Ford Forums banner

gtho in testing

10K views 84 replies 45 participants last post by  all4ford 
#1 ·
just to let everyone know... gtho is in testing at the moment. talked to a ford tester yesturday... from what i could gather (he wouldnt tell me much) there is a few surprises in store. a sore neck is in order when they finally come out on the market apparently.

all he said was that they were being tested, in different configurations, and that all were very very quick.

now as for the validity of this tester, i trust him 100% and he knew a lot about ford/proving grounds/etc etc. but who knows for certain nowdays?

lets hope it accelerates like what ive been told!
 
#3 ·
ChuBBz said:
too general for me.

Guess i'll wait till MMS
My thoughts exactly. From what I have been told theres also the possibility GTHO will have a V10! LOL HAHAHAHAHA.
 
#4 ·
I can vouch for that.
As I said, a mule has been in central australia since before the SMS, and know that the interior has been signed off, and it is completely different from the GT
 
#7 ·
snowman said:
Here we go again!

Would a skerrick of evidence be asking too much?
Right on Snowman! Manufactures have been known to use diversion tactics like starting rumours to throw people off the track a bit, start the hype, and guage interest. Also to have a bit of a laugh at how far these chinese whispers can go and what will come out the other end! I would like to see a BA GTHO but if it ain't got the shake, then it's a fake!
 
#8 ·
I am currently in central oz.....
the other day I saw a strange looking BA about 20km from the 3 ways on the Barkly Highway. It was black and it looked 'different'. Didn't get much of a look though as I was going 200 km/h west and it was going east....

Open speed limits WAHOOOOOOOO

For those who are technically minded..
1) GT-Ps will do 250km/h and get there quickly but eat LOTS of petrol doing it (n.b. PULP is $1.27/l at Barkly Homestead)
2) Most fuel efficecient speed so far is 130-140 @ 11.1 l/100km
3) 160km/h is 15.5 l/100
4) 180km/h is 17 l/100
5) 200-210km/h is 19l/100
6) 250km/h is LOTS/100km but I only did it for about 5 mins as it is just a little bit FAST and I thought that running out of gas in the middle of woop woop would be a little bit embarrassing.........

I have done about 3000km of high speed running up here now and have used about 750ml of oil and LOTS of PULP (no opti or ultimate up here).
 
#11 ·
flappist said:
I am currently in central oz.....
the other day I saw a strange looking BA about 20km from the 3 ways on the Barkly Highway. It was black and it looked 'different'. Didn't get much of a look though as I was going 200 km/h west and it was going east....

Open speed limits WAHOOOOOOOO

For those who are technically minded..
1) GT-Ps will do 250km/h and get there quickly but eat LOTS of petrol doing it (n.b. PULP is $1.27/l at Barkly Homestead)
2) Most fuel efficecient speed so far is 130-140 @ 11.1 l/100km
3) 160km/h is 15.5 l/100
4) 180km/h is 17 l/100
5) 200-210km/h is 19l/100
6) 250km/h is LOTS/100km but I only did it for about 5 mins as it is just a little bit FAST and I thought that running out of gas in the middle of woop woop would be a little bit embarrassing.........

I have done about 3000km of high speed running up here now and have used about 750ml of oil and LOTS of PULP (no opti or ultimate up here).
Hope you are having lots of fun. I think it might be time to get a piggy back Computer next time you want to go and do that much high speed driving, it will help with the fuel economy heaps, 6 speed would be nice too. I would expect that much Oil to be used considering the heat and the length of time at that high speeds. I found when I went to QLD last weekend that I could get about
9.6-10 @ 120
11 @ 130
13 @ 160, but this was only for a minute or two
Note I have done 21000km, where is your machine at flappist km wise. Also a good note to Ford. The Petrol tank isn't big enough, even HSV use 75l, a GTHO with 68l tank would be a disaster, bring back the 100l tanks
 
#14 ·
mygt said:
HO There aint gunna be one sorry guys its a fact..

mode ur own boss its more fun...

enjoy!!!!!!!
I don't know about there not being one, FPV made a statement saying "not yet", so there is still the possibility, but it may still be a few years away. Mod's to the Boss are fun, but weight loss to the BA is something a little harder to do after manufacturing so we still need a better starting weight
 
#16 ·
chevypower said:
loosing weight, would probably mean loose quality. Just substitute it for more power and torque. And if fuel consumption is of major concern, you shouldnt even be looking at an XR8
I would disagree with that, BOSSGT has already shown that he can get 60kg back with what appears better 19" mags that FPV could develop. I dont now where you got the concern for fuel economy, I just want a bigger tank so I can drive further without stopping or being scared to run continually at high speeds without running out of gas. Doing a run from Darwin to the Alice as flappist is doing is a little risky in a GT(-P) with only a 68l tank if you want to drive at 200km/h because if you dont plan everyting right you will run out of petrol in the middle of nowhere. If you were concerned with Fuel economy you wouldn't look at any BA Falcon, maybe a Smart Car
 
#18 ·
More power equals more wheelspin. Losing weight is a better solution. Taking weight out of a car doesn't mean it will lose strength. Some cars recently has lost weight and gained rigidity such as the Liberty and the new BMW 5 series. If Ford builds a GTHO it would need bigger tyres on the back to help it get its power down. The M5 and the SL55 both run tyres bigger than 275 wide and have six speed gearboxs which helps makes them quick.
 
#19 ·
mygt said:
HO There aint gunna be one sorry guys its a fact..

mode ur own boss its more fun...

enjoy!!!!!!!
And why is that exactly?

hmm sounds like someone is worried that their mods wont be enough to have the "fastest" new ford in town...... :/

Surely being a Ford supporter you have more faith than that.
 
#21 ·
fpv gtp said:
XWGT what do you mean by "completely" diffrent interior. Is it like a everything is new and nothing is shared with the falcons in styling? Or is it things like seats and the equipment? I think it should have the normal dash and door trims and just new equipment.
The person claimed that is was a different interior. I would imagine that only means colours/features/materials/patterns etc, I dont believe they could justify the spend of a new one, would be over the top. But the information was, that it had been approved and signed off.
 
#22 ·
bossxr8 said:
More power equals more wheelspin. Losing weight is a better solution. Taking weight out of a car doesn't mean it will lose strength. Some cars recently has lost weight and gained rigidity such as the Liberty and the new BMW 5 series. If Ford builds a GTHO it would need bigger tyres on the back to help it get its power down. The M5 and the SL55 both run tyres bigger than 275 wide and have six speed gearboxs which helps makes them quick.
Less weight might sound good, but how? Thinner doors, less re-inforcement? lighter transmission? therefore lighter components, therefore not as strong. Lighter sounds nice, but what do you want to compromise to get it.
Also, more power doesnt always mean more wheelspin than loosing weight. Weight loss equals less friction, which equals less traction.

Thats why light cars dont hold the road as well.
 
#23 ·
chevypower, no disrespect intended, but mate, you're digging yourself deeper into your own grave :)

Your ideas on weight don't hold much logic or fact.

Some basic facts..

More weight doesn't = better drip, looks at cars like the S2000 and the new Rx-8, these cars are much lighter than a GT for example yet produce a huge amount of mechanical grip, meaning, their suspensions setup/geometry provides the grip.

Less weight = more efficient on all levels, fuel, brakes, better performance overall, and can be made just as safe and robust as a heavier car by using better materials.

Not having a go by the way.
 
#26 ·
On the weight issue, I will always remember the words of a fairly prominent aussie motoring journalist.
When questioned about the supposed "heftÿ" BA, his comment was
"Just about every car on the market considered to be a quality car weighs the same, or more, than the BA, including the 3 series BMW. What I would be asking is not what makes the Falcon heavier than the Commodore, but more what is NOT being put into the Commodore. i.e whats missing?"
While its a real factor (well the only factor in power to weight ratio) which were all interested in, it is a very valid point, and one I tend to agree with.
Do I really want my GT to carry 300kg less of components and panels?
I think a power boost is a better option. A striped down racer might sound good in theory, but that question always remains, what is missing?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top