Ford Forums banner

Motor's GT times.

9K views 79 replies 34 participants last post by  strife 
#1 ·
After wheels rather disapointing time for the GT, we all decided to wait and see what motor could come up with, which is fair enough. So is anyone else decidedly disapointed with
14.42 and 6.14,
well motor where and so they decided that to extract the best time they would go to fords proving ground receive tips from a cheif engineer to get the best out of it, then all they could manage was a
14.06 and a 5.81.

Now this seems hardly at all appropriate, instead of leaving it with the best times they could get they decided they needed to improve the time? Had they tried this in any sort of holden i am sure many here would be throwing their arms up.

Aside from that the GTS was clocked at
13.36 (177.8km/h) and 5.24
in the current pcoty testing, now the GT has 10kw less makes more torque, lower down the rev range and is miles behind in straight line speed. Before the FPV cars were launched i read many a thread on here regarding how much the GT, XR8 would wipe the floor with all LS1 commodores, What happened?

On another article found in motor they say that the undersquare configuration of the boss engine is not allowing it to rev safely past 6000rpm , and thus the only way to make more power is with the help of some forced induction, which will add another 65mm to the height of the engine, GTHO may have a rather large bulge.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
i read an article somewhere which mentioned that the gearing has a lot to do with the Quarter mile times. Think the Ford may of needed an extra shift to get past the post. If this is the case then it would account for the difference.
Perhaps a better test would be a 1000 metre run ?
 
#3 ·
No doubt the weight factor effects the Gt and GT-P performance. It would be interesting to see roll on acceleration times from 80-110km/h and 60km/h - 80km/h compared to the GTS.

I think with the 150kg odd advantage of the GTS i would have no doubt it would be faster than the GT.
 
#4 ·
I know people will say times don't matter and you're gonna buy the car for what it is regardless. However, let's use history and analyze the whole GT thing.

Why do people remember the GTHO and it's forebears? Performance. What do people know about these cars? They won Bathurst and they do 14.xx quarters.

So, say what you want, the current GT is going to be measured by two key factors. 0-100 and the 400m. Now we all know the GT seems to need a gear change just before the 100km/h and 400m marks, but is this really good enough? Shouldn't FPV have calculated the gearing to give the car those few extra tenths of a second before needing a gear change? Probably.

To be honest I am disappointed and the fact they needed separate testing is a bad thing. I think the only time we can realistically accept here is the 14.42. That's OVER 1 SECOND SLOWER THAN A GTS :wazzup: :wazzup:

Then the GT gets beaten by SV8, CV8, Maloo, AND the XR6-T. :wtf:
 
#6 ·
Seems the GT's times are line ball with the Clubby which is where it ought to be, afterall, they are competitors...so where's the problem?? The GT is a sh!tload heavier than the clubby yet just as quick, and just as economical by all reports...so imagine when they do shed some weight... Ford have played a smart game i believe.

The people that need to buy these things now are still getting a great package, people that buy them in BA2 guise will get a nice little bonus i'd say..
 
#7 ·
Aussie Pete said:
I know people will say times don't matter and you're gonna buy the car for what it is regardless. However, let's use history and analyze the whole GT thing.

Why do people remember the GTHO and it's forebears? Performance. What do people know about these cars? They won Bathurst and they do 14.xx quarters.
To be honest I am disappointed and the fact they needed separate testing is a bad thing. I think the only time we can realistically accept here is the 14.42. That's OVER 1 SECOND SLOWER THAN A GTS :wazzup: :wazzup:

Then the GT gets beaten by SV8, CV8, Maloo, AND the XR6-T. :wtf:
Thats my thoughts exactly, though i will applaud Ford for stepping up the power to be level with the HSV rivals. But it's not all bad i guess in the sense that the GT and GT-P are not competitors of the GTS 300kw.

Thats why as much as i love a V8 i can't help but thinking that the XR6-T is the pick of the crop for Dollars vs performance ratio.
 
#8 ·
Rolling start performace would be no better XR_Strider.. the fact is the weight is there regardless if it's at idle at 0k's and needs to get moving, or your at 80 and need to excellerate... the extra weight and gear change points are always going to go against the Ford in terms of performance.. ofcource if these performace times are paramount, then obviously the Fords are disappointing compared to the Holdens, but luckily for me, i realise that the times all these cars produce are damn fast, so thats good enough for me.
 
#9 ·
Aussie Pete said:
To be honest I am disappointed and the fact they needed separate testing is a bad thing. I think the only time we can realistically accept here is the 14.42. That's OVER 1 SECOND SLOWER THAN A GTS

Then the GT gets beaten by SV8, CV8, Maloo, AND the XR6-T. :wtf:
Once again AP, these cars have not been tested on the same day. Under the same conditions.

When they are, I am sure the XR6T will not be quicker.

And if it is not, then the king is dead, GT, long live the king, XR6T.

And this is FPV's first go at the GT. HSV's were not that quick with their first GTS-R.

I need to buy you a beer, so you can have a cry in it.:BW:
 
#10 ·
Considering the $33,000 price difference I'm not disappointed at all.

A few tenths of a second? Dosnt stress me.

I'm sure with that sort of price difference up their sleeve, FPV should be able to extract some more straight line performance over the next 12 months.

All in all, I'm reasonably happy with it performance.

Cheers
 
#11 ·
This has been said before Sooooo Manyyyy Timessssss!!

GT = Clubsport (not GTS)
$60k ish vs $60k ish
Low 14's vs low 14's...end of story

The Ford’s need the extra kW's due to heavier weight
The Ford’s have the heavier weight to achieve the best stability, drivability and safety which has been proven time and time again.

How many ways do we need to look at, go over and analysis this? Sorry guys, but this line of discussion is getting tiring.
 
#12 ·
I don't think we're all on the same wavelength:

SV8 $40k or so
CV8 $59k or so (premium level car though)
SS $50k
Maloo $54k or so
XR6T $43k or so

These all beat the GT by a few tenths or whatever. And I'm guessing that because it was PCOTY all cars were tested on the same day and same place.

GTS $93k (however you should see the discounts you can get!)

This car beats the GT by 1.1 seconds.

Just the facts. I'm still buying the Pursuit no matter though! :clap: The rest of the car will be more than a match for the Holdens.
 
#13 ·
Aussie Pete said:
I know people will say times don't matter and you're gonna buy the car for what it is regardless. However, let's use history and analyze the whole GT thing.

Why do people remember the GTHO and it's forebears? Performance. What do people know about these cars? They won Bathurst and they do 14.xx quarters.

So, say what you want, the current GT is going to be measured by two key factors. 0-100 and the 400m. Now we all know the GT seems to need a gear change just before the 100km/h and 400m marks, but is this really good enough? Shouldn't FPV have calculated the gearing to give the car those few extra tenths of a second before needing a gear change? Probably.

To be honest I am disappointed and the fact they needed separate testing is a bad thing. I think the only time we can realistically accept here is the 14.42. That's OVER 1 SECOND SLOWER THAN A GTS :wazzup: :wazzup:

Then the GT gets beaten by SV8, CV8, Maloo, AND the XR6-T. :wtf:
GT, I assume, is marketed against the Clubsport and looking at performance times only (where a large part of a lot of peoples decision is based, in this market) the GT is looking like the poor cousin again.

To say I'm disappointed with the straight line speed of the GT is an understatement. I want strong acceleration, I want to know that if I wanted to, I could blow away the HSV counterpart, I want bragging rights. Should I care whether the Clubsport is only 0.2 of a second quicker than the GT, hell yes!! I want to win the pissing competition, not just dribble down my leg.

The only saving grace is that I'm looking at the whole package. And from what I've seen so far, the GT and GT-P are miles ahead as a whole.

But I've still got to ask, whatever happened to "F@&k Holden"??
 
#14 ·
Aussie Pete said:
I don't think we're all on the same wavelength:

SV8 $40k or so
CV8 $59k or so (premium level car though)
SS $50k
Maloo $54k or so
XR6T $43k or so

These all beat the GT by a few tenths or whatever. And I'm guessing that because it was PCOTY all cars were tested on the same day and same place.

GTS $93k (however you should see the discounts you can get!)

This car beats the GT by 1.1 seconds.

Just the facts. I'm still buying the Pursuit no matter though! :clap: The rest of the car will be more than a match for the Holdens.
AP, the GT was tested on it's own, it was not part of PCOTY.
 
#15 ·
I think what disappoints me the most is after all the hype, promises and power increases we still don't have a car that motor have tested faster than a T3!!

Ford have really missed the point of the whole exercise in my opinion - we didn't just want a power increase on paper, we wanted a PERFORMANCE increase. Straight line performance. Now don't get me wrong i still think the whole BA range is magnificent and for the most part much improved cars over the AU range, but when it comes to grunt we really haven't made up any ground at all.
 
#17 ·
I'm sure he looks in, probably too busy making improvements for BAII to respond.

The true bargain is not the XR6T, but in fact the SV8.
 
#18 ·
Falchoon said:
The true bargain is not the XR6T, but in fact the SV8.
If performance/dollar ratio was your ONLY factor!!!!

I dont see it as a bargain beyond that though. Its an exectutive with an LS1 and sports suspension! Have you sat inside one? They do nothing to make you feel you are driving anything more than a taxi.

So if straight line speed is such an important issue (and you are misguided if its the only basis for a purchase), then go for it. If you want a car that you will feel good in and enjoy the overall package, SV8 aint it.

end 2c.
 
#19 ·
JEM said:
I'd love to see Uncle Dave contribute in this thread...
I asked him about the times at the FPV day, and he stated that straight line speed isn't what GT is all about - remember Total Performance. He also had a funny grin on his face when I asked him if he thought the magazines could drive, dunno what that meant...

I personally don't think it's that bigger issue - realistically what is a difference of a couple of tenths (or less) over a quarter going to make in daily driving? But then again, as Grunter said in the other thread people looking to buy a car like FPV or HSV make do look at times.
 
#20 ·
Falchoon said:
The true bargain is not the XR6T, but in fact the SV8.
If I was going to make THAT many compromises in the name of performance, I wouldn't be driving an ugly poverty pack sedan with silly wheels - I'd be in a 2nd hand turbo rotary!
 
#22 ·
Grunter said:
Should I care whether the Clubsport is only 0.2 of a second quicker than the GT, hell yes!! I want to win the pissing competition, not just dribble down my leg.

But I've still got to ask, whatever happened to "F@&k Holden"??
I'm in tears. Not just because of what you said but because I agree. I want to p!ss all over them too! he he LOL

My solution: remove the hardtop from the Pursuit and save over 100kg!!!!
 
#23 ·
Times are disapointing yet again (the first set recorded anyway). But to say they cheated by going to Ford engineers to get advice on launches is total BS. How many years has the Gen3 been released? About 4 years. So the mags have had a hell of a lot of practice launching Gen3 powered cars (and when they were first released the mags said they were a bitch to launch). So what's so wrong with getting the launch method a little more up to date since the new Boss engines haven't been available for testing for very long? Someone from off the street who's never driven a Gen3 or Boss powered car would never be able to get the sort of times the mags or the company engineers get, until they've had a lot of practice at doing it. So in some ways the times in the mags mean nothing.
 
#24 ·
V8RUMBLE said:
But to say they cheated by going to Ford engineers to get advice on launches is total BS. How many years has the Gen3 been released
It's not only the 'advice' from the ford engineer that has upset people. The 14.06 time was done at a different location and using 'lower than recommended' tyre pressures. As far as I'm concerned that completely conterfeits the run as they don't go to that trouble when getting times for the other cars.
 
#25 ·
I really don't know how much it would help by lowering the tyre pressure. It seems this procedure is not needed to accomplish the improved times as there have been posts on this site stating that other mags have accomplished these numbers with standard config.

Internal Ford testing has recorded under the 14 second mark, so the journo's obviously haven't learnt the optimal method yet.:s6:
 
#26 ·
JEM said:
I really don't know how much it would help by lowering the tyre pressure. It seems this procedure is not needed to accomplish the improved times as there have been posts on this site stating that other mags have accomplished these numbers with standard config.
:s6:
If it makes minimal difference (which is debatable) then why was it done? Remember these times are in the back of the mag for purpose of comparison - apples with apples. You can't go treating one car different to others or it brings into doubt the integrity of all their performance times IMO.
 
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