Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by 2242100

When you do take the Ute to the drags it would be good if you could tell us the 60 foot time, 660 foot speed and time, along with the end speed and quarter time please. This should give an idea of the cars top end acceleration. It's also good to know if a driver has deep staged or shallow staged as that can typically affect the quarter time by from 2 to 4 tenths.
Whatever the time's the SS Commodores are an excellent overall package now.

Will do.

Good turn out tonight. Haven't been for 15 years, love the smell & sounds.

Surprised at the amount of Holden's, lots. Only a few Ford's, the Valiant's almost out number them. Though I did get here late.

Few old school cars here, look & sound fantastic.


There's a xr6 turbo ute, will post its time if he can get a decent launch. Stuffed up the last two.

[johnydep]

VE SS auto 12.51
VE SS auto 13.38
BA XR8 auto 13.29
XR6T ute auto 12.41 @ 120.9
VE HSV 6.2 12.38

[Robos F6]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I considered the possibility of the apparently standard cars being tuned but apparently that doesn't seem to be the case.
There was another particularly impressive "standard and untuned" G6ET that actually had a slow 1/4 time (launch problem). However it managed to reach a 1/4 mile "average trap speed" of 110.62 mph which equates to 179 kph (or 111.24 mph) at the 400 metre point. That was 4 kph more than the fastest (Press test) FG Turbo car that I've seen (speeds have ranged rrom 169+ to 175). I'm referring here to the Drive.com.au SS Commodore vs XR6T test where conditions were obviously quite cool. By contrast the G6ET had to contend with the following handicaps.
1) 130 kg driver.
2) Cleaning gear.
3) Approx 120 metres higher altitude.
4) Stiff headwind.
5) Only 1200 k's on the clock.
6) Full fuel load.
Also I believe the conditions were warmish (daytime in February), so all things considered I think it's remarkable that it could be 4 k's faster than the (fastest) Drive.com.au test Falcon. Quarter mile end speeds tell a lot about a cars power and it clearly had a fair bit more.
So why are standard FG Turbo's apparently so much faster in the real world? Has the Temporary Overboost function (that Ford mentioned at the cars launch) not been working on the Press test cars that have been acceleration tested? Have testers given the cars a hard time immediately before quarter mile runs that has prevented the feature from working (tyre warming burnouts and practice launches)? Whatever the case though, I think it may have caused some to dig deeper into their pockets and buy F6's. I'm not suggesting that the F6 isn't a better car, just that the standard Turbo's bang for buck is under estimated by many.
One final point about 0 - 100 times. From looking closely at Magazine test data I've noted that Automatic Trans, mid 4 second to 100 k cars typically take a touch over 8 seconds to go from 100 kph to the 400 metre point if their end speeds are around 180 or just over. So lets say 8.1 seconds and then it takes a further 0.05 secs to get to the 1/4 mile point, so that's 8.15 seconds in total. With that in mind we can estimate the zero to 100 kph time.
So for the F6 that managed the 12.295 sec quarter it's:-
12.295 less 8.15 = 4.145 plus 0.25 seconds (shallow stage rollout time) = 4.395 seconds to 100 kph.
For the 12.37 quarter XR6T it's 4.47 seconds.
As mentioned previously, my own standard untuned FG XR6T got to 100 in 4.56 sec at 650 metres altitude, which costs 3 to 4% in acceleration time. If I reduce my cars time by 3.5% I get a time of 4.40 sec, very close to the other two cars.
That is of course with a sticky enough surface.

Mate, i think you better get to the track and try and run your 12.3.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Robos F6

Mate, i think you better get to the track and try and run your 12.3.

he may as well try the 0-100 in 4.3 as well.....

[muso]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if most stock Fg XR6T's and G6ET's if fitted with Mickey Thompsons on the rear could repeatedly do sub 5 secs 0-100 and mid to high 12's 0-400m with a good driver

The traction issues will always be the 'Achilles heel' with the turbo fords which taints their potential!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 2242100

As mentioned previously, my own standard untuned FG XR6T got to 100 in 4.56 sec at 650 metres altitude, which costs 3 to 4% in acceleration time. If I reduce my cars time by 3.5% I get a time of 4.40 sec, very close to the other two cars.
That is of course with a sticky enough surface.

I've read this a few times now and I can't let it go any more. A standard FG XR6T getting to 100 in mid-4 seconds is completely unbelievable. I owned one for years, my friends still own them, we've tested them at the drags (ie flat, sticky surface) many times and they're simply not that quick stock. 4.9 seconds out of a stock car is pushing it. 4.4-4.5 is out of this world, unless you run it down hill. I've driven enough of them to know how fast they are and a 4.5 second car they are certainly not.

Regarding the overboost feature that a lot of people reference, if you have an electronic boost gauge on the car you'll see that it doesn't exist in the way that people describe it. If I recall correctly, back in 2008 Ford's press release said something like a 10% boost increase or something to that effect (which which is only 1psi at best), but looking at an electronic gauge you simply don't see it, it's not there. It's not like the car is doing its 8-10psi and then suddenly climbs to 11. It doesn't work like that. The PCM controls the boost based on a number of conditions, many people mistakenly think that the cars simply make 10psi all day, then 11psi when the "overboost" kicks in. I've even had one moron tell me that they make 10% more power and torque across the board when the fabled overboost kicks in. When in reality, most stock cars peak at 8-9psi at WOT. From years of driving these cars my conclusions are- you'll do 0-100 in about 5 seconds, maybe a whisker under if you've got great tyres and stall it up. Quarter mile for the average full weight stock FG turbo is ~13 flat or just under. Some of the fastest recorded examples are deeper into the 12s but nowhere near what some have claimed. There was a fellow some years ago making claims about doing a sub 12.5 quarter with a stock car, in the end it turned out his car was tuned. Why people lie about this stuff is beyond me. My friend's stock car currently does a consistent 12.7 @ 109 every time he runs it, that car has an intake, better rubber and no spare tyre. Relating back to the topic of this thread, that same car from a standstill to 110 could not beat the SS, the Commodore with its instant V8 surge and superior rear end gets off the line too well. Yes the XR6T is ultimately quicker, but you won't prove it without visiting a drag strip.

The stock XR6Ts are very quick cars. But some of the claims I'm seeing lately are getting ridiculous. If you want a crack at a deeper 4 second 0-100 sprint or mid 12, you need an F6. I base everything I say off actually going out there and testing the cars, not calculating it hypothetically. Cheers.

[muso]

Good point

Far out your stock VF SS was more than a match for the XR6T 0-110 kph
Was the SS auto?

[PepeLePew]

Adrenaline as you know they lie or believe the far fetched because they are people and that's what a percentage of people do. Same on LS1 etc etc...tis the Internet. But it also opens the can that some claims for the VF also come into question. I don't know why this thread lives so long except both sides get defensive and repeat themselves. Different cars different conditions can certainly yield different results and in the end there is no right answer. They're both fast cars with different characters. Any of you guys going to Heathcote? When is the a Clubby coming are you swapping out of the SS or?

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Relating back to the topic of this thread, that same car from a standstill to 110 could not beat the SS, the Commodore with its instant V8 surge and superior rear end gets off the line too well.

that seems a little odd, is the SS manual? either way it still seems odd - every test i've seen shows the VF to be a whisker slower to 100+ in manual, and at the very best even, what was the deal with his car?

[XR6Runner]

What's confusing? Nothing! Im proud to be Australian, im proud to be living here, and im proud that we have two Aussie cars that go like cut snakes, that can be compared to the Euro's. Which ever you buy, Falcon GT or HSV GTS, you are **** gonna have good time!

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by muso

I think most people have seen the drag strip comparison between a VF SS A6 and an FG XR6 Turbo A6 and they were pretty much line ball in spite of the fact that VE SS was usually quite far behind the FG Turbo. I can't see how a 40 kg weight reduction and wider rear tyres could make so much difference with no extra engine power from VE to VF (still 260 kw) Technically the FG Turbo should have been quicker than the VF SS.

Then just today I read a motor magazine comparing Golf GTI, VF SSV and can't remember what the third car was but the VF SSV 0-100 km time was 6.1 secs 0-400 m time was 14.2 (about the same as an original stock BA/BF XR6 Turbo)

The SSV was a manual so maybe there were traction issues but it is still confusing. I was so impressed when I saw that a stock auto VF SS could now match a stock FG Turbo in a straight line that I was almost ready to jump ship and go for a VF SS instead of a G6ET :( Of course a tune and injector change for the FG Turbo would change the game considerably

Time to see what this thread has produced, in way of facts and information.

VF Commodore Technical Details - http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...etails-118655/

Street Drags; VF SS v FG XR6t - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiFnLOmnhWM

Drive.com.au VF SS v FG XR6t - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwye94Q7PtQ

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/a...701-2p79b.html

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...1&postcount=32

http://performancedrive.com.au/hsv-g...-review-video/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T79GB81cprE

Performance simualtion in automobile-catalog - http://www.automobile-catalog.com/simulation.php

VE - manual: 270kW @ 5,700rpm and 530Nm @ 4,400rpm. Automatic: 260kW @ 5,700rpm and 517Nm @ 4,400rpm

VF - manual: 270kW @ 5,600rpm and 530Nm @ 4,400rpm. Automatic: 260kW @ 5,600rpm and 517Nm @ 4,400rpm

The above would lead to the assumption that the torque/power curve is different between the two vehicles. Early on Holden did mention that the engine and transmission software has been re-calibrated.

Plus there has been other changes, such as; weight, EPS, revised front and rear suspension. I've been told that the intake system has had some changes, not sure what. But the VF does seem to rev quicker than the VE.

Combine all these small changes and the VF becomes slightly quicker than the VE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXqhbM1JtrE

Adelaide street Drags 26th April 2014 (times on digital readout)-

VE SS auto 12.51
VE SS auto 13.38
BA XR8 auto 13.29
XR6T ute auto 12.41 @ 120.9
VE HSV 6.2 12.38

Anything else to add, that might help solve the confusion?

[Bossxr8]

How are the above drag strip numbers relevant as they are clearly not stock vehicles. Probably none of those cars would run those times stock, especially the VE SS's and the BA XR8.

[muso]

The LS7 and LS9 power curves are impressive...isn't that what they use in the new Corvette which goes like stink

With the drag strip results I'd say the VE SS [email protected], the BA XR8 Auto and possibly the XR6T ute may have been stock (not sure about the BA XR8 though) The others would be modded with possibly tune/exhaust and maybe Cam. Good times though.

[muso]

The Vf probably has changes to the throttle mapping or something. Remember the original VN back in 1988.....customers complained about how sensitive the throttle was with "Jack Rabbit" take off so GMH had to soften it a bit in the 1990 onwards models......that's what I heard anyway.

[Bossxr8]

Auto BA XR8 would get nowhere near that. The best I got was a 14.2. Others on the same day were about the same. Manuals slightly quicker, maybe a high 13.

[BIONIC MAN]

Yeh, no stock BAXR8 is going to do 13.2, no way.
my old stock, 6 speed auto 290 BF pursuit did 14.3@103 with a pretty slow 2.2 60ft launch.

[Professor Farnsworth]

yeah if you drove an auto BA XR8 you'd see how funny that time is - anything under 3000rpm and you could balance a glass of chablis on your finger and not have it spill

[lucas2]

I'm not sure the XR6T will run 120+mph stock.

[muso]

Yeah come to think of it @120.9 mph and 12.4 it would have to be tuned...stock would be more like 13 secs or maybe high 12's at best. And I forgot how slow the XR8's were compared to the T.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by muso

Yeah come to think of it @120.9 mph and 12.4 it would have to be tuned...stock would be more like 13 secs or maybe high 12's at best. .

12.4 stock? With a tune?

I don't think so....not in street trim.

low 14's repeatedly, high 13's sometimes.

[lucas2]

Plenty of people running high 12s/low 13s in stock FG turbos. Some even quicker (albeit rarely lower than 12.7)

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by BIONIC MAN

Yeh, no stock BAXR8 is going to do 13.2, no way.
my old stock, 6 speed auto 290 BF pursuit did 14.3@103 with a pretty slow 2.2 60ft launch.

My best in my BA MkII 4speed, tune (~220rwkw) and 4.1s has done a 14.2 @ 102 My 60ft was shocking - 2.336 because I didn't left foot brake. When the light went green I took my foot off the brake and just mashed the accelerator. That would've cost me a little bit of time but I was trying to be nice to the 'old girl.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by muso

Yeah come to think of it @120.9 mph and 12.4 it would have to be tuned...stock would be more like 13 secs or maybe high 12's at best. And I forgot how slow the XR8's were compared to the T.

I put the times down just to show the differences between cars and drivers.

The VE's were two different cars, one definitely sounded like it had some work done to it.

The XR6T ute also had work done to it, I may have got the speed wrong though. I was typing away as it was called and someone was talking to me at the same time. The times were taken off the clock. He had several runs, first couple looked ok, the next was a 16 sec run due to take off stuff up.

There were a couple of VF's but definitely not stock, as they were floating between low 11's to mid 12's between them.

[muso]

Originally Posted by zilo

12.4 stock? With a tune?

I don't think so....not in street trim.

low 14's repeatedly, high 13's sometimes.

I'm talking about XR6T's not XR8's, lots of stock FG Turbos could do a flat 13 on a good day and some even quicker (eg G6ET)

[muso]

[QUOTE=strik9;5078473]well pretty much looks like the new falcon has the old falcon interior . found it a real let down to be honest. in fairness they are closing down so its not like you could spend a heap of money on changes.


Off topic I know but if the 2014 Falcon has the same interior as the FG all it is getting is different Grille/head and tail lights....that's hardly a new model........more like an FG series 3. They will have to at least change something on the inside to get people to buy it over the already good FG model!

[1TUFFUTE]

So basically even the post summing up thread facts found so far is full of garbage aswell

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

So basically even the post summing up thread facts found so far is full of garbage aswell

One persons garbage, is another's treasure

http://youtu.be/ssjEh_1wdiY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiFnLOmnhWM

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I've read this a few times now and I can't let it go any more. A standard FG XR6T getting to 100 in mid-4 seconds is completely unbelievable. I owned one for years, my friends still own them, we've tested them at the drags (ie flat, sticky surface) many times and they're simply not that quick stock. 4.9 seconds out of a stock car is pushing it. 4.4-4.5 is out of this world, unless you run it down hill. I've driven enough of them to know how fast they are and a 4.5 second car they are certainly not.

Regarding the overboost feature that a lot of people reference, if you have an electronic boost gauge on the car you'll see that it doesn't exist in the way that people describe it. If I recall correctly, back in 2008 Ford's press release said something like a 10% boost increase or something to that effect (which which is only 1psi at best), but looking at an electronic gauge you simply don't see it, it's not there. It's not like the car is doing its 8-10psi and then suddenly climbs to 11. It doesn't work like that. The PCM controls the boost based on a number of conditions, many people mistakenly think that the cars simply make 10psi all day, then 11psi when the "overboost" kicks in. I've even had one moron tell me that they make 10% more power and torque across the board when the fabled overboost kicks in. When in reality, most stock cars peak at 8-9psi at WOT. From years of driving these cars my conclusions are- you'll do 0-100 in about 5 seconds, maybe a whisker under if you've got great tyres and stall it up. Quarter mile for the average full weight stock FG turbo is ~13 flat or just under. Some of the fastest recorded examples are deeper into the 12s but nowhere near what some have claimed. There was a fellow some years ago making claims about doing a sub 12.5 quarter with a stock car, in the end it turned out his car was tuned. Why people lie about this stuff is beyond me. My friend's stock car currently does a consistent 12.7 @ 109 every time he runs it, that car has an intake, better rubber and no spare tyre. Relating back to the topic of this thread, that same car from a standstill to 110 could not beat the SS, the Commodore with its instant V8 surge and superior rear end gets off the line too well. Yes the XR6T is ultimately quicker, but you won't prove it without visiting a drag strip.

The stock XR6Ts are very quick cars. But some of the claims I'm seeing lately are getting ridiculous. If you want a crack at a deeper 4 second 0-100 sprint or mid 12, you need an F6. I base everything I say off actually going out there and testing the cars, not calculating it hypothetically. Cheers.

Hi Adrenaline
Ouch, that hurts. I think a reply is needed.
Regarding your friends FG Turbo. It had very similar end speed to the Drive .com.au car. The Drive car took 8.2 seconds to go from 100 to 400 metres and that's 8.25 to the end of the quarter mile. low 8's are very common for auto cars at this performance level.
SO HERE"S A REAL HEAD SCRATCHER
Your friends Turbo - 12.7 quarter.
So 12.7 less 8.25 = 4.45 to 100. IMPOSSIBLE?
But there's even a fraction more to shave off the 4.45, It has to do with the shorter distance to 100 with a faster 0-100 time. 0.03 sec (I can explain if required) so now we've got a 4.42 to 100 time and with the CAR ADVICE 2 up test it works out to 4.34. CAN THAT REALLY BE TRUE?
Well probably not quite true because of possible dragstrip rollout but fairly close. I got the impression that the car launches fairly well ("better tyres") so from data I've seen a generous max of around 0.27 is applicable.
4.42 + 0.27 = 4.69 (CAR ADVICE 4.61) to 100 maximum time. NOT 4.9.
Something to consider.
I will address the matter of honesty in a later post because I can only get short posts to be accepted at the moment.

[XtRmn8]

How dare an owner of both a FG XR6T and VF SS suggest that the XR6T is not utterly superior!

Why are people so hung up on fractions of a second? Who gives a *****! I know the people putting their money where their mouth is don't care much.

I am confused. Are we talking about 0-100km/h or 0-100m?

[1TUFFUTE]

One thing people need to remember is roll out at drag strips. So many people are quoting numbers from mags or tests from the past and comparing them to recent ss or GTS times. If no one else noticed.....all of a sudden they are now testing and quoting figures for the GTS and ss at the track....not with the ussual method.(vbox)
For some reason they have changed their method precisely when tests for the new GTS started.(coincidence maybe)

Why this is so important is they have never tested turbo and v8 falcons at the drag strip......or any car for that matter.
A quick search on YouTube of some smaller mag testers using the ussual vbox timing will show far slower times for these ss and GTS cars then these drag times they've started using. 4.6. 4.7 is the norm for some GTS to 100. None of this high grip drags trip 4.2 stuff. And then people comparing these times to magazine test times of high 4s but done with vboxes on the road or dirty race tracks.