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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[82XD393.3v]

are you blowing your own trumpet again rodge

[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.

[falcodore]

2.3 seconds on a track only a minute long is a massive walloping.

The general consensus has been that straight line speed is similar (albeit GTS being the smallest bit faster), but in the corners the GTF doesn't hold a candle to the GTS.

Which car is the better car? GTS by the length of Bass Straight. Which car presents better value? Probably the GTF (if it's **** interior doesn't bother you). You could probably spend the 10k change and make it go faster than the GTS.

[SensationFG8]

There is an alternative... the gts has electronic goodies to make rubbish drivers better (that's why people buy them right?). perhaps the testers just suck at driving and can only lap quickly with driving aids?

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

There is an alternative... the gts has electronic goodies to make rubbish drivers better (that's why people buy them right?). perhaps the testers just suck at driving and can only lap quickly with driving aids?

Exactly this! The quickest times old mate was able to get in both cars for the EVO magazine tests was with everything turned off! Why would it be any different for a great driver on a track?

[GTMOND]

Geez the people who keep bagging the GTF we get your point. But ford and FPV have done well with tiny funds they had available over the years. The motor was not just taken out of a company catalogue it was engineered right here except for the base motor obviously.
To me that's something we should applaud as it more than matches 6.2 litres of GM.
The chassis a generation older so just don't know what you would expect. The GT is a great car so give it credit were its due.
And yes the GTS is a great car but not perfect however I don't go on the ls1 forum telling them the problems with it.