipped, faster and easier to drive quickly than the Broady Boy, and that is why the HSV GTS takes the Australian Muscle Car title... Perhaps for the last time............

[FPV 5TH]

[PepeLePew]

Think it's been posted before mate...and as the discussion went it's fair and balanced. Don't think it was quoted just carpoint link

[fgpsi]

Wet track ? Really ?

[fgpsi]

Holden payroll ?

[galaxy xr8]

They couldn’t even get the stat’s right for the GT-F,
335kw ???

Not even worth reading.

[Grippy]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

They couldn’t even get the stat’s right for the GT-F,
335kw ???

Not even worth reading.

Just noticed that myself, they can't even get the power right, shows there is no credibility in the article...

[BradEL]

That was an interesting read, does the GT-F really only have electric seats for the base? Not even for the backrest?!?

[BHDOGS]

lmao as i recall the dyno result was the gtf is the most powerful australian car made.

[Sorted]

Zzzzzzzzzz

GTF vs GT Rspec comparison by Street Fords would be a much better idea

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Zzzzzzzzzz

GTF vs GT Rspec comparison by Street Fords would be a much better idea

It doesnt have a carby, they wouldnt be interested.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Let the mud slinging begin

http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/c...rm=Read%20more

I see that EVO Australia Magazine has extracted some quite fast times out of an HSV GTS Manual and an FPV GTF Manual.

HSV GTS 0 - 100 kmh in 4.34 sec and 400 metres in 12.53 seconds.

FPV GTF 0 - 100 kmh in 4.46 sec and 400 metres in 12.66 seconds.

Apparently full numbers will be on their website soon.

[futura]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I see that EVO Australia Magazine has extracted some quite fast times out of an HSV GTS Manual and an FPV GTF Manual.

HSV GTS 0 - 100 kmh in 4.34 sec and 400 metres in 12.53 seconds.

FPV GTF 0 - 100 kmh in 4.46 sec and 400 metres in 12.66 seconds.

Apparently full numbers will be on their website soon.

Best numbers I have seen for the GTF so far. Looks like someone in EVO magazine can drive a manual.

[devilcv8]

FFS, both cars are the pinnacle of their respective brands and any car enthusiast would love to own one.
All the Dyno this, road test that BS on forums says more about you than about what is the better car.

In a couple of years you can all move onto comparing the new Camry and Pulsar, won't that be fun.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

FFS, both cars are the pinnacle of their respective brands and any car enthusiast would love to own one.
All the Dyno this, road test that BS on forums says more about you than about what is the better car.

In a couple of years you can all move onto comparing the new Camry and Pulsar, won't that be fun.

The car BS has been with us since the dawn of the automobile

[xr6tjet]

Who gives a ***** about electric seats and other useless gadgets in a GTF lol. The less electrics the better lol. If you can tame that beast around the track it is an animal! If people wanted luxury go buy a G6ET or whatever. So many whinging articles these days!

[Rodge]

2.3 seconds on a short track and technology and equipment that's at least a full generation ahead... Interesting review and pretty fair one in my opinion.
I wonder what the time difference would be around a longer track like Phillip Island ?

[40RDT]

Would have to the most in depth review of these two cars so far. Would have been sweet if they compared them at bathurst

[1TUFFUTE]

Ok....so what a load of garbage....the track was WET really
So there goes all these times people keep comparing
Noticed they didn't spend more then a second commenting that the GTF dynoed more then the hsv.....again.
Big things I noted was the hsv was a very firm ride compared to the GTF(these are daily drivers) not the first time this has been noted!
The hsv gearbox wasn't behaving on the track in sequential mode!

They returned VERY slow 0-100 times nearly a second slower then other quoted best times(no doubt indicates how WET it really was)

Annnnd another bunch of dousches whining about the ford seating possition

Oh yes and they got the GTF power figures wrong.......hmmmmm I wonder if they've ever misquoted a new HSVs power figures?
Sorry....no respect for these guys
Evo magazine on the other hand hid nothing and put it all on the table with zero bias.
So you guys clawing facts out of this dribble....don't waste your time!

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Ok....so what a load of garbage....the track was WET really
So there goes all these times people keep comparing
Noticed they didn't spend more then a second commenting that the GTF dynoed more then the hsv.....again.
Big things I noted was the hsv was a very firm ride compared to the GTF(these are daily drivers) not the first time this has been noted!
The hsv gearbox wasn't behaving on the track in sequential mode!

They returned VERY slow 0-100 times nearly a second slower then other quoted best times(no doubt indicates how WET it really was)

Annnnd another bunch of dousches whining about the ford seating possition

Oh yes and they got the GTF power figures wrong.......hmmmmm I wonder if they've ever misquoted a new HSVs power figures?
Sorry....no respect for these guys
Evo magazine on the other hand hid nothing and put it all on the table with zero bias.
So you guys clawing facts out of this dribble....don't waste your time!

It’s almost like as if these clowns didn’t even test the two car’s in question but rather they jumped on the internet and read up on them and reported on what they read.... I mean where else does one complain about the Ford’s seating position time and time again, or maybe they even read it here 1’st and thought
“hey the Ford guys even complain about it so let’s make mention about it so people start to believe it”.

[BHDOGS]

Im surprised they didnt slip in the ball join issues from the territory aswell lmao funny they never mentioned the 5 recalls for the vf? surley thats worth mentioning since it impacts on this car directly? Going around a track and the seat base breaks? could be trouble.

[Rodge]

Its the first track comparison and I'm sure it won't be the last.

For those saying the driver was biased or the track was damp or whatever other excuse they'd like to make including that nobody takes these cars on the track anyway...consider this, an R Spec SC FPV got beaten by an SRT8 on a dry track, (Motor Magazine February 2013) and most on here, with the notable exception of those who own them and know different, think the SRT8 handles like a cruiser so what chance has a GT-F got against a GTS with its track spec suspension and DSC settings, supercar sized brakes and torque vectoring, on a decent dry track...

And before we all cry...ahhh but nobody takes their cars to the track, well the track gives you a far better indication of how a car will perform on your favourite bit of back country twisty road than a peak power dyno number does.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Its the first track comparison and I'm sure it won't be the last.

For those saying the driver was biased or the track was damp or whatever other excuse they'd like to make including that nobody takes these cars on the track anyway...consider this, an R Spec SC FPV got beaten by an SRT8 on a dry track, (Motor Magazine February 2013) and most on here, with the notable exception of those who own them and know different, think the SRT8 handles like a cruiser so what chance has a GT-F got against a GTS with its track spec suspension and DSC settings, supercar sized brakes and torque vectoring, on a decent dry track...

And before we all cry...ahhh but nobody takes their cars to the track, well the track gives you a far better indication of how a car will perform on your favourite bit of back country twisty road than a peak power dyno number does.

We get it, you crossed to the other side. Stop trying to justify it in your own mind.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Its the first track comparison and I'm sure it won't be the last.

For those saying the driver was biased or the track was damp or whatever other excuse they'd like to make including that nobody takes these cars on the track anyway...consider this, an R Spec SC FPV got beaten by an SRT8 on a dry track, (Motor Magazine February 2013) and most on here, with the notable exception of those who own them and know different, think the SRT8 handles like a cruiser so what chance has a GT-F got against a GTS with its track spec suspension and DSC settings, supercar sized brakes and torque vectoring, on a decent dry track...

And before we all cry...ahhh but nobody takes their cars to the track, well the track gives you a far better indication of how a car will perform on your favourite bit of back country twisty road than a peak power dyno number does.

Rodge give it up mate......I give all credit to a comparo done in correct conditions. This was NOT. This was done on a WET track......their times were massively slow and amoung other things......they spent one sentence out of a ten page essay on their dyno figures.i wonder why
They had the GTF as more powerfull then the GTS.....with I think all 9 runs over the 345rwkw mark. Funny they didn't mention that hey?

Like the well put together EVO mag shoot out.....nothing gains more respect then a proper shoot out. Any idiot gleaming facts from this dribble is a fanboy of garbage....no matter the result.
When someone does a proper dry track test and goes 5secs faster then the GTF, like you assume.....then ill credit the comparo.

[warpo83]

Who cares about the comparison on the dyno, track or wherever? I ordered and bought a GTF because I buy Ford and thats that. I didn't buy one because it's faster or slower than the GTS and I don't really care. I wouldn't buy a GTS as long as my a--e points to the ground. My mates would give me to much **** anyway!!

Trav.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Its the first track comparison and I'm sure it won't be the last.

For those saying the driver was biased or the track was damp or whatever other excuse they'd like to make including that nobody takes these cars on the track anyway...consider this, an R Spec SC FPV got beaten by an SRT8 on a dry track, (Motor Magazine February 2013) and most on here, with the notable exception of those who own them and know different, think the SRT8 handles like a cruiser so what chance has a GT-F got against a GTS with its track spec suspension and DSC settings, supercar sized brakes and torque vectoring, on a decent dry track...

And before we all cry...ahhh but nobody takes their cars to the track, well the track gives you a far better indication of how a car will perform on your favourite bit of back country twisty road than a peak power dyno number does.

Thread title looks like GTS Vs GTF to me, what the **** does the sheetbox SRT got to do with anything?

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

What the **** does the sheetbox SRT got to do with anything?

Everything...apparently?...

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Thread title looks like GTS Vs GTF to me, what the **** does the sheetbox SRT got to do with anything?

Just saying that if a R Spec can't beat a SRT8 around a dry track what hope has a very, very slightly tweaked R Spec, (AKA GT-F), got against a GTS ? NONE !!...and wet, dry or damp 2.3 seconds on a short track is a thorough belting any way people want to slice and dice it.

There's soooo much more to a car than a peak power dyno number...for instance amoung many, many other things the GTS is making about 50 rwkw's more power in the mid-range and has monster sized brakes.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Just saying that if a R Spec can't beat a SRT8 around a dry track what hope has a very, very slightly tweaked R Spec, (AKA GT-F), got against a GTS ? NONE !!...and wet, dry or damp 2.3 seconds on a short track is a thorough belting any way people want to slice and dice it.

There's soooo much more to a car than a peak power dyno number...for instance amoung many, many other things the GTS is making about 50 rwkw's more power in the mid-range and has monster sized brakes.

Your SRT8 will get smashed from every set of lights though Rodge where you will spend all of your time. Take it to the 1/4 and you will only be seeing tail lights from both an RSpec and a GTF, manual or auto.
I agree though the FPVs have nothing on the GTS when it comes to track. My mate is up to 6s a lap faster at QR than he was in the F6. I really hope Ford recall both press cars around Bathurst time because if they end up head to head around the mountain.... But in saying that they are point and shoot muscle with big slidey back ends, so to a certain degree FPV have nailed the brief.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Your SRT8 will get smashed from every set of lights though Rodge where you will spend all of your time. Take it to the 1/4 and you will only be seeing tail lights from both an RSpec and a GTF, manual or auto.
I agree though the FPVs have nothing on the GTS when it comes to track. My mate is up to 6s a lap faster at QR than he was in the F6. I really hope Ford recall both press cars around Bathurst time because if they end up head to head around the mountain.... But in saying that they are point and shoot muscle with big slidey back ends, so to a certain degree FPV have nailed the brief.

6 seconds is a MASSIVE difference mate, some of that will be the technical abilities of the GTS such as track settings on the DSC and suspension and the torque vectoring and massive brakes but still that's such a whopping difference and gives a clue about how good these things are to punt around your favourite bit of back-country blacktop.

Anyway this is about GT-F v GTS so moving back on topic I expect on a decent high speed track like Phillip Island the GTS will be several seconds faster. My guess would be 4.

Mate I can pull 0-100 in 4.8 over and over again, (which is quicker than me ol GT-P, (N.Z. Autocar 0-100 in 5.15 seconds) so getting smashed as you put it at the lights isn't even a remote possibility. Average times for the R Spec and GTS aren't much different to that so whoever has the best reaction times at the lights will be the winner and I have super quick reactions from years and years of misspent youth playing pinball, I was the Auckland University champ

At Aussie pricing there's no question the GF-F is a good bit of kit for the money, but $100,000 being fair value in N.Z is far more debateable.