ford gt

[NAZCA C2]

Did anybody see the Ford GT commercial on TV during the superbowl? That commercial was awesome!!! Finally an American car manufacturer made a cool car. If you didnt see the ad I demand you to watch it! http://ford.com/en/default.htm

[NoOne]

I missed most of the SuperBowl, and I definitely missed the ad. Awesome !! thanx

[carlover]

Yeah, the Ford GT was definitly the best car in any of the commercials, but that red corvette stingray in the budwieser commercial "lipstick" was awesome
too.

[more-boost1555]

I want one sooooo bad! 3.3 seconds to 60? Quarter mile in the 11's? From a stock car costing less than $150,000? It doesen't get any better than that :D .

This and the Corvette are why American car's are still side by side with the rest of the world's. There is nothing faster than these two for the money.

[Matra et Alpine]

This and the Corvette are why American car's are still side by side with the rest of the world's. There is nothing faster than these two for the money.
and this is why we know you folks don't get the chance to experience the best of European performance cars. The top marques put too many gadgets in. Check out prices of Sylva, Pilbeam, Ultima, Noble, Westfield, Caterham.
Can get two Caterham lightweights with ALL the performance upgrades for that !!

[baddabang]

yes those gt commercial were great what really made it though was when it said is the pace car for an entire company or something like that

[NAZCA C2]

and this is why we know you folks don't get the chance to experience the best of European performance cars. The top marques put too many gadgets in. Check out prices of Sylva, Pilbeam, Ultima, Noble, Westfield, Caterham.
Can get two Caterham lightweights with ALL the performance upgrades for that !!

I agree with you, sportscars shouldnt have so many bells and whistles! All you need are some big tires and an engine that puts out big HP, get rid of the heated seats, navigation system, CD players, and all the other stuff that just adds weight and cost.

[crisis]

and this is why we know you folks don't get the chance to experience the best of European performance cars. The top marques put too many gadgets in. Check out prices of Sylva, Pilbeam, Ultima, Noble, Westfield, Caterham.
Can get two Caterham lightweights with ALL the performance upgrades for that !!
That really depends on what you want. As your interests seem to be in motor sports it is understandable you vhave a purist philosophy about sports cars. I have a mate who has similar tastes. I like sports cars that offer a little more in the way of comfort and a decent dose of metal under the bonnet which would explain my affection for most things Aston Martin. While I like Corvettes I cant concur with more-boost1555's assertion that they are on par with the best European sports cars as fars as performance, handling and subjective desirability. Im thinking Ferrari and Porsche at this point.

[fpv_gtho]

yeah im agreeing with you there crisis. american cars may be able to claim to keep up with german/british/italian sportscars costing twice as much as them, but are they any easier to extract the performance, or do they perform as well around a track. i for the life of me cant see how the americans get 3.3 0-100km/h for the ford GT, i couldnt believe it when they got 3.8, i mean for 500hp and 1500kg it sounds almost impossible. i saw somewhere that they modify the cars before testing, like take things off the engine and stuff, but ive only seen it once and have been looking for something else to back it up but havent found anything, so im starting to doubt whether whoever first said it was full of BS or not

[HoldenHFV6]

I have also heard that the American system for measuring 0 - 60 mph is not from stand still to 60 mph, but a slight rolling start. That makes a big difference.

[fpv_gtho]

well that could explain alot, like why a private test of the enzo by an american magazine turned faster times than what ferrari themselves claim....

a slight rolling start system would do wonders for the falcon GT, like havint 400nm from 1000rpm leading up to 520nm at about 4500rpm makes it a struggle to launch, im sure the ford GT would experience similar problems from a standing start

[SHAKER]

well u got to remember that most of the tests the the car magazine mob do are at a race track/drag track, so the surface would be a lot more "suited" to a standing start rather than a old peice of bitumen thats a cheap mix and probarbly not suited to having 400 odd hp churning it up, also the conditions play a lot into ofcourse, thats why when they do these 0-100 kph and 1/4 mile times they should write down where they done it, who was driving it what the temprature was and even what brand of fuel they were using! Im sure theres a lot more variables which could be considered, even tyre tempratures and pressures, but thats getting a bit to extreme for a standard 0-100kph and 1/4 mile car test though.

[fpv_gtho]

well im sure alot of people didnt think the GT would get a sub 4 second 0-100km/h time compared to the 4.3 the 360 gets, now people are quoting 3.3 for the GT. if it could back it up with a good 0-200km/h time it could take the fight right up to the Enzo for a fraction of the price

[more-boost1555]

First off let me just say that I love cars from all nations, and though I may be slightly biased towards american cars I am not blindly faithfull to them.

In response to Matra et Alpine's comment, yes those are some great cars that can offer even more bang for the buck than the GT. However, they are basicly factory built kit cars with little to no amenities at all (which may be what your looking for, but certainly not everyone), and styling that leaves much to be desired when compared to a Ford GT. Also many of them use American engines anyway so...you can't even truly call them european cars.

Now, you guys want to know how the GT achieved it's 3.3 0-60mph time? It's called torque, the 5.4V8 has a long stroke. This and the supercharger give it a nice 500 foot pounds to work with. Add in big fat 19" rear tires, and the weight from that engine sitting in back and you have some pretty decent traction. I think the biggest factor was the gearing though. The "Car and Driver" guys that did the comparison test with the GT, 360 Challenge, and the GT3, said that the GT didn't have to shift before sixty, where as the other cars did. So obviously this was a big advantage, I guess a tall first gear and monstrous torque can have their benefits. :D

Also, not only does "Car and Driver" always list performance numbers for standing and rolling starts (they consider a rolling start a sprint from 5-60mph), but the rolling starts are always slower. This is because they get the car moving up to 5mph then, keeping the car in first gear, just mash the gas pedal. So obviously it's not going to be as fast as a standing start with the car being reved up to 5000rpm and dropping the clutch (which is in fact how they measure their 0-60mph times).

Now finally, you can not deny that the GT and Corvette are great performers that can do things that only far more expensive cars can equal. They are in fact on par with those cars as far as performance and handling. Whether or not it is more or less difficult to extract this performance from them than their competitors, I can not say, because I haven't driven any of them. Also, are they as desirable as their european counterparts? Most would say no, however you can't complain about the level of performance you are getting for the money.

[Matra et Alpine]

First off let me just say that I love cars from all nations
ditto

However, they are basicly factory built kit cars with little to no amenities at all (which may be what your looking for, but certainly not everyone),
Nope, Nobles are well apopointed :)
Caterhams' have as good an interior finish as 'Vettes !!
What is a "factory built kit car".
All cars are built from parts :)
[/QUOTE] and styling that leaves much to be desired when compared to a Ford GT[/QUOTE]
Cobra ??
No doubting the GT is beautiful taking one of the biggest icons of American racing heritage.
It'sa guarateed to appeal as we all grew up with a post of it on our walls :)

Also many of them use American engines anyway so...you can't even truly call them european cars.
'Many' of them have options for short-block V8, true. But they also have options for rover, audi, toyota, honda. If the buyer/builder wants torque and straight-line performance, yep, they usually pick the V8 ( and the noise, don't forget the noise :)
But for all round performance, it's hard to beat the rover block ( used in Elise ) or a bike engine for the acceleration nuts - less weight means less torque needed for acceleration and they get sequential gearbox and no need to use clutch to change up !

I think the biggest factor was the gearing though.
It will be interesting the results of the first production cars in peoples hands. It's possible they've 'played' with the gearing for different ountings to show it at it's best capability. What's the final gear and diff ratios going to be ?
We'll need to wait and see. Unfortunately, in the UK, it's unlikely we'll get to have a chance to get our hands on them as the order list is full and being ranked to decide who gets ( much to Jeremy Clarksons chagrin :) )

The "Car and Driver" guys that did the comparison test with the GT, 360 Challenge, and the GT3, said that the GT didn't have to shift before sixty, where as the other cars did. So obviously this was a big advantage, I guess a tall first gear and monstrous torque can have their benefits. :D

On those tests, did they report on top speed and each gear and mid-range accelerations ?

Now finally, you can not deny that the GT and Corvette are great performers that can do things that only far more expensive cars can equal.
I'm starting to feel like a stuck record never mond sound like one.
Just becuase the big behemoths of the industry in Europe produce equally big behemoths that are expensive to provide speed, it doesn't mean the rest of the industry is the same.
There are LOADS of very fast, good handling cars available to us which unfortunately you folks never get to experience.


They are in fact on par with those cars as far as performance and handling.
On a par with the expensive cars for performance I don't argue against.
BUT, there are many cars which are CHEAPER which are on a par and better !!

Also, are they as desirable as their european counterparts? Most would say no, however you can't complain about the level of performance you are getting for the money.
Don';t worry, a lot of the 'european counterparts' your thinking of have competition where no-one complains of the level of performance for the money :)
We have a lot of twisty roads in Europe.
It comes with the history.
Check out some video clips from the recent WRC Monte Carlo and tell me if you'd rather drive a 'vette or an Elise, VX220, Porsche :)
Horse for courses. IIRC only one Elise survive the Gumball 3000. And noen of the drivers want to repeat it - not the car to be stuck in on freeways for hours on end :) :)

[fpv_gtho]

First off let me just say that I love cars from all nations, and though I may be slightly biased towards american cars I am not blindly faithfull to them.

In response to Matra et Alpine's comment, yes those are some great cars that can offer even more bang for the buck than the GT. However, they are basicly factory built kit cars with little to no amenities at all (which may be what your looking for, but certainly not everyone), and styling that leaves much to be desired when compared to a Ford GT. Also many of them use American engines anyway so...you can't even truly call them european cars.

Now, you guys want to know how the GT achieved it's 3.3 0-60mph time? It's called torque, the 5.4V8 has a long stroke. This and the supercharger give it a nice 500 foot pounds to work with. Add in big fat 19" rear tires, and the weight from that engine sitting in back and you have some pretty decent traction. I think the biggest factor was the gearing though. The "Car and Driver" guys that did the comparison test with the GT, 360 Challenge, and the GT3, said that the GT didn't have to shift before sixty, where as the other cars did. So obviously this was a big advantage, I guess a tall first gear and monstrous torque can have their benefits. :D

Also, not only does "Car and Driver" always list performance numbers for standing and rolling starts (they consider a rolling start a sprint from 5-60mph), but the rolling starts are always slower. This is because they get the car moving up to 5mph then, keeping the car in first gear, just mash the gas pedal. So obviously it's not going to be as fast as a standing start with the car being reved up to 5000rpm and dropping the clutch (which is in fact how they measure their 0-60mph times).

Now finally, you can not deny that the GT and Corvette are great performers that can do things that only far more expensive cars can equal. They are in fact on par with those cars as far as performance and handling. Whether or not it is more or less difficult to extract this performance from them than their competitors, I can not say, because I haven't driven any of them. Also, are they as desirable as their european counterparts? Most would say no, however you can't complain about the level of performance you are getting for the money.


thats all fair and reasonable, but im still not bought. theres too much of a difference there for me to buy into it. gearing does play a major role i'll admit, with the falcon GT at least if it could rev a lil harder and go over 6000rpm or have taller 2nd gearing im sure theres some 1/10th of a second to be shaved there, and ive also heard the saleen S7 with different gearing could go harder than a macca F1, but the GT has 1500kg/375kw/~680nm, theyre impressive numbers but easily outclassed in the supercar game, yet its claiming a 0-100km/h time that makes you think twice about buying a porsche carrera GT or SLR

[SHAKER]

im a little confused here Matra, You say a "bike" engine has better acceleration than supercharged 5.4 litre v8 making close to 500hp?.....OK that goes against everything ive ever read or know about engines (torque horsepower, revolutions)etc. I assume your talking about a 1.3 turbo charged engine pushing about 800 or 900 kg sports car? On a TOP Racing bike, (Im guessing here) youd have about 180 hp? at god knows how many revs.prob 10000 rpm, they weight about 160 odd kilo?.....and do the 1/4 mile at around 9 seconds.....Turbo charge that and you could expect to double the power to about 360 hp(im being generous with that figure as it would be a very highly stressed engine), but then ur still pushing nearly a tonne of weight(with fuel and driver) so the best you could hope for is a low 13 second , high 12 second pass at very best, with the engine revving its rings off. The gt40, is claimed to do 0-100kph in 3.3 seconds(thats what people are quoting) and 1/4 mile in the 11 second bracket. ( with a 1 second gap in drag racing you could have a hotdog fries and a coke in that time!). So how can you say that a little motorbike engine in a 800kg-1000kg car can out accelerate a big supercharged 4 valve per cylinder 5.4 litre rear engined sports car with tyres as wide as buses rear end...I know ur passionate about the little sports cars that are driven and raced in your country, just us americans and aussies are very loyal and patriotic to our own products, but i find it what ur saying very hard to believe and very dissmissable.

[Matra et Alpine]

im a little confused here Matra, You say a "bike" engine has better acceleration than supercharged 5.4 litre v8 making close to 500hp?.....OK that goes against everything ive ever read or know about engines (torque horsepower, revolutions)etc.
The power band and rev range of an engine capable of revving very high means you can use the same gear. WHen you DO have to change gear it's quiocker with biek gearboxes ( that's why a lot of transplants take the whoel engine and 'box - as well as it being easier :) )
I suspenct the GT is geared to do 0-60 with no gear change as THATH will rob them of half a second :)


Caterham is 490Kg standard from the factory !

On a TOP Racing bike, (Im guessing here) youd have about 180 hp? at god knows how many revs.prob 10000 rpm, they weight about 160 odd kilo?
Those can be had on stock road bikes with a little tuning.
The Honda GP engine ( OK VERY special) is quoted as beign capable of 250+bhp, normally aspirated. That's out of 1litre :)
The turboed gius are getting 280+bhp out of the Hayabus and these guyes will rev to 13+ and have a HUGE wide power band.


.....and do the 1/4 mile at around 9 seconds.
Bandit (like mine) does 10.5 and 120 terminal at our local track.


....Turbo charge that and you could expect to double the power to about 360 hp(im being generous with that figure as it would be a very highly stressed engine), but then ur still pushing nearly a tonne of weight(with fuel and driver)
Granted you've stressed the top end of a bike engine !
But the weight is out by 30% !!
Even with big guys like me in the seat :)

so the best you could hope for is a low 13 second , high 12 second pass at very best, with the engine revving its rings off.
Engine revs are not a problem when designed with light weight and low moving mass. It's a cultural thing. It took me a year of riding my bike before I got used to revving it to read line each gearchange when out playing in the glens :)
You get used to it after a while and then you need to be careful not to take out the engine in the car redlined at 9 :(

The gt40, is claimed to do 0-100kph in 3.3 seconds(thats what people are quoting) and 1/4 mile in the 11 second bracket. This is where I raised the question about what the car config is. I'm not disputing that you can tune up a big engine and heavy car to beat a lighter one, but it's likely to be at more compromise (top speed) or configuration.
[ A bit like the head-to-head for the JSF in the States. The Boeing plane managed Vertial take-off and supersonic. But not in the same configuration. The Lockheed was able to do both in the same flight. WHich would you take to a fight ?]
( with a 1 second gap in drag racing you could have a hotdog fries and a coke in that time!). So how can you say that a little motorbike engine in a 800kg-1000kg car can out accelerate a big supercharged 4 valve per cylinder 5.4 litre rear engined sports car with tyres as wide as buses rear end...I know ur passionate about the little sports cars that are driven and raced in your country, just us americans and aussies are very loyal and patriotic to our own products, but i find it what ur saying very hard to believe and very dissmissable.
Summary .. the big engined car may be playing numbers games to avoid gear changes, rolling starts etc. The bike engined car usually mates to a light ( or VERY light ) body. It's easier and less stressful to move less weight.
You'll have more especiernce of what's capable on 1/4 mile, I can only go with what's brought to our local track on the few days I go there. But drop the weight by 30% and what would you expect time to be ?

I sometimes come over as a "small I4s are best" person, I'm not.
A V6/8 or 10 is availabel with superb power/weight and they can be tuned in the same way you would a smaller engine and get AWESOME power.
I add my comments on small engines often, because I don't think a lot of people have been exposed to what CAN be done with brains rather than brawn. Course combine them both and it's awesome - Westfield Eight, Cobra, Viper :)

Cheers

[SHAKER]

The power band and rev range of an engine capable of revving very high means you can use the same gear. WHen you DO have to change gear it's quiocker with biek gearboxes ( that's why a lot of transplants take the whoel engine and 'box - as well as it being easier :) )
I suspenct the GT is geared to do 0-60 with no gear change as THATH will rob them of half a second :)


( with a 1 second gap in drag racing you could have a hotdog fries and a coke in that time!). So how can you say that a little motorbike engine in a 800kg-1000kg car can out accelerate a big supercharged 4 valve per cylinder 5.4 litre rear engined sports car with tyres as wide as buses rear end...I know ur passionate about the little sports cars that are driven and raced in your country, just us americans and aussies are very loyal and patriotic to our own products, but i find it what ur saying very hard to believe and very dissmissable.
Summary .. the big engined car may be playing numbers games to avoid gear changes, rolling starts etc. The bike engined car usually mates to a light ( or VERY light ) body. It's easier and less stressful to move less weight.
You'll have more especiernce of what's capable on 1/4 mile, I can only go with what's brought to our local track on the few days I go there. But drop the weight by 30% and what would you expect time to be ?

I sometimes come over as a "small I4s are best" person, I'm not.
A V6/8 or 10 is availabel with superb power/weight and they can be tuned in the same way you would a smaller engine and get AWESOME power.
I add my comments on small engines often, because I don't think a lot of people have been exposed to what CAN be done with brains rather than brawn. Course combine them both and it's awesome - Westfield Eight, Cobra, Viper :)
well its not a case of brains over brawn as what can be done to a smaller capacity engine can be done to a bigger capacity, but when ur talking of a car weighing 500 kgs, ur in formula one territory there, and being a kit cat i find it hard to believe it will pass any kind of safety tests, but thats another issue. Nothing we have here (we have a lot of categories of racing) really highlights the advantage of a high revving four to a bigger cappacity engined car( we do have lil aussie racers which are powered by a 1.0 litre 4 cylinder engine, but they are tubular framed with a fibreglass body, and could hardly be called a car, more liked an oversized gokart). they are very quick indeed but are a very nervous/twitchy around corners and are almost a comical form of racing, if you see them race youd know what i mean. Even at street meets turbo four cylinders are very popular, but they cannot compete on an even level as the torquerier and almost as light weight v8 engined vehicles.( eg lj toranas , ford capris etc.) If you have a look at the 10 ten street cars in australia they are all v8 engined cars, i would of thought if four cylinders where such a match someone would of built one by now that could atleast make the top in the "super street" class of racing.Rotaries are another kettle of fish though as a turbo rotary powered vehicle is the quickest overall street registered car in the country, they print the results of the top ten street cars in street machine magazine in every edition, (for those people in oz)
Cheers[/QUOTE]

[Nildo]

Bike engines certainly do accelerate faster in terms of aggregate revs than other vehicles. Matra is right, it has to do with less inertia to motivate a mass which is lower than that of something larger. However this is relative, in that a V8 revving to only 6k does not need to increase revs as fast as a bike which goes up to 15000. I don't really get why people assume that bike engines which rev high are highly strung, as this isn't the case. As is said, it all comes down to parts size and weight, and in bike they are small and light.

I actually have read a performance time sheet for a GT. It was in Road and Track I believe, and their 0-60 came up in.....3.8! I don't believe for one second that 3.3 is possible, big torque or not, gearchange or not, and here is why. There have been only a few cars to claim a figure of that and faster. The most recent being the Koenigsegg CC. It has a dry weight of around 1150 kg. It produces 655 bhp. And it has about 730 nm of torque. Oh, and one of the most sophisticated drivelines in the world, resulting in a claim of only 11% power loss to the wheels. It has far more power and far less weight than the GT, with an equally broad powerband.

For comparisons sake other cars with similar power to weight to the GT include the 911 GT2, TVR Tuscan S and Lamborghini Gallardo. None of them claim a sub 4, and people wouldn't take them seriously if they did.

[Matra et Alpine]

a V8 revving to only 6k does not need to increase revs as fast as a bike which goes up to 15000.
hmm, somethimg I'd not really considered before.
A biek will pull decent power/torque around about 6 or 7000 revs and rev to 15000. That's a rev range of 8000 revs.
A best V8 will pull from about 2000 ? Guys who're V8 experts, am I right ?
It'll pull to about 8 or 9 at best - again you V8 tuners confirm this ?
So in reality the usable rev RANGE is nearly the same.
The power is jsut coming from a different rev range and gearbox/diff ratios can translate that to same wheel speed.
Now the question is howqwuickly can a bike engine go from 7-15K and a V8 go from 2 to 9 ?

But to continue this line of thought, it doesn't really matter HOW fast it achieves it as with the exception of a motorbike and VERY light rider it's the momentum of the mass of the car that will determinehow quickly it can accelerate.

Comes back to weight of engine and car :)
Territory Egg-Nog and I like cars to be in. low, VERY low :)

[SHAKER]

it all comes down to power to weight....in a normally aspirated engine, its all in the heads(more fuel in and out as quickly and efficiently as possible), even to this day people are still finding more power out of old 70s blocked v8s......featured not long ago in street machine mag was a 400 cubic inch windsor v8 complete with street legal suspension and running thru the exhausts and mufflers, in a 1650 kilo xw falcon in the 9 second bracket....technology is evolving and doesnt stop, that includes v8s, These guys are dedicated racers/engineers and know what theyre doing, I guess its good we got a diverse range of cars bikes and drag racing/circuit racing machines, itll be a pretty boring world without it!

[fpv_gtho]

A best V8 will pull from about 2000 ? Guys who're V8 experts, am I right ?
It'll pull to about 8 or 9 at best - again you V8 tuners confirm this ?
So in reality the usable rev RANGE is nearly the same.
The power is jsut coming from a different rev range and gearbox/diff ratios can translate that to same wheel speed.
Now the question is howqwuickly can a bike engine go from 7-15K and a V8 go from 2 to 9


i'm no V8 tuner by any means, but i do know a couple of figures for the 5.4L V8 in the Falcon. the XR8's 260kw engine has 400nm at 2000rpm (not its peak of course which is 500nm) and people who have tested the engine say its all too easy just to leave the car in top gear and cruise around all day. the FPV GT which has a worked XR8 engine has that same 400nm at 1000rpm but the engine is restricted to a 6K rpm cutout for safety and reliability purposes. all this could be credited to the long stroke of the motor, because several people here have claimed the Gen3 V8 Holden use in the Commodore needs revs to get moving and you cant expect to pull away from the traffic lights in anything like 3rd gear

[plexus]

I want one sooooo bad! 3.3 seconds to 60? Quarter mile in the 11's? From a stock car costing less than $150,000? It doesen't get any better than that :D .

This and the Corvette are why American car's are still side by side with the rest of the world's. There is nothing faster than these two for the money.
Hey You forgot the dodge viper(yea i know it not a v8 but come-on)

[Egg Nog]

Comes back to weight of engine and car :)
Territory Egg-Nog and I like cars to be in. low, VERY low :)

+1, Well put.

Both the mass and the CoG of a car should be kept low :)

[crisis]

A best V8 will pull from about 2000 ? Guys who're V8 experts, am I right ?

I am no V8 expert but I buy in. Its hard to shut me up. My Gen 3 likes revs. Im not sure if its the gearing or what but unless you giv it a rev and slip the clutch it will bog down off the mark. Give it 3.5 - 4 grand and its party time. Rather un V8 like. It will pull pretty well from 2000 but it all happens in the big numbers.

[crisis]

+1, Well put.

Both the mass and the CoG of a car should be kept low :)
It isnt always that simple. Im not sure how you could do a difinitive test. My mate raced on the weekend (350 Chev powere Torana hatchback ) against his normal turbo 4cyl protagonists. All light weight little Datsuns and and rotary Mazdas. It was around 40C in Adelaide and probably hotter out there. The engine management on the turbos shuts them off when it gets too hot , self preservation mode I suppose. The V8 got stinking hot,cold water and ice on the radiator between races but the result was three firsts, including a twilight drag to the finish with the turbo Datsun whose big brother had re ordained the use of forced induction. Love them big fat V8s.

[Matra et Alpine]

It was around 40C in Adelaide and probably hotter out there. The engine management on the turbos shuts them off when it gets too hot , self preservation mode I suppose.
Even over here it's worth chilling the intercooler.
Friend runs his Nissan 300 with water spraying onto the intercooler and lays in ice when he's going for his runs. He's a 1/4 mile freak - see there are SOME of them in Scotland :)
I'd have thought water spray woul d have been almost a necessity in Oz :)


BTW, can you please arrange to keep all the second-rate, so-called "celeberities" over there for that crap TV show !!!!

[Matra et Alpine]

.... My Gen 3 likes revs. Im not sure if its the gearing or what but unless you giv it a rev and slip the clutch it will bog down off the mark. That's lacking in torque :)
Give it 3.5 - 4 grand and its party time. Rather un V8 like. It will pull pretty well from 2000 but it all happens in the big numbers. Out of interest, what does it rev too ?
When does it start to 'wheeze' - ie on the tail end drop of the power curve ??

[crisis]

That's lacking in torque :) Out of interest, what does it rev too ?
When does it start to 'wheeze' - ie on the tail end drop of the power curve ??
Torque 465 Nm / 343.0 ft lbs @ 4400 rpm.
I have never reached the rev limiter which is supposed to be around 6200. I have hade it in the high 5s and it has never felt or sounded like it wants to stop. In fact when you do plant it you have to watch the tacho to know when to stop, it just doesnt seem to run out of puff. It makes my day sometimes.

[crisis]

Even over here it's worth chilling the intercooler.
Friend runs his Nissan 300 with water spraying onto the intercooler and lays in ice when he's going for his runs. He's a 1/4 mile freak - see there are SOME of them in Scotland :)
I'd have thought water spray woul d have been almost a necessity in Oz :)


BTW, can you please arrange to keep all the second-rate, so-called "celeberities" over there for that crap TV show !!!!
I think they run sprays but I doubt under the bonnet it would get time to hit the intercooler. Has it ever been 40+c in Scotland?

[Matra et Alpine]

Torque 465 Nm / 343.0 ft lbs @ 4400 rpm.
I have never reached the rev limiter which is supposed to be around 6200. I have hade it in the high 5s and it has never felt or sounded like it wants to stop. In fact when you do plant it you have to watch the tacho to know when to stop, it just doesnt seem to run out of puff. It makes my day sometimes.
I'd have said that was plenty torque for take-away. It must have a peak and be empty at the bottom-end. Either that or the car ways a couple of tons !!
Yep, revving to 6-6 1/2 is what I'd expect of a stock V8.
MAN, that's a LONG way from revving fast or free :)
A few years back I'd not have thought it was that different, but having ridden bikes with rev limits 12-15K and stood beside a bike rev to 20K, everything sounds really slow now :)

[Matra et Alpine]

I think they run sprays but I doubt under the bonnet it would get time to hit the intercooler. Has it ever been 40+c in Scotland?
He sprays directlyonto the intercooler, tells me if I do it to mine, I'll get an extra boost. I'm not convinced, but he's tested it out on rolling road.

SWINE !
OK, I'm sitting in the snowfall at this moment and it's cold ( again all relative, I spent time in Edmonton, Canada and THAT was a cold winter :) )

:) 40 degrees Fahrenheit, yea sure, we get that on a good summers day :)

The highest ever in Scotland was in the borders, 100 miles south and it was 32 C !!

[crisis]

Either that or the car ways a couple of tons !!
Its a big sedan. Not your type of thing Id imagine. Something like this.

[Egg Nog]

It isnt always that simple. Im not sure how you could do a difinitive test. My mate raced on the weekend (350 Chev powere Torana hatchback ) against his normal turbo 4cyl protagonists. All light weight little Datsuns and and rotary Mazdas. It was around 40C in Adelaide and probably hotter out there. The engine management on the turbos shuts them off when it gets too hot , self preservation mode I suppose. The V8 got stinking hot,cold water and ice on the radiator between races but the result was three firsts, including a twilight drag to the finish with the turbo Datsun whose big brother had re ordained the use of forced induction. Love them big fat V8s.

I seemed to have missed what you're trying to prove to me ;)

All I said was that my preferences dictate that weight and CoG should be kept low. I said nothing about any particular cars/engines in any form of competition, or which other cars they could/couldn't beat.

[crisis]

I seemed to have missed what you're trying to prove to me ;)

All I said was that my preferences dictate that weight and CoG should be kept low. I said nothing about any particular cars/engines in any form of competition, or which other cars they could/couldn't beat.
Probably should not have included your quote. My point (which seems rather blunt now) is that lighter cars are not always better in competition. There was some reference to this subject in this thread somewhere. In competition like my mate races where you have a wide variety of cars and engines it gives you an opportunity to see how V8s shape up against turbo 4s etc. My mate has a few problems with the turbos and rotaries but has slowly developed his car to be a leader. It is probably the heaviest and most powerful but is compromised by brakes and control tyres.

[fpv_gtho]

Torque 465 Nm / 343.0 ft lbs @ 4400 rpm.
I have never reached the rev limiter which is supposed to be around 6200. I have hade it in the high 5s and it has never felt or sounded like it wants to stop. In fact when you do plant it you have to watch the tacho to know when to stop, it just doesnt seem to run out of puff. It makes my day sometimes.


i thought the standard Gen3's revved to 6500rpm, but i could be wrong. i know for sure though that the C4B goes to 6600rpm.

[SHAKER]

Official gt and r8 horsepower and facts
HSV R8, 5.7 litre v8, 16 valve, 285kw@5800 rpm, 510nm@4800 rpm, 10.1 comp, 99 x 92 bore and stroke, 1696 kgs,5.95kg/kw, 50 kw per litre, six speed man, 1-100 kph 5.36 sec, 1/4 mile 13.56@ 172.3 kph.Price:$69,150
FPV GT, 5.4 DOHC 32 Valve v8, 290kw@5500rpm,520nm@4500rpm, 10.5:1 comp, 90.2 x 105.8, 1835kg(way to heavy in my opinion) 6.33kg/kw, 53.7 kw/litre, five speed man, 0-100 kph 5.83, 1/4 mile [email protected] kph.Price:$59,850
Some facts on the R8, Porsches boxter S is off the pace with 5.48 and 13.70.BMWs M3 cant match the r8 with 5.38 and 13.59 and Astons Martins 5.9 litre v12 DB7 GT pulls 5.51 and 13.74.To go much quicker then the r8 your looking at big dollar Porsches, Ferraris,Vipers AMG tweaked Mercs, and Lambos.Only 2 sub HUNDRED grand cars cars will put the r8 in its place, Mitsys 206KW Evo uses all of its claw grip to run 5.32 and 13.3 and the other car is the R8s big brother, The GTS with 5.24 and 13.36 1/4 mile.Some comments on the GT: When it comes to turning into a corner the GT excels, It moves around more on its suspension, but not to its detriment.The chassis is so alive and reactive, with sharp turn in that can be graduated into mild understeer, or thrown into predictable oversteer. Its 18 inch Dunlops may not offer the outright grip of HSVs 19 inch Pirellis, but they dont need to, the chassis makes better use of its absorbent suspension to put less stress on the rubber with similair corner speed. Jumping from the HSV To the GT, theres the sharpness and rack speed the Clubbie cant equal.The larger HSV also needs a bit more rowing to get the front end turned, buts thats mainly because of a handling nature that still induces understeer on turn in.The grip of the Pirellis mask it, the scrub factors still there.By mid corner its neautral then well balanced, as the rear treads can either power down or blaze up depending on throttle agression.
these are just some of the facts and comments that ive quoted from Modern Motor magazine "November 2003 issue".

[SHAKER]

Heres a pic of the FPV and HSV that i found from each respective companies website.....Aussie Cars are pretty cool! hehe

[fpv_gtho]

heres a personal favourite of mine:

[SHAKER]

hehe those quad exhausts look sick. I like the car better in black paint than orange, although it does stand out a little more in orange...cant wait to see one!

[fpv_gtho]

well the good thing about it is, its not just dual tips on each pipe, its quad pipe from the rear mufflers back. surprisingly though, herrod claims that his single 3.5 inch pipe i think it is is more effective than his dual 2.5 inch. the latter is installed on the HP320 though

[SHAKER]

well that doesnt suprise me to much as when i was 17 i had a 351 gxl fairmont with a single 2.5 inch system, desperate for a better note i got some twin 2.5 pipes put on with superturbo mufflers, resulting in a lack of power, but the noise made up more than enough for the slight loss of power!

[fpv_gtho]

i think combining exhaust gases from both banks allows for more flow, whilst splitting them allows individual tuning of each bank providing a better sound. put them both together i guess and you got a dual system with a cross-over pipe

[fpv_gtho]

when i was 17 i had a 351 gxl fairmont with a single 2.5 inch system


you may already know this, being an XC owner, but the GXL and GS could basically be optioned up as a GT. deep in the options there was the GT performance pack that added the 4bbl 351C with dual exhaust and big carb, but i dunno if it was the RPO83 750cfm, HO780cfm carb or like just a 650cfm or something, but couple with the 4 speed manual you had an XC GT, only lacking in name

[SHAKER]

Basically the XC GXL Fairmont was a replacement for the GT as it was axed in the previous XB series. The only difference to the GT was that it was available with a 6cyl , 4.9 litre v8 or 5.8 litre v8. They all had power steering and 4 wheel discs and bonnet scoops and other options that a GT would of had. The GXL was a fantastic car as it was more refined than the XB and it had a nicer interior and dash set up and it was a delight to drive, I still keep my eyes out for them but i dont think i would buy one as they are old now, and probarbly the XE ESP would be a better buy, but once again, they are getting old now too. As for the carby the v8s came out with "4 barrel carter " carby which was a crappy carb and almost all of them were replaced by holleys,(thats the first thing i changed on my car). By the way im applying for a loan to buy my brothers VR Clubsport as its in immaculate condition and hes going to sell it to me cheap, im sort of divided whether to buy it or not, as i really want a BA xr8 but theres no way i can afford one.........It is a wicked car, the only thing i hate about it is the crappy 6 cylinder brakes its got, ill have to upgrade them, as they feel very dodgy when applied in normal driving conditions, let alone when they get hot. The brakes on my XYGT where a hell of a lot better than the ones on the clubbie!

[fpv_gtho]

you only got the standard 351 though unless you ticked the box for the GT performance package, which only gave you about 160kw on the new system that i think ford introduced between XB and XC. thats something i think alot of people overlook when they look at when ford had to regulate the V8's for emissions, the XB GT dropped from 226kw to about 160kw in the XC Cobra through emissions regulations and not measuring the power with everything possible stripped off the engine as what was done with the XB GT