Muscle car masters: FPV GT F v HSV GTS

[sbutler]

I dont know why everyone use's the GTS as the direct competitor to the GT. The Clubsport is its direct competitor dollar for dollar.
The GTS $100.000,
The GT $75,000,
the Clubsport $74000

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Its the first track comparison and I'm sure it won't be the last.

For those saying the driver was biased or the track was damp or whatever other excuse they'd like to make including that nobody takes these cars on the track anyway...consider this, an R Spec SC FPV got beaten by an SRT8 on a dry track, (Motor Magazine February 2013) and most on here, with the notable exception of those who own them and know different, think the SRT8 handles like a cruiser so what chance has a GT-F got against a GTS with its track spec suspension and DSC settings, supercar sized brakes and torque vectoring, on a decent dry track...

And before we all cry...ahhh but nobody takes their cars to the track, well the track gives you a far better indication of how a car will perform on your favourite bit of back country twisty road than a peak power dyno number does.

Thread title looks like GTS Vs GTF to me, what the **** does the sheetbox SRT got to do with anything?

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

What the **** does the sheetbox SRT got to do with anything?

Everything...apparently?...

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Thread title looks like GTS Vs GTF to me, what the **** does the sheetbox SRT got to do with anything?

Just saying that if a R Spec can't beat a SRT8 around a dry track what hope has a very, very slightly tweaked R Spec, (AKA GT-F), got against a GTS ? NONE !!...and wet, dry or damp 2.3 seconds on a short track is a thorough belting any way people want to slice and dice it.

There's soooo much more to a car than a peak power dyno number...for instance amoung many, many other things the GTS is making about 50 rwkw's more power in the mid-range and has monster sized brakes.

[Rob 351]

The fish keep biting Rodge.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Just saying that if a R Spec can't beat a SRT8 around a dry track what hope has a very, very slightly tweaked R Spec, (AKA GT-F), got against a GTS ? NONE !!...and wet, dry or damp 2.3 seconds on a short track is a thorough belting any way people want to slice and dice it.

There's soooo much more to a car than a peak power dyno number...for instance amoung many, many other things the GTS is making about 50 rwkw's more power in the mid-range and has monster sized brakes.

Your SRT8 will get smashed from every set of lights though Rodge where you will spend all of your time. Take it to the 1/4 and you will only be seeing tail lights from both an RSpec and a GTF, manual or auto.
I agree though the FPVs have nothing on the GTS when it comes to track. My mate is up to 6s a lap faster at QR than he was in the F6. I really hope Ford recall both press cars around Bathurst time because if they end up head to head around the mountain.... But in saying that they are point and shoot muscle with big slidey back ends, so to a certain degree FPV have nailed the brief.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Your SRT8 will get smashed from every set of lights though Rodge where you will spend all of your time. Take it to the 1/4 and you will only be seeing tail lights from both an RSpec and a GTF, manual or auto.
I agree though the FPVs have nothing on the GTS when it comes to track. My mate is up to 6s a lap faster at QR than he was in the F6. I really hope Ford recall both press cars around Bathurst time because if they end up head to head around the mountain.... But in saying that they are point and shoot muscle with big slidey back ends, so to a certain degree FPV have nailed the brief.

6 seconds is a MASSIVE difference mate, some of that will be the technical abilities of the GTS such as track settings on the DSC and suspension and the torque vectoring and massive brakes but still that's such a whopping difference and gives a clue about how good these things are to punt around your favourite bit of back-country blacktop.

Anyway this is about GT-F v GTS so moving back on topic I expect on a decent high speed track like Phillip Island the GTS will be several seconds faster. My guess would be 4.

Mate I can pull 0-100 in 4.8 over and over again, (which is quicker than me ol GT-P, (N.Z. Autocar 0-100 in 5.15 seconds) so getting smashed as you put it at the lights isn't even a remote possibility. Average times for the R Spec and GTS aren't much different to that so whoever has the best reaction times at the lights will be the winner and I have super quick reactions from years and years of misspent youth playing pinball, I was the Auckland University champ

At Aussie pricing there's no question the GF-F is a good bit of kit for the money, but $100,000 being fair value in N.Z is far more debateable.

[MercuryT]

It shouldn't be a surprise the GTS is the better car, even to Ford fans.

It is newer, more expensive, and has considerably more features. Of course it will be a "better" car in that sense.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the better buy, nor most popular, nor most enjoyable to drive, nor all the subjective matters that go into a buying decision.

I haven't driven either but I already know if I was to buy one it would be the GTF - I think the GTS (and the VF series) looks terrible, and every time I went to wash it i'd have to look at it, which is a deal breaker regardless how good it is.

[PepeLePew]

Lets drop the SRT talk please and stick to the topic. We can have a my nuts are bigger than yours thing in another thread. Oh hang on, already been done

[Chopped]

Sums it up

[AGS302]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Mate I can pull 0-100 in 4.8 over and over again, (which is quicker than me ol GT-P, (N.Z. Autocar 0-100 in 5.15 seconds) so getting smashed as you put it at the lights isn't even a remote possibility. Average times for the R Spec and GTS aren't much different to that so whoever has the best reaction times at the lights will be the winner and I have super quick reactions from years and years of misspent youth playing pinball, I was the Auckland University champ

At Aussie pricing there's no question the GF-F is a good bit of kit for the money, but $100,000 being fair value in N.Z is far more debateable.

You're definitely pulling something over and over, and it isn't 0-100 times.

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by Chopped

image

Sums it up

Classic!

[chookaradley]

Originally Posted by AGS302

You're definitely pulling something over and over, and it isn't 0-100 times.

With Rodge on this one, my SRT has done consistent high 4's. And I'm a pretty average steerer. Wouldn't be as quick as a GTF but wouldn't be disgraced. It's porky 2012 kg *** being the main hinderance

[2242100]

I think a lot of people assume that the fastest car to 100 is the car that will be in front at 100. That might often be the case but not always. It depends on how the run is put together.
For example I've seen Racelogic GPS data of a Commodores 4.71 second 0 - 100 run where it took around 68.5 metres to get to 100.

When I compare that data to a 4.77 sec 0-100 run that my XR6T did, the Racelogic software tells me that my car would be nearly a car length (4.46 metres) in front of the Commodore when it gets to 100.
It just depends how the run is put together and the Commodore was a Manual whereas my car is an Auto.