Final FPV sparks kilowatt controversy (GT-F vs GTS)

[GASWAGON]

For god's sakes the GT-F is 1.2 litres less capacity and it is still ahead of the GTS in kw's.

The proof is in the pudding!

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by EF_6

For god's sakes the GT-F is 1.2 litres less capacity and it is still ahead of the GTS in kw's.

The proof is in the pudding!

Exactly... it's not about which car makes more power at the wheels but these "dyno battles" are just proof that a much smaller high-tech V8 can match and sometimes beat a larger pushrod layout.

We should all remember that even though both motors have the same size blower, the LSA is also intercooled yet still stuggles to make over 330rwkw while the non-intercooled Coyote 5.0 is averaging this figure ! (311-348rwkw)

[BLU-220]

wait until Chris from Bluepower does his magic on one of the GT-F's then we'll see if the autotechinque's GTS can catch it

cheers Dean

[PepeLePew]

Both threads tend to end in the 'who cares its just a number' war. Only reason I'm checking into both is its about time there was less tolerance for the publication of crap. THATS INTERESTING beyond arguments about numbers. Should it prove out that this 'independent' shop are correct, the majority of tuners around the country will need some attention as apparently their claims are wrong and Autotechnique is the source of truth

Though hey if all those unscrupulous tuners when tuning fudge, don't they LOWER the start figure to exaggerate their results not pump it up? A lot of pre/post tune numbers out there that agree with the expected average of the 335....

Lets forget the us vs them numbers. Lets see whats happened if this proves out the initial figures were wrong. And we can all run around the block naked if they're correct.

[burnz]

if both cars are cherished, then they wont see much over 3,000 RPM.
unless burnouts, donuts, circle work, linelockers...are the order of the day..

dyno's are one thing, but weight shifted is another.. 4250lbs vs 4400lbs...terminal speed, that's the pudding.. in outright BHP.

track weapons, well that's car setup.

[HULK_I6T]

Im not sure why the appeal?

Ford say under certain conditions the transient overboost will give upto 15% more power..

Maybe the 311rwkw is without overboost and the 348rwkw is with overboost. If ford dont want to guarantee the overboost function then why get upset with the varied output?

[_Ben]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Im not sure why the appeal?

Ford say under certain conditions the transient overboost will give upto 15% more power..

Maybe the 311rwkw is without overboost and the 348rwkw is with overboost. If ford dont want to guarantee the overboost function then why get upset with the varied output?

The power output must be stated for the power it can achieve at any time - 351 engine KW (though it is more, anyway). It can still reach 404KW under most conditions, just for shorter bursts (I read on another thread).

[XBGTFGGTP]

Originally Posted by burnz

if both cars are cherished, then they wont see much over 3,000 RPM.
unless burnouts, donuts, circle work, linelockers...are the order of the day..

dyno's are one thing, but weight shifted is another.. 4250lbs vs 4400lbs...terminal speed, that's the pudding.. in outright BHP.

track weapons, well that's car setup.

Believe me mine will see the redline when it's driven. Can't wait to drive it in anger with the manual as I always missed having full control with the ZF. It's a good trans but when you right into it you can't beat that total control a gearbox offers.

[Iggle Piggle]

deleted

[Bonn]

It's a proud day for Ford in general, and GT-F owners in particular!

[tweeked]

I went to a Dyno Day at Autotechnique a few years back. On my regular tune in Dyno Day conditions my car has mad between 327 and 335 rwkw (5 different Dyno Dynamics dynos)

At Autotechnique it made 307 on their Mainline Dyno.

Yes they tune both Holdens and Fords, but they are the "Herrods" of HP Tuners for the GM product. They are firmly on the Red side.

One of the best looking workshops I have ever seen by the way............

[HEMI POWER]

Originally Posted by tweeked

I went to a Dyno Day at Autotechnique a few years back. On my regular tune in Dyno Day conditions my car has mad between 327 and 335 rwkw (5 different Dyno Dynamics dynos)

At Autotechnique it made 307 on their Mainline Dyno.

Yes they tune both Holdens and Fords, but they are the "Herrods" of HP Tuners for the GM product. They are firmly on the Red side.

One of the best looking workshops I have ever seen by the way............

Pity they cant tune a 5.4 tho

[HULK_I6T]

The GT-F seems to be one heck of a great ride. (As is the regular GT335)

[Syndrome]

The sad thing is the full spec Miami was never released. Would have belted the HSV for six (and then some).

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

The sad thing is the full spec Miami was never released. Would have belted the HSV for six (and then some).

What was the full spec Miami?

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

What was the full spec Miami?

The 450kw intercooled version Pro Drive developed.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

The sad thing is the full spec Miami was never released. Would have belted the HSV for six (and then some).

Some people want their cars to last longer than a few months. I'll take that over bragging rights when spending that sort of coin.

[graphicgoose]

Originally Posted by b0son

Some people want their cars to last longer than a few months. I'll take that over bragging rights when spending that sort of coin.

Well this is what someone with a bit more insight (works for Ford) had to say about it in another thread:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The intercooled motor was developed alongside the 315 and 335, it was ready to go into the GT-H when it had passed durability testing, but it never got past that stage.

Testing showed the stress was too great along the area where the firewall meets the floor, an area that was already beefed up for the 335. It required further strengthening, which then required it to be re-crash tested, and that's where it all went tit's up, as Prodrive were expecting Ford to do it, whereas Ford were expecting Prodrive to do it. Many arguments ensued. Ended up in the too hard basket. The crash testing is not cheap, somewhere in the millions of dollars.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Fords testing goes way beyond where people think it does.

Problems may never show on tuned Miami's but who knows, after 200,000 km's of hard work they may be a bit looser in the body than a standard one, but that is to expected of any car making big torque.

The floors won't suddenly fall out of them like Fast and Furious cause they are running too much noooossss

But Ford probably have global durability standards for things like torsional rigidity etc. It may only be a minor change but it's enough for it to fail that test and require modification.

I don't think it's a concern for highly modified Coyote owners.

[40RDT]

With the way FPV rates their motors that would have been around 450rwkw, I dont think the rest of the car would have liked it though haha, would have been a good send off for FPV's last model

Would have been interesting to see what HSV would have done to counter that

[graphicgoose]

Yeah apparently the firewall, which they'd already beefed up for the Miami, started to part ways with the floor hahaha. The deemed it to be unwarrantable at which point.

[Falcman0o7]

I have not bought a wheels mag for years.
They are all holden and just like holden they talk BS.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Falcman0o7

I have not bought a wheels mag for years.
They are all holden and just like holden they talk BS.

Don't forget it was one of their journalists (Jesse Taylor) who got the best 4.5 to 100 and 12.6 sec 400 metre time out of an RSPEC.

[blownvn]

I guess it's time for me to weigh in. I've read most of the comments and had a good laugh at some, especially at the conspiracy theory people who think that this is some kind of attack on Ford Australia.

Here's how all this came about. As most know I work for Street Machine and I've been a member here for years. I play with Fords, Holden and Chryslers, if it was said that I favoured any brand it would be Chrysler but I'll play with anything.

At Street Machine we share office space with Wheels, Motor and Unique cars, and I sit on the other side of the cubicle wall from the Wheels guys and the subject of the dynoing the GTS and GT-F came up. The Wheels guys asked me to recommend a workshop and I said VCM Performance.

Why? Because's it's a roomy and tidy workshop with an easy to access dyno and they're friendly guys. I've filmed there before and it looks good on video. No other reason.

Wheels were only going to get dyno figures for print but I suggested we film the whole thing and my boss Simon suggested I film it and we share the footage for a simultaneous release across Wheels and Street Machine because we have two different audiences.

So the guys rang Mario at VCM on my advice and he was happy to do the test there. We drove the cars there and because the Ford has no intercooler we decided to put it on the rollers second to give it some cool down time.

There was no fanfare, no conspiracy, just roll the cars on, test, and roll them off and film the results. Here's the Street Machine video in case you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tME5so6VbqU

As you see the GTS made 330rwkw on it's first run and it made 327rwkw on it's second run. Now I've filmed ALOT of dyno runs in the past and I saw nothing funky at all, and generally, in my experience, we'll see that the HP at the rear wheels will roughly equal the KW at the flywheel +/-5%. So when the GTS made 442.5rwhp on a claimed 430kw I didn't think that was unusual.

Then we ran the GT-F on the rollers. No one expected the GT-F to beat the GTS but we felt that if it got within 20kw that would be a respectable result given the claimed 351kw. Now we all know about the "transient overboost" (stupid name) which provides up to 404kw. I was at the GT-F launch at You Yangs and I asked the engineers flat out if the car made any more boost under that condition and they admitted that it didn't. It's all in the timing based on intake heat - basically if the intake temps are too high you don't get the full output. It's as simple as that.

Anyway we thought that if it made over 310rwkw or 415rwhp that would be a respectable result. First run was 308.8rwkw and the second run went 304.5rwkw and we knew it was only going to get worse if we kept going, so we let the GT-F cool down in the dyno room for 10mins or so with the dyno fan on full blast. In the true spirit on the dyno test we probably shouldn't have but we wanted to see if the FPV could get over 310rwkw.

After the cool down we ran the car up again at it made the 311.3rwkw figure that everyone seems to have a problem with. So we went with the best figures of both. Maybe we should have averaged the figures, but that wouldn't help the FPV either. But we felt the Ford had performed quite well in the circumstances and having a separation of just 19kw or 25hp at the wheels showed the cars were going to be close in performance.

At this point we decided to wait until Monday the 7th to release the results, which was our first mistake. We should have just gone straight back to the office, edited the footage to suit our respective audiences and let fly.

Then someone gave Ford a heads up on the results and the phone lines between Ford and the Bauer media office basically caught fire. Ford were not happy and to be honest I don't really understand their problem. Yes they didn't make as much as the HSV GTS, but it was a lot closer than anyone who knew dynos thought it would be.

Look at the facts:

1) Both cars were auto
2) Both cars were driven straight to VCM and run as is
3) You can't compare different brand dynos. Every business has their dyno set up differently and there's variation across brands. The only way to make a fair comparison is same day, same dyno
5) Ford has underclaimed the supercharged Miami V8 from Day 1 and this just confuses people
6) The FPV has quad cams, but is only 5-litres and has no intercooler
7) The HSV might be a pushrod V8, but it has 6.2-litres and an intercooler

If Ford/FPV wanted the GT-F to be the big dog of Australian performance they should have put an intercooler in the bloody thing. We all know what a difference that makes to them.

At the launch I asked why with the GT-F being the last GT Falcon and everything that went with that was it only 351kw? They said that 351 was an iconic number and they wanted to honour that, which is fine, but I said 427 is an iconic number for Ford guys as well and it would have put it more in line with the HSV GTS. There was a lot of heming and hawing and foot shuffling because they knew their car didn't have the power of the HSV GTS.

But now they're claiming it makes as much as 351rwkw? Give me a break.

So anyway, as we prepared to release our videos Ford threatened and pleaded with Wheels for the results to not be published (we didn't field any calls form Ford at Street Machine, maybe because Simon was in QLD). This went right to the top of the food chain at Ford. I can't say too much about all that, but there were at least a dozen calls back and forth by my reckoning.

Ford claimed there must have been something wrong with GT-F-014 to make such a "low figure" and they claimed they tested it themselves and claimed they made somewhere close to 351rwkw. We at Street Machine were happy they we had given both cars a fair go and wanted to go ahead with the video Monday night, but Wheels wanted to hold back because there was more talks planned with Ford. So we decided to sit on it.

Talks between Wheels and Ford continued on Tuesday morning and then about midday Motoring.com.au went to print with "their results" (suspiciously convenient) which we've all seen. So we hit the go button with both our videos. Wheels went first, and we were a couple hours later with ours because no-one was in the SM office to click go.

Naturally the results differ because different dyno and different cars, but both results used the same GT-F-014 and somehow they managed 348rwkw where we managed 311rwkw, which is a huge difference in anyone's language.

Why the difference? Well look at the torque figures that Motoring.com.au are claiming. They claim 721Nm for the GT-F when we all know that Ford have torque limited the GT-F (and all the previous Miami powered cars) to 570Nm. Did Ford turn the torque protection off in the software before handing the car to Motoring.com.au for their "independent test"? Who knows?

It makes you wonder.

At the end of the day I have no dog in this fight, we only test Fords and Holdens occasionally at SM, but what started a simple, "Hey, what do you reckon they make on the dyno?" turned into a massive **** fight.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, without bringing brand loyalty into it, will an unintercooled 5-litre make as much power as an intercooled 6.2-litre? If Ford wanted to win this battle they just had to build the right car (ie: intercooled with 400kw+), we all wanted to see it.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Why the difference? Well look at the torque figures that Motoring.com.au are claiming. They claim 721Nm for the GT-F when we all know that Ford have torque limited the GT-F (and all the previous Miami powered cars) to 570Nm.

Sorry if I missed it - what torque figure did the GT-F get in the 311rwkw run?

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

Sorry if I missed it - what torque figure did the GT-F get in the 311rwkw run?

I don't print chassis dyno torque figures because I don't trust them, because some try to show flywheel figures while others use tractive effort. When it comes to chassis dynos I think it's best to stick with HP or KW.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Why the difference? Well look at the torque figures that Motoring.com.au are claiming. They claim 721Nm for the GT-F when we all know that Ford have torque limited the GT-F (and all the previous Miami powered cars) to 570Nm. Did Ford turn the torque protection off in the software before handing the car to Motoring.com.au for their "independent test"? Who knows?

Originally Posted by blownvn

I don't print chassis dyno torque figures because I don't trust them

so you don't take notice of the figures? or only when it suits your argument against something?

i'm confused.

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by prydey

so you don't take notice of the figures? or only when it suits your argument against something?

i'm confused.

I'm not the one that printed the figures, Motoring.com.au did. They're the one claiming 348rwkw and 721Nm.

I'm saying I reckon it's bullshit.

But if you want to have this argument then fine. Look at our dyno video. In the top left hand corner you will see a torque figure that climbs with the dyno graph. It says the torque stays around the 570Nm mark (+/- a couple Nm) for the whole run.

Motoring.com.au are claiming 150Nm more. That's a massive difference. how does a car limited to 570Nm via its factory tune make 721Nm?

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by blownvn

I'm not the one that printed the figures, Motoring.com.au did. They're the one claiming 348rwkw and 721Nm.

I'm saying I reckon it's bullshit.

But if you want to have this argument then fine. Look at our dyno video. In the top left hand corner you will see a torque figure that climbs with the dyno graph. It says the torque stays around the 570Nm mark (+/- a couple Nm) for the whole run.

Motoring.com.au are claiming 150Nm more. That's a massive difference. how does a car limited to 570Nm via its factory tune make 721Nm?

Here's a question for you then if the gt only make's a max of 570nm then why when they released the S/C 5.0 did fpv upgrade the zf with "New 7 plate clutch pack and 4 planet planetary gearset for improved torque capacity" when the old one was rated for 600nm

[2242100]

Originally Posted by blownvn

I guess it's time for me to weigh in. I've read most of the comments and had a good laugh at some, especially at the conspiracy theory people who think that this is some kind of attack on Ford Australia.

Here's how all this came about. As most know I work for Street Machine and I've been a member here for years. I play with Fords, Holden and Chryslers, if it was said that I favoured any brand it would be Chrysler but I'll play with anything.

At Street Machine we share office space with Wheels, Motor and Unique cars, and I sit on the other side of the cubicle wall from the Wheels guys and the subject of the dynoing the GTS and GT-F came up. The Wheels guys asked me to recommend a workshop and I said VCM Performance.

Why? Because's it's a roomy and tidy workshop with an easy to access dyno and they're friendly guys. I've filmed there before and it looks good on video. No other reason.

Wheels were only going to get dyno figures for print but I suggested we film the whole thing and my boss Simon suggested I film it and we share the footage for a simultaneous release across Wheels and Street Machine because we have two different audiences.

So the guys rang Mario at VCM on my advice and he was happy to do the test there. We drove the cars there and because the Ford has no intercooler we decided to put it on the rollers second to give it some cool down time.

There was no fanfare, no conspiracy, just roll the cars on, test, and roll them off and film the results. Here's the Street Machine video in case you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tME5so6VbqU

As you see the GTS made 330rwkw on it's first run and it made 327rwkw on it's second run. Now I've filmed ALOT of dyno runs in the past and I saw nothing funky at all, and generally, in my experience, we'll see that the HP at the rear wheels will roughly equal the KW at the flywheel +/-5%. So when the GTS made 442.5rwhp on a claimed 430kw I didn't think that was unusual.

Then we ran the GT-F on the rollers. No one expected the GT-F to beat the GTS but we felt that if it got within 20kw that would be a respectable result given the claimed 351kw. Now we all know about the "transient overboost" (stupid name) which provides up to 404kw. I was at the GT-F launch at You Yangs and I asked the engineers flat out if the car made any more boost under that condition and they admitted that it didn't. It's all in the timing based on intake heat - basically if the intake temps are too high you don't get the full output. It's as simple as that.

Anyway we thought that if it made over 310rwkw or 415rwhp that would be a respectable result. First run was 308.8rwkw and the second run went 304.5rwkw and we knew it was only going to get worse if we kept going, so we let the GT-F cool down in the dyno room for 10mins or so with the dyno fan on full blast. In the true spirit on the dyno test we probably shouldn't have but we wanted to see if the FPV could get over 310rwkw.

After the cool down we ran the car up again at it made the 311.3rwkw figure that everyone seems to have a problem with. So we went with the best figures of both. Maybe we should have averaged the figures, but that wouldn't help the FPV either. But we felt the Ford had performed quite well in the circumstances and having a separation of just 19kw or 25hp at the wheels showed the cars were going to be close in performance.

At this point we decided to wait until Monday the 7th to release the results, which was our first mistake. We should have just gone straight back to the office, edited the footage to suit our respective audiences and let fly.

Then someone gave Ford a heads up on the results and the phone lines between Ford and the Bauer media office basically caught fire. Ford were not happy and to be honest I don't really understand their problem. Yes they didn't make as much as the HSV GTS, but it was a lot closer than anyone who knew dynos thought it would be.

Look at the facts:

1) Both cars were auto
2) Both cars were driven straight to VCM and run as is
3) You can't compare different brand dynos. Every business has their dyno set up differently and there's variation across brands. The only way to make a fair comparison is same day, same dyno
5) Ford has underclaimed the supercharged Miami V8 from Day 1 and this just confuses people
6) The FPV has quad cams, but is only 5-litres and has no intercooler
7) The HSV might be a pushrod V8, but it has 6.2-litres and an intercooler

If Ford/FPV wanted the GT-F to be the big dog of Australian performance they should have put an intercooler in the bloody thing. We all know what a difference that makes to them.

At the launch I asked why with the GT-F being the last GT Falcon and everything that went with that was it only 351kw? They said that 351 was an iconic number and they wanted to honour that, which is fine, but I said 427 is an iconic number for Ford guys as well and it would have put it more in line with the HSV GTS. There was a lot of heming and hawing and foot shuffling because they knew their car didn't have the power of the HSV GTS.

But now they're claiming it makes as much as 351rwkw? Give me a break.

So anyway, as we prepared to release our videos Ford threatened and pleaded with Wheels for the results to not be published (we didn't field any calls form Ford at Street Machine, maybe because Simon was in QLD). This went right to the top of the food chain at Ford. I can't say too much about all that, but there were at least a dozen calls back and forth by my reckoning.

Ford claimed there must have been something wrong with GT-F-014 to make such a "low figure" and they claimed they tested it themselves and claimed they made somewhere close to 351rwkw. We at Street Machine were happy they we had given both cars a fair go and wanted to go ahead with the video Monday night, but Wheels wanted to hold back because there was more talks planned with Ford. So we decided to sit on it.

Talks between Wheels and Ford continued on Tuesday morning and then about midday Motoring.com.au went to print with "their results" (suspiciously convenient) which we've all seen. So we hit the go button with both our videos. Wheels went first, and we were a couple hours later with ours because no-one was in the SM office to click go.

Naturally the results differ because different dyno and different cars, but both results used the same GT-F-014 and somehow they managed 348rwkw where we managed 311rwkw, which is a huge difference in anyone's language.

Why the difference? Well look at the torque figures that Motoring.com.au are claiming. They claim 721Nm for the GT-F when we all know that Ford have torque limited the GT-F (and all the previous Miami powered cars) to 570Nm. Did Ford turn the torque protection off in the software before handing the car to Motoring.com.au for their "independent test"? Who knows?

It makes you wonder.

At the end of the day I have no dog in this fight, we only test Fords and Holdens occasionally at SM, but what started a simple, "Hey, what do you reckon they make on the dyno?" turned into a massive **** fight.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, without bringing brand loyalty into it, will an unintercooled 5-litre make as much power as an intercooled 6.2-litre? If Ford wanted to win this battle they just had to build the right car (ie: intercooled with 400kw+), we all wanted to see it.

Hi Blownvn
Were the cars taken to their cutout revs, if so then I think your Dyno numbers are just about spot on.
I understand that Dyno Dynamics say that a car like a Commodore loses about 50 kW between the engine and the wheels and yet we normally see RWKW numbers that are a lot more than 50 kW lower than manufacturers claimed flywheel numbers.
Why so?
Well, IMO it mainly comes down to tyre slip, and keep in mind that every percent of speed lost is a percent of power lost. So if both of these cars reached their rev limits, then on the maximum gear speed data that I've seen, plus what I can glean from the videos, I believe that the HSV was probably making around 372.3 kW at the treads and the GTF around 352.1 kW.
Add 50 kW to each car and it's 422.3 FWKW for the HSV and 402.1 for the GTF at the flywheel. Actually I suspect the loss figures would probably be a bit higher for these heavy hitters, so let's say 55 kW.

At that rate it's 427.3 kW at the flywheel for the HSV and 407.1 for the GTF.

On the slip issue, I've noted that some Dyno operators don't seem to want to believe that cars can still get tyre slip when they are well tied down. Personally I've found that when my cars engines have been taken to their cutouts and the rollers haven't reached the speeds that the wheels have been turning at, then some operators will say that the discrepancy must be caused by distortion in the tyres and hence their would be no power loss.

However it's worth keeping in mind that the distance around the outside of a tyre can fractionally increase when it's on a roller (I've checked that out myself with an old tapemeasure) so that works in the opposite direction and can hide a fraction of the tyre slip.
I've commonly seen 10% or more speed missing on my cars Dyno sheets.

If Ford are tying their cars down properly and they have very good rollers (better than most) then I can see how they can get around 351 kW out of their cars.

Personally I'm thinking that no one is fudging, the only culprit is tyre slip.

[hootar]

2242100 im not doubting you, sounds fair, but If that's so then can an you work out that again based on the figures motoring got.

And everyone has stated that the GTS has way sticker tyres then the Dunlops on the GTF. So does that mean that the GTF has more tyre slip hence it's making more rwkw then your calculations??