Any VF performance figures out there yet?

[82XD393.3v]

Originally Posted by Rob 18

A few years ago we would be getting countless comparisons between a HSV & an FPV but since the VF has come out, I haven't seen one mag compare a new HSV to a GT or even a F6.
WHY?
I want to see the new Clubbie up against the GT. Can't be that hard can it?

well it would seem they are to better to compare as holden is now euro class lol

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Rob 18

A few years ago we would be getting countless comparisons between a HSV & an FPV but since the VF has come out, I haven't seen one mag compare a new HSV to a GT or even a F6.
WHY?
I want to see the new Clubbie up against the GT. Can't be that hard can it?

Maybe because Australian cars don't sell magazines anymore, compared to the past.

[Rob 351]

Probably on the money there austyphoon!

[dynomite]

there's none coz Holden and performance dont go together!!!

[stevz]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

Maybe because Australian cars don't sell magazines anymore, compared to the past.

Probably because magazines don't sell anymore full stop.

[Cobra]

I know this is about VF performance, but I have to say that the VF looks have been growing on me the past month or so. I've seen a few of them on the road, and parked out front of the local dealer etc, but I hadn't really seen one up close. The other day in the supermarket I saw a black VF SS with a PROPER rear wing like the GTS. Man, I'm ashamed to admit it but it was a very nice looking car. It had the grey badging and wheels, it looked like it had just been driven off the showroom floor, and the black custom plates finished it off.

I observed it from all angles, and I was impressed all round. It has now made the 5 and a half year old FG look slightly dated (as it should!) and the 7 year old VE look like a dinosaur. I'm yet to see an HSV in the metal, but I dare say that a black GTS will look insane. People saying the VF is ugly probably haven't seen enough in the metal, including the SV6/SS with a proper rear wing. IMO a very classy looking car. I can't wait for the next Falcon, the last Aussie car ever made.

[strik9]

i have to agree with you cobra.
i see one and go yuck, but then i see it in a different colour and spend my load. i,m ashamed to say i,m looking into a black gts. i,m just waiting see if the price is going to come down any.

i,,ve had every fpv known to man. i,m keeping the f6 i have . but these muscle cars wont be round for much longer by the looks.

time to mortgage the missus and bite the bullet very soon.

can someone help me so i dont have to read 23 pages and tell me.
what power they are making with a few mods/tune and the nm.
thanks heaps

[strik9]

and removing those dodgy cheap crap looking gauges in front of the shifter will be a must.

[lucas2]

I was looking at a grey SS V sports wagon with black rims/brembos and have to say it looked quite good, better than the sedans I've seen in person

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by strik9

i have to agree with you cobra.
i see one and go yuck, but then i see it in a different colour and spend my load. i,m ashamed to say i,m looking into a black gts. i,m just waiting see if the price is going to come down any.

i,,ve had every fpv known to man. i,m keeping the f6 i have . but these muscle cars wont be round for much longer by the looks.

time to mortgage the missus and bite the bullet very soon.

can someone help me so i dont have to read 23 pages and tell me.
what power they are making with a few mods/tune and the nm.
thanks heaps

I know Active Automotive VF GTS has run a 10.95 with tune, pulley, intake and headers on stock tyres, not sure how much power it makes though.

Harrop have 3 kits:

Stg 1 is 500kw 900nm with intake, tune and pulley

Stg 2 is 530kw 1000nm which is stg 1 plus injectors and balancer

Stg 3 is 580kw 1100nm which I think is stg 2 plus head and cam package

Going by facebook Harrop have said the stg 3 kit is good for 510rwkw on hub dyno but im unsure of what rwkw stg 1 and 2 make

[stevz]

Wow, those figures are insane...

[mcnews]

Now after seeing a lot of VF on the road, I must say they only look good in the darker colours, not sure what it is, but the ones that have made me take notice have been black or a dark colour, the lighter coloured ones just don't seem to work as well.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Now after seeing a lot of VF on the road, I must say they only look good in the darker colours, not sure what it is, but the ones that have made me take notice have been black or a dark colour, the lighter coloured ones just don't seem to work as well.

Agreed, which is why I thought the black SS I saw looked hot!

[Wretched]

Just read an older Motor magazine article on the GTS.
I didn't realise the amount of engineering required by HSV to fit the LSA engine into the GTS along with the auto and manual boxes. It wasn't just a "plug and play." The whole driveline in the GTS is different to that in the remainder of the range.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Rob 18

A few years ago we would be getting countless comparisons between a HSV & an FPV but since the VF has come out, I haven't seen one mag compare a new HSV to a GT or even a F6.
WHY?
I want to see the new Clubbie up against the GT. Can't be that hard can it?

Mate this is one of the many reasons I started this thread. Next to no truly credible times out there...while the numbers that are printed, are for some reason done using a new method.....one that's never been used for many many years. (Shock horror, the new method times are up to 4tnths faster) That one off great time for the GTS was NOT done like EVERY other comparo in history. Using box timing. So the figure is inflated compared to everyother media released comparos. Explains why other box times for GTS are not impressive!
Not to mention there's doesn't seem to be jack all in terms of competitive comparos yet. The new GTS doesn't have an Australian natural competitor....and certainly not a current up to date model! Yet it seems taking the (track day equation) out of the picture, the Current much older GT deff holds it own if not beats the new GTS performance wise and street or oriented speed/acceleration figures.

For those who complain about gagjets....well they cost money and DRAMAS in cars built to a price....as Holden are finding out.
Ford no doubt would have upd the anti...garunteed...but they made the smart choice to not screw Australians anymore...as the gov will not support them, so they decided to pull out.

I'm super happy with my falcon that comfortable takes care of anything Holden or hsv has to offer pre VF GTS. Buy the GTS won't win any bang for you buck awards thats ford sure. It's a cheap super saloon. It's awesome...but costs a fortune....good luck with that.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Mate this is one of the many reasons I started this thread. Next to no truly credible times out there...while the numbers that are printed, are for some reason done using a new method.....one that's never been used for many many years. (Shock horror, the new method times are up to 4tnths faster) That one off great time for the GTS was NOT done like EVERY other comparo in history. Using box timing. So the figure is inflated compared to everyother media released comparos. Explains why other box times for GTS are not impressive!
Not to mention there's doesn't seem to be jack all in terms of competitive comparos yet. The new GTS doesn't have an Australian natural competitor....and certainly not a current up to date model! Yet it seems taking the (track day equation) out of the picture, the Current much older GT deff holds it own if not beats the new GTS performance wise and street or oriented speed/acceleration figures.

For those who complain about gagjets....well they cost money and DRAMAS in cars built to a price....as Holden are finding out.
Ford no doubt would have upd the anti...garunteed...but they made the smart choice to not screw Australians anymore...as the gov will not support them, so they decided to pull out.

I'm super happy with my falcon that comfortable takes care of anything Holden or hsv has to offer pre VF GTS. Buy the GTS won't win any bang for you buck awards thats ford sure. It's a cheap super saloon. It's awesome...but costs a fortune....good luck with that.

NZ Autocar use the VBox for times, they just recently clocked the the GTS at 4.13 seconds 0-100 which is 1 second faster than they could manage with the GT

As for the GTS costing a fortune its only 10k more than a GT-P. If you compare specs between the two the GTS is good bang for buck

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

NZ Autocar use the VBox for times, they just recently clocked the the GTS at 4.13 seconds 0-100 which is 1 second faster than they could manage with the GT

As for the GTS costing a fortune its only 10k more than a GT-P. If you compare specs between the two the GTS is good bang for buck

The current GT is a gen behind. If you pay full retail on one now your silly. Therefore it's far more then 10 grand. One guy here payed 60k for one......that's nearly 30-40k more.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

NZ Autocar use the VBox for times, they just recently clocked the the GTS at 4.13 seconds 0-100 which is 1 second faster than they could manage with the GT

As for the GTS costing a fortune its only 10k more than a GT-P. If you compare specs between the two the GTS is good bang for buck

I have never previously had any issue with N.Z. Autocar's times and you're quite right they use super accurate vbox timing equipment but I will e.mail Kyle Cassidy (the editior), this week and find out how repeatable that time was, or was it just some sort of miracle bit of traction they found. m I'll also ask to confirm their test vehicle was running 95 Octane fuel.

Still struggling to get my head around why HSV would claim 0-100 in 4.6 seconds or are they claiming 4.4 seconds, sorry I forget ? and the car does 4.13 seconds, sorry but that does not really compute and the main reason is that never to the best of my knowledge in the entire history of HSV have they make claims that are repeatable, let alone beat-able by such a margin, go figure ?

I have no option but to red flag this as a highly controversial time and would not put it past HSV to put a special tune in that car. That said even leaving this time as a sperate matter, (and yes i'd like to see more evidence from other mags testing auto versions), overall its an impressive bit of kit and soon they won;t be making them anymore and FPV will not be making a car as technically complete so there can be no shame heaped upon loyal fans changing camps in my opinion. I might have to take one for a test drive at some stage

P.S. I've been seeing a LOT of VF's around Auckland and they're not as ugly as I first thought, in fact from the front they're not too bad at all.

[turbo4me]

My sentiments to. Who knows what happened to the car from A to B, after all they are trying to sell the car in NZ. This superest car just keeps getting superer all the time. Lol

[Chopped]

If it runs a slower time than the GT R spec time then it must be true.
If it runs a faster time than the GT R spec time then it must be false.

It's a conspiracy.......

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I have never previously had any issue with N.Z. Autocar's times and you're quite right they use super accurate vbox timing equipment but I will e.mail Kyle Cassidy (the editior), this week and find out how repeatable that time was, or was it just some sort of miracle bit of traction they found. m I'll also ask to confirm their test vehicle was running 95 Octane fuel.

Still struggling to get my head around why HSV would claim 0-100 in 4.6 seconds or are they claiming 4.4 seconds, sorry I forget ? and the car does 4.13 seconds, sorry but that does not really compute and the main reason is that never to the best of my knowledge in the entire history of HSV have they make claims that are repeatable, let alone beat-able by such a margin, go figure ?

I have no option but to red flag this as a highly controversial time and would not put it past HSV to put a special tune in that car. That said even leaving this time as a sperate matter, (and yes i'd like to see more evidence from other mags testing auto versions), overall its an impressive bit of kit and soon they won;t be making them anymore and FPV will not be making a car as technically complete so there can be no shame heaped upon loyal fans changing camps in my opinion. I might have to take one for a test drive at some stage

P.S. I've been seeing a LOT of VF's around Auckland and they're not as ugly as I first thought, in fact from the front they're not too bad at all.

If I remember correctly HSV claim 0-100 in 4.4 seconds. I dont know why you would jump to conclusions and red flag it as a highly controversial time, the GTS has all the hardware to run good times but as soon as it does people come out and say its all BS or its a conspiracy against FPV etc etc. Why would HSV even bother putting a special tune in a car for such a non mainstream media source like NZ Autocar magazine?

It seems that people are trying to find any way possible to try and discredit the GTS because its proving to be better than the FPV's. I cant understand why people just can't accept that the GTS is the new Aussie performance car king and going by whats happening with FPV it doesn't look like they are going to come back with a counter.

[FPV_Steve]

Originally Posted by Chopped

If it runs a slower time than the GT R spec time then it must be true.
If it runs a faster time than the GT R spec time then it must be false.

It's a conspiracy.......

I must "LOL" and agree to this statement at the same time. While I believe your statement to be true, and I also believe the GTS to be faster, by how much exactly, I don't know. I "LOL" because the GT & GT Rspec owners have probably got better value for their money, from a performance & modding point of view.

If people can currently buy FPV GT's for $60-70k, and VF GTS' can be bought for $90-95k at best, that means that GT owners can spend $20-$30k on their car before they meet the cost of buying a VF GTS.

When comparing from stock vs stock point of view, the GTS will be faster, but I'm pretty confident that people who purchase these cars will rarely keep them stock. So that gives GT owners far better value for money atm, because for the $20-$30k price difference, the GT owners can modify their car to a supercar level. The fact that you can already see GTS' cars on dynos with mods done proves that people who buy these cars, rarely keep them stock.

So in summary, if you a buy a FPV GT or HSV GTS and want to keep it stock, buy a GTS. If you want to modify, then buy a FPV GT. Honestly, it doesn't get much simpler than that!?!?

Stephen

[Sorted]

40RDT did NZ AutoCar ever test a GT Rspec?

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by FPV_Steve

I must "LOL" and agree to this statement at the same time. While I believe your statement to be true, and I also believe the GTS to be faster, by how much exactly, I don't know. I "LOL" because the GT & GT Rspec owners have probably got better value for their money, from a performance & modding point of view.

If people can currently buy FPV GT's for $60-70k, and VF GTS' can be bought for $90-95k at best, that means that GT owners can spend $20-$30k on their car before they meet the cost of buying a VF GTS.

When comparing from stock vs stock point of view, the GTS will be faster, but I'm pretty confident that people who purchase these cars will rarely keep them stock. So that gives GT owners far better value for money atm, because for the $20-$30k price difference, the GT owners can modify their car to a supercar level. The fact that you can already see GTS' cars on dynos with mods done proves that people who buy these cars, rarely keep them stock.

So in summary, if you a buy a FPV GT or HSV GTS and want to keep it stock, buy a GTS. If you want to modify, then buy a FPV GT. Honestly, it doesn't get much simpler than that!?!?

Stephen

You couldn't bring a current gt up to gts driveline levels for less than what a gts would cost you.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Sorted

40RDT did NZ AutoCar ever test a GT Rspec?

I dont thinks so only F6 and GT from Rodge has been saying

[turbo4me]

Originally Posted by Chopped

If it runs a slower time than the GT R spec time then it must be true.
If it runs a faster time than the GT R spec time then it must be false.

It's a conspiracy.......

And when it does a lot better times than the manufacturer claims it does smell of BS

[FPV_Steve]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

You couldn't bring a current gt up to gts driveline levels for less than what a gts would cost you.

I think you can easily. The driveline mods wouldn't cost more than $8-$9k for a FPV to strengthen them. Though I'm just assuming as I've never gone through it myself, but surely you wouldn't expect much more than that. CAT600, G6ET8U could probably answer more accurately and I'm happy to be proven wrong

So assuming driveline mods cost $7-8k, that leaves at least $12-18k on power mods. That is more than enough for a FPV GT to comfortably beat an VF GTS who is standard, on a $ per $ basis.

My point is that if the purchaser of the FPV GT or HSV GTS is to modify it, then they are better off purchasing the GT.

PS: Should mention that I'm not including track times, I'm only including 1/4 times or street times.

[dragons90]

you could spend that on a built zf alone

[FPV_Steve]

Originally Posted by dragons90

you could spend that on a built zf alone

Well if that is the case, then I rest my case and say that the GTS is the best value for money Aussie built car available. Like I said in my previous comment, I was just assuming for the cost of driveline mods.

[Chopped]

Originally Posted by FPV_Steve

So in summary, if you a buy a FPV GT or HSV GTS and want to keep it stock, buy a GTS. If you want to modify, then buy a FPV GT. Honestly, it doesn't get much simpler than that!?!?

Stephen

Modify ?
I could buy a 2nd hand BA XR6T for about $10,000 and mod the hell out of it for say another 20-30k and make the GTS and GT look way overpriced.....

Stock vs stock is what counts.