Motor's GT times. - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

VXLS1 · 03-11-2003, 14:43

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.

MrBrock · 03-11-2003, 14:57

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 ?

XR_Strider_GuY · 03-11-2003, 16:18

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.

Aussie Pete · 03-11-2003, 16:30

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

Then the GT gets beaten by SV8, CV8, Maloo, AND the XR6-T.

VXLS1 · 03-11-2003, 16:32

I am pretty sure i read on here that in wheels the overtaking acceleration of the XR8 was considerably slower than the clubby and SS, in all gears. Maybe someone can confirm this or not?

JEM · 03-11-2003, 16:39

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..

XR_Strider_GuY · 03-11-2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Pete
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

Then the GT gets beaten by SV8, CV8, Maloo, AND the XR6-T.

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.

JEM · 03-11-2003, 16:49

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.

KenOath · 03-11-2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Pete
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.

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.

XWGT · 03-11-2003, 16:56

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