How do you rate the GT-F vs GTS?

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by Tezza

Rwkw is generally a % loss of fwkw figure, not a raw number

GTF 455fwkw - 24% = 109.2kw = 345.8rwkw

GTS 430fwkw - 24% = 103.2kw = 326.8rwkw

19rwkw difference on one dyno

Or.....

GTF 430fwkw - 24% = 103.2kw = 326.8rwkw

GTS - 405fwkw - 24% = 97.2 = 307.8rwkw

19rwkw difference on another dyno (Herrod)

HSV telling fibs.... Pft never.... :-)

So the heavier drivetrain in the GTS doesn't sap any extra power, actually it saps less power than the lighter components on the falcon. It takes more power to spin for mass.

[Tezza]

Originally Posted by Nova 8

So the heavier drivetrain in the GTS doesn't sap any extra power, actually it saps less power than the lighter components on the falcon. It takes more power to spin for mass.

So what number do you think that would be Nova?

5kw, 10kw, 50kw, 100kw?

[Nova 8]

I have no idea of the exact number but like I said I would think the HSV engine is producing more power than the FPV. To know for sure you have to get them both on a dyno and find out. I'd ask you but you seem to think rotating heavier mass would make allow more power through, 6kw, so what's wrong with fords drive train?

[rancidpunx]

Its not a percentage, its a set number. Every engine and driveline is different. The same driveline in both cars when tuned does not suddenly start sapping more power because the engine is making more power.

[Tezza]

Originally Posted by Nova 8

I have no idea of the exact number but like I said I would think the HSV engine is producing more power than the FPV. To know for sure you have to get them both on a dyno and find out. I'd ask you but you seem to think rotating heavier mass would make allow more power through, 6kw, so what's wrong with fords drive train?

I don't know what the number is either, but I would be pretty confident it would be less than 25kw.

My point is I don't know, and neither do you, but 2 months ago everyone would have said the GTS would have more rwkw than the GTF and that has been proven factually incorrect.

All we can do is speculate based on previous dyno results of other cars and provide an opinion on what is likely to be correct. Given rwkw is a direct result of fwkw minus drivetrain losses, and the GTF has approx 20rwkw more at the wheels, I think it is highly likely the GTF can produce the highest fwkw number in its current form.

At a minimum, there should be enough doubt out there to not just assume it is the GTS....

[FGX-351]

Leaves me wondering what sort of beating Tempest would've given the GTS.

I wish Ford would release GT-F merchandise like they did for R-spec.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Tezza

Rwkw is generally a % loss of fwkw figure, not a raw number

GTF 455fwkw - 24% = 109.2kw = 345.8rwkw

GTS 430fwkw - 24% = 103.2kw = 326.8rwkw

19rwkw difference on one dyno

Or.....

GTF 430fwkw - 24% = 103.2kw = 326.8rwkw

GTS - 405fwkw - 24% = 97.2 = 307.8rwkw

19rwkw difference on another dyno (Herrod)

HSV telling fibs.... Pft never.... :-)

blah blah waffle.....

there's a thing in America called the "standard's engineers association" (SAE)
and they rate the engine's to their guide lines (the big 3) that conform to these standards.

SAE certified power[edit]

In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723.[24] This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in an ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.
A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (328 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The company's Lexus ES 330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp (168 kW) but the ES 330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (373 to 377 kW).
While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.
SAE tightened its horsepower rules to eliminate the opportunity for engine manufacturers to manipulate factors affecting performance such as how much oil was in the crankcase, engine control system calibration, and whether an engine was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important.[25]

[XD 351 Ute]

Quite simply, I don't.
The HSVs for me regardless of driving prowess have always been overdone.
The FPVs in some ways I considered to be overdone, but nowhere near to the extent of HSV.
My blue blood heritage will never see me in one, but I do acknowledge the efforts that have gone into them.
For me it is GTF all the way.
Well, the Pursuit at least, that's all I'm comfortable with spending!

Ed

[2242100]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Its not a percentage, its a set number. Every engine and driveline is different. The same driveline in both cars when tuned does not suddenly start sapping more power because the engine is making more power.

To a large extent that's true I guess, but the diff in a rear wheel drive vehicle is one area where a fair bit of the power is lost and it seems logical that more torque at this point would sap more power.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Its not a percentage, its a set number. Every engine and driveline is different. The same driveline in both cars when tuned does not suddenly start sapping more power because the engine is making more power.

ah no, the faster something is spun requires more energy.

say a diff..
bone dry might require 1/2hp to spin 500 rpm ~5000 rpm.
fill with oil, may require 1/2hp for 500 rpm but may need 20hp for 5000 rpm.

the faster you try and push a liquid the more it resists.. (law 1)
this also applies to mass.

to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (law 3)
force equals mass accelerated (law 2)

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by burnz

ah no, the faster something is spun requires more energy.

say a diff..
bone dry might require 1/2hp to spin 500 rpm ~5000 rpm.
fill with oil, may require 1/2hp for 500 rpm but may need 20hp for 5000 rpm.

the faster you try and push a liquid the more it resists.. (law 1)
this also applies to mass.

to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (law 3)
force equals mass accelerated (law 2)

Thats true, but the diff still only spins to 5000rpm with the same oil fill whether the car makes 100hp or 500hp. It will spin up faster but wont turn any more revolutions. A drive train will sap a certain amount of power but its not a set percentage. If a 400kw GTF is 320rwkw at 20% lose, a 500kw GTF is not going to now lose 100kw with the same drivetrain. Will likely be more than the original 80kw with some additional heat but the redline and gearing has all stayed the same.

[PepeLePew]

I'm not sure why we need ANOTHER thread on this topic so the same thoughts and arguments can be regurgitated by the same posters over and over again. As before there is some sensible argument scattered in here, but there is nothing new to be said. There is NO winner here. It just seems like another opportunity for those with no real interest but a argument to kick a product that is a integral part of what this forum is about. The cheer squads exist elsewhere for the 'other stuff'. GTS is a great car. Even the SRT8 which compared to both is arguably a bargain. But the constant brow beating by the argumentative few is irritating to say the least and the negative has had its day in the sun. Maybe one day we'll have more appreciation for what was, the last two Aussie icons. I don't know about others, but i personally think the disappearance of a little of what is our cultural heritage is a damn sight more important than whose 'x' is bigger than 'y's.

[shaness8]

The GTS uses the same LSA engine which is found in the Camaro ZL1 which makes 426kw.

I'm sure both manufactures would of done 100's of hours of testing on a engine dyno, these mule engines get absolutely thrashed and get tested for reliability before they settle on a final output i've got no doubt that the GTS makes near enough to the claimed 430kw on a engine dyno.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by shaness8

The GTS uses the same LSA engine which is found in the Camaro ZL1 which makes 426kw.

I'm sure both manufactures would of done 100's of hours of testing on a engine dyno, these mule engines get absolutely thrashed and get tested for reliability before they settle on a final output i've got no doubt that the GTS makes near enough to the claimed 430kw on a engine dyno.

That's why some are so interested in the whole thing.....how can a 430kw car only barely beat a 335 or 351 car....with worse tyres? Biggest answer so far is it looses so much power and torque through its heavier duty driveline that the smaller ford engine not only makes more peak power but like we know....is almost as fast!

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

That's why some are so interested in the whole thing.....how can a 430kw car only barely beat a 335 or 351 car....with worse tyres? Biggest answer so far is it looses so much power and torque through its heavier duty driveline that the smaller ford engine not only makes more peak power but like we know....is almost as fast!

you've answered your own question.

a heavier car is faster than the lighter car, so the heaver HSV makes more power..
forget the dyno, F=ma that's it.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Thats true, but the diff still only spins to 5000rpm with the same oil fill whether the car makes 100hp or 500hp. It will spin up faster but wont turn any more revolutions. A drive train will sap a certain amount of power but its not a set percentage. If a 400kw GTF is 320rwkw at 20% lose, a 500kw GTF is not going to now lose 100kw with the same drivetrain. Will likely be more than the original 80kw with some additional heat but the redline and gearing has all stayed the same.

yes but it's the acceleration "ramp" that takes hp

your car uses say 40hp to stay at 100kph
to get there in 10 seconds may need 200hp to do it
as opposed to do it in 6 seconds may need 400hp for the same job.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by XBGTFGGTP

I'll be happy to put my GTF up against your 300C on the track Rodge when it arrives. As it's only a overpriced R-Spec it should be a even match.

Sounds like good fun to me

[hootar]

Sounds like we have a race then

In the blue corner we have XBGTFGGTP and in the red corner we have Rodge

I for one will be interested in the result. .

If ya loose rodge will ya concede that the GTF is the mightier?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Thats true, but the diff still only spins to 5000rpm with the same oil fill whether the car makes 100hp or 500hp. It will spin up faster but wont turn any more revolutions. A drive train will sap a certain amount of power but its not a set percentage. If a 400kw GTF is 320rwkw at 20% lose, a 500kw GTF is not going to now lose 100kw with the same drivetrain. Will likely be more than the original 80kw with some additional heat but the redline and gearing has all stayed the same.

You have just proved that it is not a constant value. The heat produced is the difference. Power can only be turned into 2 things, motion and heat. The more power you create, the more of the energy will be wasted by friction and turned into heat.

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by shaness8

The GTS uses the same LSA engine which is found in the Camaro ZL1 which makes 426kw.

I'm sure both manufactures would of done 100's of hours of testing on a engine dyno, these mule engines get absolutely thrashed and get tested for reliability before they settle on a final output i've got no doubt that the GTS makes near enough to the claimed 430kw on a engine dyno.

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance.../lsa.html#dyno - There's the LSA's.

Just need to see one from Ford/FPV now. Problem is, they haven't used an engine in a tune that is available elsewhere so it is harder to do. For that reason their claimed 351kw +15% makes the engine less powerful than the one in the HSV.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by tweeked

You have just proved that it is not a constant value. The heat produced is the difference. Power can only be turned into 2 things, motion and heat. The more power you create, the more of the energy will be wasted by friction and turned into heat.

Thats right and it doesn't rise as a percentage of engine output. Should clarify my initial post saying Set Number, I didn't mean a static figure, just a number that varies with every engine and driveline. We are now talking where the energy goes other than the wheels.

[chopstar87]

Originally Posted by hootar

Sounds like we have a race then

In the blue corner we have XBGTFGGTP and in the red corner we have Rodge

I for one will be interested in the result. .

If ya loose rodge will ya concede that the GTF is the mightier?

If the SRT8 beats the GTF, would you concede that the SRT8 is superior?

At the Moment how it stands

Features: SRT8 wins
Price vs GTF: SRT8 Wins
Performance vs GTF: to be confirmed

[Hulsty]

Originally Posted by burnz

you've answered your own question.

a heavier car is faster than the lighter car, so the heaver HSV makes more power..
forget the dyno, F=ma that's it.

Its a laugh everyone thinking the GTF is more powerful, if it was more powerful and and IS lighter than a GTS, why isnt it faster?


GTS is heaver and FASTER, to 100 and quarter mile with higher trap speed, if the GTF was more powerful this would reflect in the trap speed.

Cant beat physics, GTS is still more powerful.

[SensationFG8]

Originally Posted by Hulsty

Its a laugh everyone thinking the GTF is more powerful, if it was more powerful and and IS lighter than a GTS, why isnt it faster?

1. Because faster is more than a factor of mass and power.
2. Only manuals have been tested so far in comparable conditions.
3. More testing needs to be conducted to confirm results.

[Robos F6]

GTF faster on the dyno, GTS faster on the track. I know which one i would prefer.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by hootar

Sounds like we have a race then

In the blue corner we have XBGTFGGTP and in the red corner we have Rodge

I for one will be interested in the result. .

If ya loose rodge will ya concede that the GTF is the mightier?

I don't pretend to be a professional driver so you can't say conclusively which is quicker as driver skill would clearly be a factor but I'm more than happy to have a friendly blast for a few laps around Hampton Downs if Hemi's keen.

Thing is, over-boost is only good for 20 seconds, so while much is made of the peak power of the GT-F in ideal over-boost conditions for a short time, what about the loss of 15% over-boost for the other few minutes of a few hot laps ?

And that rancidpunx , along with fitment of mediocre rubber and shocks is probably why Motor magazine's independent testing didn't show the R Spec in as favourable light as you'd might expect...or are you saying they're biased too ?

I suppose N.Z. Autocar with their 0-100 of 4.13 seconds and 80-120 of 2.29 seconds with a GTS auto, (quicker than their own testing on a BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz E63S), they're also biased right ?

And Hemi, there's lots of good cars out there of which I admire the engineering effort that's gone into them, BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz CLS63, Audi RS7 and Jaguar F Type 5.0R to name a few. The Mrs and I are very happy with our current vehicles but thanks for the GTS suggestion, I'll keep it in mind Here's a thought, this is a GT-F v GTS thread so there's always going to be two opposing opinions...

[futura]

Just for the record Rodger, What are the N.Z Autocar times for the GTF?

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by futura

Just for the record Rodger, What are the N.Z Autocar times for the GTF?

Ones that will be argued with ad nauseum once they're posted on this thread?

[SensationFG8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Thing is, over-boost is only good for 20 seconds

Thing is, over-boost is only good for 100% of the time that the conditions are fine for it.

Sure on a 40 degree day I think we can all agree the over-boost will be rubbish.

On a nice 20 degree day I cant think of too many reasons it wouldn't be happy for a lot longer if you were circulating a track at high speed.

[futura]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

Ones that will be argued with ad nauseum once they're posted on this thread?

Really don't understand why they will be argued?