Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times

[1TUFFUTE]

Not to mention the poms just tested the GTS v an m5 and did a best of 4.9 0-100. Plenty of mag tests with turbo n v8 fords doing the same and close to that time. That's real world testing for you.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Not to mention the poms just tested the GTS v an m5 and did a best of 4.9 0-100. Plenty of mag tests with turbo n v8 fords doing the same and close to that time. That's real world testing for you.

Geez 4.9 that would have to be the slowest time yet for a GTS wouldnt it? Seems way off the pace compared to other times ive seen

[Iggle Piggle]

Was a manual, which I am lead to believe are slower.

Get where 1TUFFUTE is coming from re comparing times at the track to times on the road - but comparing times at the track to times at the track seems fair, particularly when run side-by-side on the same track at the same time in the same conditions.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

Geez 4.9 that would have to be the slowest time yet for a GTS wouldnt it? Seems way off the pace compared to other times ive seen

I guess that shows up the problem with not knowing how effectively the car launched and 0 - 100 doesn't tell anything about that. Also most of the time gained or lost early in the run will flow into the quarter time.
That said though, for some reason the GTS doesn't seem to be producing it's potential as I've mentioned before. I really think it has to be a better engine than we've seen. It's only a guess but I wonder if HSV's intake has something to do with it.
On the subject of launch, just looking at the 0 - 40 time of my cars 4.56, 0 - 100 run where the stall up was reasonably high and comparing it with a lower stall, shows 0.48 sec difference in acceleration time and that causes 0.44 sec difference in the 1/4 time. No need to run the quarter to find that out because the distances are provided and it just takes a bit of number crunching for a very exact figure. That's the difference between mid 4's and 5 seconds for an FG Turbo.
A bit off topic but the Performance Boxes are a great tool at a reasonable price for anyone who modifies their car and then goes to the track to test, because you only need one good launch and the early low speed data can be applied to other runs that were good except for a lousy start. The software will tell the exact speed that would have been achieved and you just add the two segment together to know what the time would have been.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

Was a manual, which I am lead to believe are slower.

Get where 1TUFFUTE is coming from re comparing times at the track to times on the road - but comparing times at the track to times at the track seems fair, particularly when run side-by-side on the same track at the same time in the same conditions.

That works as long as both cars stage in the same way (ie both either shallow or deep) and both get an equally good launch.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 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?

Hi XtRmn8
I can see where you're coming from because after all a good comfortable well performing car is all that is generally needed, yet people spend lots of money buying very expensive cars that are better, but often not hugely better than many every day cars, also owners often spend a lot to modify a car that may not really end up that much better.
Some of us just like this performance comparison stuff and you would know how much interest I've got in the subject from talking to me on the phone (I purchased the injectors from you). We humans aren't always totally logical.

You might remember that I told you I was looking for a EURO 4 Cat before I get the car tuned. Haven't come across one yet but I figure this is a good opportunity to put out the call.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 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?

Sorry mate I forgot to address the question . I'm talking 0 - 100 kph.

[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.

Regarding the statement "WHY PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THIS STUFF IS BEYOND ME". I didn't like that. So please read the following points that I think would show a reasonable person that I don't appear to be someone who lies about these things.
1) Do I have a Racelogic Performance Box? Yes serial number 5013891 purchased from Racer Industries.
2) Is the 4.56 time an invented figure? No it would be extremely difficult to cook up a combination of the distances as well as the times. so they are listed below.
3) Have I had the car tuned or modified? No.
4) How can I convince a reasonable person? Well on 31/1/14, I mentioned the 4.56 time in a post on the FPV GT RSPEC VS VF HSV GTS Thread. It was only after that post, that I sought advice from Ratter on getting my standard car tuned (see Custom tune thread).
IT'S NOT TUNED YET AND IF ANYONE HAS A EURO 4 CAT FOR SALE I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.
5) Was the 4.56 run downhill? No. But was your Commodores 5.1 achieved downhill? Yes I do believe you.
6) Could the car have been tuned before I purchased it? No, I ordered it before it was built.
On the subject of the hypothetical 4.40 to 100 kph time, a combination of a high altitude 0 - 70 (mostly) 1st gear and 70 - 100 low altitude time adds up to 4.47 sec (more traction available at high altitude test so a higher stall up was possible). Also there was a fair amount of load on board in both cases, so the 4.40 estimate was certainly conservative.
The Performance Box has been used on another 09 car with very close rolling acceleration results.
0.....................0....................0
10.................0.28..................0.46 metres
20.................0.64..................1.97
30.................1.03..................4.71
40.................1.41..................8.41
50.................1.81..................13.38
60.................2.24..................20.03
70.................2.77..................29.52
80.................3.38..................42.13
90.................3.96..................55.89
100................4.56..................71.67

[Professor Farnsworth]

can you combine your posts next time please 2242100 - 5 posts in a row is a little excessive

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

can you combine your posts next time please 2242100 - 5 posts in a row is a little excessive

Point taken, I know I used up a lot of room on the page. I had to break up my response to adrenaline's post into two posts because the system will only accept fairly short posts and I think you might understand why I felt I needed to say a fair bit in view of the content of that post. I know about the cookie problem but there seems more than that problem.
I don't intend to overdo it.
I'm not too computer savvy so some advice from you on how to combine the posts would be helpful. Perhaps a direct message to me if that's ok.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Regarding the statement "WHY PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THIS STUFF IS BEYOND ME". I didn't like that. So please read the following points that I think would show a reasonable person that I don't appear to be someone who lies about these things.
1) Do I have a Racelogic Performance Box? Yes serial number 5013891 purchased from Racer Industries.
2) Is the 4.56 time an invented figure? No it would be extremely difficult to cook up a combination of the distances as well as the times. so they are listed below.
3) Have I had the car tuned or modified? No.
4) How can I convince a reasonable person? Well on 31/1/14, I mentioned the 4.56 time in a post on the FPV GT RSPEC VS VF HSV GTS Thread. It was only after that post, that I sought advice from Ratter on getting my standard car tuned (see Custom tune thread).
IT'S NOT TUNED YET AND IF ANYONE HAS A EURO 4 CAT FOR SALE I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.
5) Was the 4.56 run downhill? No. But was your Commodores 5.1 achieved downhill? Yes I do believe you.
6) Could the car have been tuned before I purchased it? No, I ordered it before it was built.
On the subject of the hypothetical 4.40 to 100 kph time, a combination of a high altitude 0 - 70 (mostly) 1st gear and 70 - 100 low altitude time adds up to 4.47 sec (more traction available at high altitude test so a higher stall up was possible). Also there was a fair amount of load on board in both cases, so the 4.40 estimate was certainly conservative.
The Performance Box has been used on another 09 car with very close rolling acceleration results.
0.....................0....................0
10.................0.28..................0.46 metres
20.................0.64..................1.97
30.................1.03..................4.71
40.................1.41..................8.41
50.................1.81..................13.38
60.................2.24..................20.03
70.................2.77..................29.52
80.................3.38..................42.13
90.................3.96..................55.89
100................4.56..................71.67

Relax mate, I referred to the fellow who claimed a sub 12.5 run years ago as dishonest, not you. I never called you dishonest (apologies if it came across that way), I just don't think your time is accurate- whether it comes down to the flatness of the road or the equipment used who knows, but it's an unbelievably fast time for a standard XR6T. In fact it would be the fastest claimed time for a standard XR6T in history, by some margin too. The main point of the post was to reel in some of the (increasingly impressive) claims being made about XR6Ts, particularly in relation to the overboost function which many people seem to confuse for an on/off switch as far as extra boost goes.

Regarding my Commodore, 5.1 0-100 isn't remarkable. Drive got a faster time in their dragstrip battle. That's just what I achieved on the street. If you're in Sydney you're welcome to see it for yourself.

[BHDOGS]

im confused is the ss slower or not.

[richo77]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

im confused is the ss slower or not.

Depends who you ask

[fordomatic]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

im confused is the ss slower or not.

Post of the week

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Regarding my Commodore, 5.1 0-100 isn't remarkable. Drive got a faster time in their dragstrip battle. That's just what I achieved on the street. If you're in Sydney you're welcome to see it for yourself.

Of course they got faster....they did it at a sticky drag strip......your not one of these guys who think real world tested (99% of tests in the past) is comparable to drag testing.
I'll say it again...why they are all of a sudden testing the vf at the DRAGS is beyond me. Where's all the DRAG tests with XRTs of other performance cars...no nz VF, that have been done in the past. They barely exists.

It's actually the biggest reason why so many people question slow test times.....because testers do them non drags trip...then owners take them to the strip and flog the testers times. Then bag the testers

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Of course they got faster....they did it at a sticky drag strip......your not one of these guys who think real world tested (99% of tests in the past) is comparable to drag testing.
I'll say it again...why they are all of a sudden testing the vf at the DRAGS is beyond me. Where's all the DRAG tests with XRTs of other performance cars...no nz VF, that have been done in the past. They barely exists.

It's actually the biggest reason why so many people question slow test times.....because testers do them non drags trip...then owners take them to the strip and flog the testers times. Then bag the testers

They tested the XR6T on the drag strip at the same time...

And I didn't question why it was faster on the strip. Just stated what I achieved "on the street".

[muso]

Originally Posted by richo77

Depends who you ask

I think this accurately answers my thread question

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Of course they got faster....they did it at a sticky drag strip......your not one of these guys who think real world tested (99% of tests in the past) is comparable to drag testing.
I'll say it again...why they are all of a sudden testing the vf at the DRAGS is beyond me. Where's all the DRAG tests with XRTs of other performance cars...no nz VF, that have been done in the past. They barely exists.

It's actually the biggest reason why so many people question slow test times.....because testers do them non drags trip...then owners take them to the strip and flog the testers times. Then bag the testers

I think the times in this thread all pretty much seem to be non drag strip times except for the head to head with the VF SS and XR6T

[1TUFFUTE]

Well that makes one official tested XRTurbo at the drags.....and about 50 vf ss,Ssv and hsv.
Oh and sorry adrenaline...I reread my post above and I do know your not 'stupid'. Sounded different in my head

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Relax mate, I referred to the fellow who claimed a sub 12.5 run years ago as dishonest, not you. I never called you dishonest (apologies if it came across that way), I just don't think your time is accurate- whether it comes down to the flatness of the road or the equipment used who knows, but it's an unbelievably fast time for a standard XR6T. In fact it would be the fastest claimed time for a standard XR6T in history, by some margin too. The main point of the post was to reel in some of the (increasingly impressive) claims being made about XR6Ts, particularly in relation to the overboost function which many people seem to confuse for an on/off switch as far as extra boost goes.

Regarding my Commodore, 5.1 0-100 isn't remarkable. Drive got a faster time in their dragstrip battle. That's just what I achieved on the street. If you're in Sydney you're welcome to see it for yourself.

No worries mate, people can make all sorts of questionable claims on the internet, so I'm thinking that it may have worked in a positive way and given me an opportunity to present some credible evidence that the car hasn't been tuned.
On the subject of your VF Commodores 5.1 sec to 100, I'm not surprised and certainly don't disbelieve it.
Regarding the accuracy of my Performance Box, it's been used on other cars and recorded times that would be expected (eg an NA, FG 6 speed Automatic's time to 100 kph was 7.08 sec at low altitude with a good launch, best Magazine result that I've seen is 6.8 sec).
I've kept a close eye on that aspect. I lived near a Transport Department marked one kilometre section that they used for calibration, so it's distance measurement accuracy was checked there on more than one occasion. I've also tested it over a 5 k speedo check Zone for both distance and time (stopwatch check from start to stop). Additionally it's speedo reading has been checked against a Satnav and immediately after the 4.56 to a 100 k run I crosschecked it's speed reading against the cars speedo which showed it was operating normally. Accuracy has been within 0.3%. That should mean no more than a maximum error of 2 - 3 hundredths of a second over the quarter.
Regarding how level the surface was. It looked flat, but cars at this performance level aren't affected too much by gradient at under 100. Actually
it takes quite an uphill rise to reduce the car's performance down to the level that I've seen in the Magazines.
So, is the Overboost the reason for the cars pace? Have the Magazine testers disabled the Overboost feature of these cars by harsh treatment just before conducting the timed runs? I can't say.
What I can say though, is that The GT also has an Overboost feature, and the WHEELS R SPEC test performance well and truly stood out over most of the other GT tests, it reached 189 kph at 400 metres, the Overboost was obviously working in that case, but I suspect not in other tests. So maybe a similar situation applies to both normal FG Turbo's and GT's.
Whatever the case though, I think the VF SS is a better overall car at the moment, so many features.

[chookaradley]

XR6T, SS, Clubsport, GT, SRT8, all seem to do 0-100 in the high 4 second bracket standard despite big descrepencies in power. R Spec and GTS stand alone doing mid 4's.

[2011G6E]

Let's cut to the chase...

Has anyone ever really got the same fuel economy, 0-100, or quarter mile times that the factory quotes...?

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Let's cut to the chase...

Has anyone ever really got the same fuel economy, 0-100, or quarter mile times that the factory quotes...?

I drove to Melbourne in a VF SS-V with a passenger, filled up the 71L tank in Adelaide and made it to Melbourne with about 80 km of fuel to spare. The drive included; stoping in a few towns for a look, using the speed limit, enjoying the sound and feel of overtaking in a V8.

[SensationFG8]

Originally Posted by johnydep

enjoying the sound and feel of overtaking in a V8.

Have they made much improvement to the exhaust note from the VE? I was always really unimpressed with the stock VE sound.

I've listened to the new HSV's and they sound great, but didn't get a chance to listen to a stock SS.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

Have they made much improvement to the exhaust note from the VE? I was always really unimpressed with the stock VE sound.

I've listened to the new HSV's and they sound great, but didn't get a chance to listen to a stock SS.

It's fairly quiet, until you put your foot down. From inside the cabin, it has the distinctive V8 tone all the time under part throttle. That's enough for me, and it sounds great when hammering it.

I am thinking about these - http://www.xforce.com.au/about-varex...ts-muffler.php

[SensationFG8]

Those look interesting, wonder how hard they are to install

[muso]

As I said before If I was spending 40k I'd get the VF SS no question about it. But if I was spending 20-25K G6ET or XR6T but that may change when the 2014 Falcon comes out, at the moment I think the VF SS is unbeatable value with features and refinement unequalled to any other car at the moment, I've never been that impressed with the VE SS with the 1980's interior especially the dash etc, but I still think the FG Turbo out of the box is unbeatable value performance wise......best out of 3 runs and I'd put money on the FG Turbo against the VF SS and also in roll on performance but it would be pretty close by the sounds of things. Hypothetically if I ever got a V8 no matter what make it was I would still salute the I6 Turbo Ford as one of the greatest cars in Australian motoring history and will have a soft spot for them until the day I die

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

Have they made much improvement to the exhaust note from the VE? I was always really unimpressed with the stock VE sound.

I've listened to the new HSV's and they sound great, but didn't get a chance to listen to a stock SS.

They have what could be described as a refined sound for a V8, but they are very quiet stock. Many will want an aftermarket exhaust.

[1TUFFUTE]

Just saw ANOTHER official drag test on utube between a merc c63 and the vf GTS.
The GTS did a best of 4.6 0-100 again. Considering the roll out, the grip at a track,it's wide grippy tyres,it's new diff,launch control and that big fat supercharged engine(aswell as many other little things)......that seriously is not very fast in a straight line considering every ford turbo model and GT can do high 4s to low 5s on the street!

Be interesting to see more and more owners with stock VFs at the track over time to see how consistant these times really are. I mean the GTS has had DRAG STRIP times from 4.2 right up to 4.7. That's a huge difference!
Mind you I'm not sure how they get the numbers for 0-100 at the track if they're using the timing lights.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Just saw ANOTHER official drag test on utube between a merc c63 and the vf GTS.
The GTS did a best of 4.6 0-100 again..

I'd be happy with that time.

Out of interest; what was the drivers reaction time? What fuel did both vehicles use?