FPV GT-F outpowers HSV GTS The Aussie horsepower king has been identified & we are surprised as any1

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The same car produced near 350rwkw's later on so obviously something was done to the car by Ford to improve it's numbers.

It couldn't possibly have been the dyno or dyno operator causing the discrepancy??

[ford man xf]

Adding to that, if anything Wheels have tampered with the results, if that is to say having the GTS sitting looser on the dyno rollers does causes a higher readout?

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Batmobile

Interesting to see the flywheel torque on the GTS declining..Looks like there is a gap between it generating the power and then being able to feed it down the line to the rear wheels. This
is probably why on the engine stand they had been able to claim 430fwkw .
Forum members in the know will be able to explain this I am sure. I will sit tight.

The HSV makes more torque and power than the Ford at the start of the run but from then on it's torque (turning force) drops off at a slower rate than the revs are rising, so the power is still increasing (an engines power will be dropping off when the torque is falling at a greater rate than the revs are rising).
On the other hand the Ford starts off with less torque and power, and the torque line goes up from there, so we have the power rising at a faster rate than the revs and it also rises at a faster rate than the HSV.
The end result is a higher power figure.
The torque figures are apparently the flywheel figures (as calculated by the Dyno's software) so I've calculated the flywheel power of both engines.

I got around 448 kW for the Ford and 431 for the HSV.

I can't say that I've seen a 448 kW performance from the Ford in the Wheels test with 186.7 kph at 400 metres, but I'll be waiting for further tests.

The formula for power in killowatts is:-
kW = Nm of torque X Rpm divided by 9549.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I got around 448 kW for the Ford and 431 for the HSV.

So there you have it, the GT-F is now crowned Australia's most powerful car.

If it's the last Falcon GT ever, Ford should really be boasting about it's true power figure and not trying to subtly hide it, in the past I can understand why they did it, but its the last one! But then I could see people saying "it's making that power with the overboost, so its not really making that power all the time". I have actually heard this argument twice now.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Yep, Wheels tampered with the results. Great theory. Does no suggestion seem too ridiculous to the tin hat brigade?

Can you confirm that loosely strapping a car on a dyno will produce a higher output reading? I'm no dyno expert so I have no idea, but this is one of the theories out there.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Can you confirm that loosely strapping a car on a dyno will produce a higher output reading? I'm no dyno expert so I have no idea, but this is one of the theories out there.

Story goes that was just a teaser video filmed on someones phone, not a power run. You may choose to not believe this in order to keep the conspiracy alive. But I just find the suggestion that Wheels would basically sabotage the whole test like that absolutely ridiculous.

[fgpsi]

FPV GT-F

Australia's most powerful car ever. Long live the king !

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Story goes that was just a teaser video filmed on someones phone, not a power run. You may choose to not believe this in order to keep the conspiracy alive. But I just find the suggestion that Wheels would basically sabotage the whole test like that absolutely ridiculous.

OK so let's rule that out. Why then did the same car (GT-F) produce higher outputs on a different dyno? Didn't you suggest: "The same car produced near 350rwkw's later on so obviously something was done to the car by Ford to improve it's numbers." Doesn't that make you the conspiracy theorist then?
Why have countless GT owners with 335 Coyotes made well over 300rwkw on dyno runs, if memory serves me correctly they are making around the 335 in rear wheel kilowatts.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

OK so let's rule that out. Why then did the same car (GT-F) produce higher outputs on a different dyno? Didn't you suggest: "The same car produced near 350rwkw's later on so obviously something was done to the car by Ford to improve it's numbers." Doesn't that make you the conspiracy theorist then?
Why have countless GT owners with 335 Coyotes made well over 300rwkw on dyno runs, if memory serves me correctly they are making around the 335 in rear wheel kilowatts.

My guess is that there was an issue with the car when Wheels ran their tests, and this issue was fixed by Ford before the following test. That's based on the fact that, like you said, so many standard GT's have consistently produced higher numbers in the past.

[hootar]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I got around 448 kW for the Ford and 431 for the HSV.

I can't say that I've seen a 448 kW performance from the Ford in the Wheels test with 186.7 kph at 400 metres, but I'll be waiting for further tests.

The formula for power in killowatts is:-
kW = Nm of torque X Rpm divided by 9549.

A good rule of thumb is to get ya facts right first. The reason you dont see a 448 kW performance from wheels 400m test was because they did the 400m in the manual not the auto that produced the 448 kW figure at motoring. After Vcm and wheels dyno test I wouldnt hold much credit to their 400m time of the manual. But as usual people will read into things which ever way suits them!

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Story goes that was just a teaser video filmed on someones phone, not a power run. You may choose to not believe this in order to keep the conspiracy alive. But I just find the suggestion that Wheels would basically sabotage the whole test like that absolutely ridiculous.

So you choose to believe that a dyno is a fool proof device that cannot be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome, because it's oh so unlikely that Wheels would have ulterior motives to produce a certain outcome.

And as for us being one eyed and abusing Rodge, it's because he either goes off topic or talks absolute rubbish that is full of assumptions and demonstrates lack of true understanding.

All this talk of driveline losses is completely irrelevant. Without the use of an engine dyno fwkw is all just guessing.

Fact is we know what a GT335 makes on a chassis dyno (mine made 320rwkw), we know what a GTS makes, so if they are run on the same equipment, under controlled conditions we know what the relative outputs ( relative to each other) should be.

Wheels stuffed up. They thought that online car enthusiasts were as uninformed as the people who read their printed garbage in doctors surgeries

[shaness8]

Going by the Dyno graph the GTS is around 20rwkw stronger in the midrange, GTF does make more power but it's over 5500rpm.

The GTS would pull away in a roll on. Looks like the 5.0L cant match the torque of the big cubed 6.2L

Torque wins races, "oh well" the GTF can have the bragging right's at the pub.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by mik

i would guess that a 20 inch rim would be heavier than a 19 inch inch rim regardless of the outside diameter of the tyre, probably not a huge amount in it, but all these things add up..

You’re probably right there is little in it and then you can throw something else into the mix.
Lighter forged 20” rims versus heavier cast 19” rims.
Cheap heavy tyres versus lighter expensive tyres.
Unless you are chasing a 10 tenths increase it possibly doesn’t matter much.



I’m starting to wish I owned one of these cars so I can join the argument.
They’re both fast in my book.

[mik]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

You’re probably right there is little in it and then you can throw something else into the mix.
Lighter forged 20” rims versus heavier cast 19” rims.
Cheap heavy tyres versus lighter expensive tyres.
Unless you are chasing a 10 tenths increase it possibly doesn’t matter much.



I’m starting to wish I owned one of these cars so I can join the argument.
They’re both fast in my book.

indeed mate , i would happily have one of each in my garage, both good cars in their own right.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Shonky.

So you choose to believe that a dyno is a fool proof device that cannot be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome, because it's oh so unlikely that Wheels would have ulterior motives to produce a certain outcome.

And as for us being one eyed and abusing Rodge, it's because he either goes off topic or talks absolute rubbish that is full of assumptions and demonstrates lack of true understanding.

All this talk of driveline losses is completely irrelevant. Without the use of an engine dyno fwkw is all just guessing.

Fact is we know what a GT335 makes on a chassis dyno (mine made 320rwkw), we know what a GTS makes, so if they are run on the same equipment, under controlled conditions we know what the relative outputs ( relative to each other) should be.

Wheels stuffed up. They thought that online car enthusiasts were as uninformed as the people who read their printed garbage in doctors surgeries

Its absolutely laughable to suggest Wheels would meddle with the test to favor one car or the other. They have everything to loose and nothing to gain by doing that.

Talk of driveline loss is very relevant - we're comparing the rear wheel outputs against the claimed flywheel outputs. Many are claiming HSV are misrepresenting the true output of the GTS, but after considering driveline loss the GTS is bang on the money. Just because Ford choose to underquote the true output doesn't mean HSV must do the same.

[furiousgibbon]

Originally Posted by 2242100

The HSV makes more torque and power than the Ford at the start of the run but from then on it's torque (turning force) drops off at a slower rate than the revs are rising, so the power is still increasing (an engines power will be dropping off when the torque is falling at a greater rate than the revs are rising).
On the other hand the Ford starts off with less torque and power, and the torque line goes up from there, so we have the power rising at a faster rate than the revs and it also rises at a faster rate than the HSV.
The end result is a higher power figure.

as you said, power is derived from torque * revs; applying a level of twisting force on something that's already rotating quickly requires a lot more effort/power. Spin a fan from standstill, then try to apply the same force on the fan when it's spinning at high speed. I'm not sure it has anything to do with torque climbing or falling faster or slower than the revs.

The GT-F lags behind the GTS all the way to 5500, after which point it manages to generate more torque (and therefore more peak power, in this test anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to the lower displacement, perhaps the supercharger in the GTS struggles to fill 6.2L at such high revs. In a drag situation, if they were carrying identical weight and using identical gear ratios and tyres, I reckon they'd be basically neck and neck. GTS would get the jump off the line through first gear, and GT-F would claw back slowly once it was working in that upper 1500rpm.

All academic anyway, they're both awesome.

I'm more excited for the new generation of front wheel drive large cars..!

[PepeLePew]

Wheels result was oddly anticipated by many regular readers in this Ford forum. Perhaps they need to examine their 'independent' dyno operator.....and waited for the rerun rather than the melodramatic 'theres more to this story'. They're just numbers, but I don't see any issue in highlighting results which clash with the real world that are published as fact.

Shanesss8...thats just argumentative and your use of punctuation for sarcasm is noted. I don't think anyone would disagree with you anyway but in this thread its just off topic.

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Its absolutely laughable to suggest Wheels would meddle with the test to favor one car or the other

Yes, they have always been an impartial beacon of truth with no bias or agenda
pffftt

[JC]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

You’re probably right there is little in it and then you can throw something else into the mix.
Lighter forged 20” rims versus heavier cast 19” rims.
Cheap heavy tyres versus lighter expensive tyres.
Unless you are chasing a 10 tenths increase it possibly doesn’t matter much.



I’m starting to wish I owned one of these cars so I can join the argument.
They’re both fast in my book.

I own one of these - well, it's predecessor being a 2011 GTE 335 - and it is fast. Base dyno (stock) was 308, exhaust & BMC filter takes it up to 325, and tune takes it to 380+ rwkw.

The only locally grown thing that is faster is this latest 430kw GTS - but only by a few tenths, and we now know, via motoring.com dyno comparo, that the GTF has on at least one occasion run a higher rwkw figure than the GTS on same dyno, same day.

Wheels got a different result, and that happens - heat soak probably limited the "overboost" function, so Wheels got not the best rwkw the GTF can put down, but probably the average rwkw it puts to the ground.

Either way, each camp has bragging rights depending on source and test being quoted - been a long time between drinks for that, and it is possibly the last time it will happen between 2 Aussie made cars!

[1TUFFUTE]

Ok so I'm sick of quoting people who can't read a whole thread and pick out the Main points!
It's either wheels or their "independant" dyno testers (well known Holden tuners by the way) that either stuffed up the 311 rwkw GTF dyno, or didn't take care in maximizing the GTF dyno!

I'll remind you why.....
The tuner commented that he's dynoed plenty of both models and at 311rwkws for the 351GTF he thought that was plenty fair...if not impressive considering the GT335s he'd tuned before.

So what does that simple thing tell us???? That either wheels are idiots and believe him......or the tuner is useless, hopeless and has been living under a rock since the GT335 came out.

Utube vf GTS dyno......garuntee you'll find everything from 290rwkws to max 330ish rwkws

Utube GT335...... If your an idiot and have no idea that even stock GT335s get easily over 300rwkws......then add on some for the 351 tune

Come on, seriously.......

[devoGT]

Just had a look on HP-F website they have a dynosheet with a stock GT only having 282 rwkw, everyone has jumped on the Wheels bandwagon

http://www.hp-f.com.au/catalog/ford/...5-0lt-stage-1/

[futura]

Originally Posted by devoGT

Just had a look on HP-F website they have a dynosheet with a stock GT only having 282 rwkw, everyone has jumped on the Wheels bandwagon

http://www.hp-f.com.au/catalog/ford/...5-0lt-stage-1/

Where's the VF GTS dyno sheet to compare? If the GT is making 282rwkw then the GTS will be making around 270rwkws!

Anyone is free to jump on the wheels bandwagon, but don't come jumping back when the GTF out powers the GTS in the rematch dyno comparison next week.

[devoGT]

Originally Posted by futura

Where's the VF GTS dyno sheet to compare? If the GT is making 282rwkw then the GTS will be making around 270rwkws!

Anyone is free to jump on the wheels bandwagon, but don't come jumping back when the GTF out powers the GTS in the rematch dyno comparison next week.

Take it easy, I'm not jumpin on the Wheels bandwagon I'm saying they are lol

[2242100]

Originally Posted by hootar

A good rule of thumb is to get ya facts right first. The reason you dont see a 448 kW performance from wheels 400m test was because they did the 400m in the manual not the auto that produced the 448 kW figure at motoring. After Vcm and wheels dyno test I wouldnt hold much credit to their 400m time of the manual. But as usual people will read into things which ever way suits them!

I guess I've got to at least agree with your first sentence.

I've got the magazine in front of me right now and they gave figures for both an auto and a manual.

Auto - 12.68 sec at 186.7 kph and that was the car that I referred to.
Manual - 13.09 at 185.4.

[futura]

Originally Posted by devoGT

Take it easy, I'm not jumpin on the Wheels bandwagon I'm saying they are lol

Sorry mate, Wasnt directed at you.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by furiousgibbon

as you said, power is derived from torque * revs; applying a level of twisting force on something that's already rotating quickly requires a lot more effort/power. Spin a fan from standstill, then try to apply the same force on the fan when it's spinning at high speed. I'm not sure it has anything to do with torque climbing or falling faster or slower than the revs.

The GT-F lags behind the GTS all the way to 5500, after which point it manages to generate more torque (and therefore more peak power, in this test anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to the lower displacement, perhaps the supercharger in the GTS struggles to fill 6.2L at such high revs. In a drag situation, if they were carrying identical weight and using identical gear ratios and tyres, I reckon they'd be basically neck and neck. GTS would get the jump off the line through first gear, and GT-F would claw back slowly once it was working in that upper 1500rpm.
All academic anyway, they're both awesome.

I'm more excited for the new generation of front wheel drive large cars..!

I was just trying to give Batmobile a better understanding of the subject and explain how the torque could be dropping while the power was going up.

Sorry if I caused confusion.

Perhaps I should add that if you have a dead flat torque line and you double the revs then you've got double the power.
But if the torque line goes up and you double the revs, then the you will have more than double the power.
All very obvious if you think about it, but some people seem to get very confused about the subject.

[ray38l]

so if the gts puts out 370rwkw when the new dyno runs are done then everyone will say its had a special tune right? fair enough too because there has been enough gts's dynoed to know what they make.
on the other side you have the gtf which so far has 2 dyno runs with 40rwkw difference in power. maybe one of the runs was a media special tune or the other had engine problems but until more is known about the gtf you can't say it's the most powerful.

[Franco Cozzo]

You know all this arguing and hoo-haa over these two cars, I'm pretty sure anyone who owns either of those cars is going to be happy with their choice regardless of some figures in some magazine no one cares about.

With 700nm+ at the rears both of those things would pull like a freight train.

Wheels? Wheels who?

I'm a subscriber to the only auto magazine that matters:



Even has a lot of Fords on the front cover, everythings 500hp+ in this magazine and nothing goes over 4000 RPM

[Chopped]

It's interesting comparing the comments and reactions on this story here on this site versus the Ls1 site....

[barnz_xr8]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The bias from so many fan boys on this forum is absolutely hilarious, but embarrassing at the same time. As soon as Rodge comes out with some perfectly reasonable points he's savaged by the blind faithful.

The heavier duty the driveline, the more power it'll suck. I clearly remember mates cars back in the day that ended up considerably slower after they'd installed a 9" diff. The GTS figures are right on the money for what you'd expect from 430kw at the flywheel.

As for Wheels magazine, is it their fault the GT-F they had on the day was putting out less power? Did it have a technical issue? The same car produced near 350rwkw's later on so obviously something was done to the car by Ford to improve it's numbers.

It's all such a non-issue anyway. Who really gives a ***k? They are both great cars and we should be proud of the quality of the last of the line Aussie muscle.

how is loving the best aussie car ever made "embarrassing" ffs and how about I go put a truck diff and gearbox in my car then say it has more power on the badge .