GT vs R8 - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

PigDog · 10-17-2003, 10:24

Was just reading LS1.com and I see they're having a field day over the times in November motor mag for GT vs the new 285kW R8 Clubsport. And rightly so.

R8:
0-100km/h: 5.36s
0-400m: 13.56s (172.3 km/h)

GT:
0-100km/h: 5.83s
0-400m: 14.22s (166.1 km/h)

Absolutely abysmal I reckon. Sure we're packing a bit of extra weight but to be 4mph slower at the end of the quarter implies the Ford has a bit of a power defecit compared to the holden (nothing new here). When you consider that the same mag pulled from memory a 14.08 for the T3, I'm just wondering wtf ford are doing. Holden have got basically limitless engine options apparently just around the corner in Gen4, with displacements available of well over 6L and over 350kW, if required. Can't see they'd even bother tho when they kick all over our arses without even needing to match ford's quoted power outputs. The BOSS 5.4 has nowhere near the development potential of even the oil-guzzling LS1.

Words like 'quad-cam' may impress ricers, but in reality a quadcam V8 makes for a physically large, top-heavy engine that weighs a heap, hurts the balance of the car, and in the case of the BOSS motors has far too long a stroke. If the thing can't rev they are very limited in potential. Decent power increases usually involve moving the powerband up in the rev-range but in this case it has nowhere to go.

Come on ford, these cars look fast on paper. Why are we always full of bark but no bite? With seemingly no other V8 engine options on the horizon, thank god someone came up with the XR6T.

jonk · 10-17-2003, 11:26

I know I'm gonna sound a little too radical with this one but I think it's about time Ford had a fundamental change re engine design and tried to go down this route(scotch yoke), see link here http://www.cmcpower.com/html/carengines/default.asp

Or even just doing direct injection and/or even camless valve actuation on the current v8 engines?...but you're still going to have to face up to the technically inferior performance of the current V configuration as PigDog basically said.

I've been racking my brain trying to see how Ford would respond with the Holden v8 engine onslaught and so far it looks bleak for Ford v8 enthusiasts.

mygt · 10-17-2003, 13:23

well let me tell ya somthing pig dog,
ive had my gt for 5 months now and i have blown away every hsv that i have lined up thats right i go looking for them for example vy ss utes,r8 hsvs,260 clubbies,
senators,the odd 350 chev engine,and where i get them is in second gear i have an auto and i blow them apart in the high end of second gear..
hsvs i just beat the crap out of them!!!
when i take my black gt monster out and play ac/dc black in black real loud, i own the road!!!!

Big Mick · 10-17-2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by PigDog

...... and in the case of the BOSS motors has far too long a stroke. If the thing can't rev they are very limited in potential. Decent power increases usually involve moving the powerband up in the rev-range but in this case it has nowhere to go.

Lacking potential? I think not! This motor is ideal for a supercharger as it has great flowing heads and you don't need big revs to make big power as has already been shown in Motor mag regarding the BA XR8.

strife · 10-17-2003, 13:59

thats a fantastic time for the R8

its still early days for the BOSS,

gsw · 10-17-2003, 16:48

on the road would anybody here know the difference in speed between the two cars, I also think the better driver would win in a drag between the two. Also remember the BA has a few more kg's on it.

fordmuscle_83 · 10-17-2003, 16:55

Half a second would make a huge difference side by side...... but for us normal people i wonder if you would notice. Why cant ford get its act together and copy the engine in the NEW gt40 and slam it under the bonnet of the GT-HO badged falcon. 500hp & 500lb/ft should do the job nicely.

Curls · 10-17-2003, 17:19

When the article is read in full you realise that the Gt was hardly embarrased at all and they DON'T favour one car over the other. The last time I looked, I don't live on a race track, can't find anywhere safe to run 400m sprints to Safeway on a nappy run and actually would find a car that steered better, rode better, looked better (subjective), sounded better and put refinement over outright speed as MY buying preference. Holden won over the "knuckle dragging rev heads" a long time ago when Ford dropped the V8. I'm surprised that they are able to buy a magazine and head straight to the performance figures page, quote it on the net and forget that the rest of the article actually talks about driving the cars and describes the merits of both. No offence is meant to the knuckle draggers or "numbers-only" readers.

Night_Lurker · 10-17-2003, 17:22

Well I ain't complaining. I don't care what Motor write always a GT for me. The OHC engine is great (s/c potential is beyond the imagination). Yeah the GT is heavy but also the gearing is different to the HSV (obviously). Apparently as its about to reach 100km/h there is a gear change, that would certainly play havoc on the times. Ford & FPV's weakest links are the drive train/gear ratios, that sorted out nothing to stop us...

Night_Lurker · 10-17-2003, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordmuscle_83

Half a second would make a huge difference side by side...... but for us normal people i wonder if you would notice. Why cant ford get its act together and copy the engine in the NEW gt40 and slam it under the bonnet of the GT-HO badged falcon. 500hp & 500lb/ft should do the job nicely.

They could do that but I would prefer them to research it properly see what the potential of the HSV GENIV is before you bring out the HO. You don't want the HO nameplate tarnished?? That car would have to be near perfect, handling, speed, looks EVERYTHING...IMHO.