Fg 1/4 Mile Estimations

[FG-XR6T]

TMAC450,

Do you work for a car Manufacturer? Do you work for MOTOR or WHEELS Magazine? if yes then specify but if not then how can you be so curtain that figures we are given from these resources are so full of sh*t? As FLUKEY said, its a guide, and these men who do pull of times are better drivers than the average bloke so we probably couldnt drive as quick as them anyway.

I understand bullsh*t does walk, but let me understand this. Are you sayin that it is impossible that MOTOR ran a 13.4 in a VE SS? You also say that MOTOR claimed the SS had more power than the HSV'S? that's BULLsh*t once again. GTS and R8 pulled of 299kw and 302kw at flywheel. SS pulled of 285kw and 291kw at flywheel. Although figures are close HSV is still ahead, and its understandable. HSV use an LS2. SS use a L98. different 6.0litre motors.

My best friends dad has a 6 speed manual SS. And if you wanna get technical I cant tell you what time he runs, but he has beat A VE R8 and has be nose to nose with an F6? Maybe not a 13.4 ( he didnt have to to time it, but must of been close).

At the end of the car magazineas, car companys all talk sh*t but who doesnt? A VE SS may not be able to run a consitant 13.4 as a F6 may not run a consitant 13.4 but it is possible and for you to say its crap just makes you sound like a dick head.

[FPV TRANNY]

How did motor mag come up with those power outputs.What did they have an engine dyno?

I will back up some of TMACS claims with th VZ series commys being claimed to have run 13 sec passes by magazines but when I raced my car down the track,(WHICH WAS MANY TIMES)I failed th see 1 stock SS run under a 14 sec pass.Even VZ clubbies running 14.5. and they were a mix of autos.

I do agree that Expensive Daewoo has been the flavour of the month for these car mags but lets hope the FG F6 cleans up.

OH and congrats to the FG XR6T for the low 13.

[FG-XR6T]

FPV,

They had an engine Dyno. "MOTOR August 2007 edition". Its an argument that wont won because its an opinion which everyone has a different one. I do belive though that one xr6t may struggle to get a 14 flat, where another one will get a easy 13.5, each car is different and ruling out 1 time because its to fast is the same as ruling out another time because its to slow? Imagine 1 magazine printed FG XR6T runs a 13 flat. Then another writes FG XR6T runs a 14.5? Which mag is full of sh*t the 1 giving the FG a bad time or the 1 givin it a great time? Or could it be that cars, drivers and conditions differ each day?

[Venom XR6]

FPV,

They had an engine Dyno. "MOTOR August 2007 edition".

Brrrttttt. Wrong. They had a chassis dyno. They got rwkw figures and then calculated driveline losses to come up with what they reckon the engines power would be, which is unaccurate.

Do you seriously think they removed the motors and ran them on an engine dyno.

Holdens published times are always a joke. Remember when HSV released the VE GTS and promised any journo who could match their 0-100 times a bottle of Grange Hermitage. That bottles still sitting in their Clayton HQ gathering dust because no one could get near it, because the times were so full of crap.

[FG-XR6T]

HSV's are sh*t all round.. its sad the VE SS can beat them... Im sorry I didnt read the whole entire artcle again in the magazine... next time ill try to make sure im emphasise the rite type of dyno used and let you know. Thanks for catchin me out on that 1.... its good your on the ball.

[FG-XR6T]

and going from the rwkw which was done on a (DYNA DYNAMICS ALL WHEEL DRIVE CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER which provides both rwkw and a flywheel figure using tricky calculation to compenstae for drivline losses" the HSV'S were still ahead in power of the SS's which was the point I was tryin to make.

[Flukey]

Anyway......

The SS posted times of 5.2 and 13.4 for the 0-100 and 0-400m respectively during BYFB.

Fingers crossed the T is quicker.

[Desert_phantom]

Brrrttttt. Wrong. They had a chassis dyno. They got rwkw figures and then calculated driveline losses to come up with what they reckon the engines power would be, which is unaccurate.

Do you seriously think they removed the motors and ran them on an engine dyno.

Holdens published times are always a joke. Remember when HSV released the VE GTS and promised any journo who could match their 0-100 times a bottle of Grange Hermitage. That bottles still sitting in their Clayton HQ gathering dust because no one could get near it, because the times were so full of crap.

lol lets not get too serious! The main thing is...the F6 is quicker!! and maybe even the xr6t, with the XT not far behind hahah.

[ALF05T]

Do you think Expensive Daewoo tweaked the SS which pulled the high rear wheel kw figure?

The typhoon which was also tested was almost spot on with the FPV claimed power.

The SS had almost 20rwkw more than the phoon and was only a beez dick quicker down the quarter.

A bit biased I think! Test an SS with 270fkw against a phoon and then see what the results are at least they would have been fair!

My 2 cents.

[tmac450]

TMAC450,

Do you work for a car Manufacturer? Do you work for MOTOR or WHEELS Magazine? if yes then specify but if not then how can you be so curtain that figures we are given from these resources are so full of sh*t? As FLUKEY said, its a guide, and these men who do pull of times are better drivers than the average bloke so we probably couldnt drive as quick as them anyway.

I understand bullsh*t does walk, but let me understand this. Are you sayin that it is impossible that MOTOR ran a 13.4 in a VE SS? You also say that MOTOR claimed the SS had more power than the HSV'S? that's BULLsh*t once again. GTS and R8 pulled of 299kw and 302kw at flywheel. SS pulled of 285kw and 291kw at flywheel. Although figures are close HSV is still ahead, and its understandable. HSV use an LS2. SS use a L98. different 6.0litre motors.

My best friends dad has a 6 speed manual SS. And if you wanna get technical I cant tell you what time he runs, but he has beat A VE R8 and has be nose to nose with an F6? Maybe not a 13.4 ( he didnt have to to time it, but must of been close).

At the end of the car magazineas, car companys all talk sh*t but who doesnt? A VE SS may not be able to run a consitant 13.4 as a F6 may not run a consitant 13.4 but it is possible and for you to say its crap just makes you sound like a dick head.

I, and it would appear most reasonably sane people, capable of indipendent thought, simply don't trust the magazine figures.

In all of your supposed justifications, you have failed to acknowledge that the Expensive Daewoo times are mostly always quicker than those acheived in the real world. The Ford times on the other hand are the oposite. You can't escape that fact. Also, the calculaiton methods used by Motor for the dyno figures were flawed at best. I don't have the figures with me, but from memory, the ratios between rear wheel power and the flywheel calculations were not consistant between the same brand cars with identical drivetrains.

I'll say it again, incase you have only been reading part of my posts (as your comments would suggest) the VE's are quick, so are the Fords, but the only real way to guage their performance is through your own judgement. Quoting the magazine journo's excuse book of different drivers, driving conditions is crap, look back at your precious mags and you'll find that these different conditions etc, only seam to have a bearing on one brand. As far as driving skill goes, I'm sorry, but if they can't make a 302kw GT run a faster quarter than an XR8, then their skill aren't worth jack. My argument has never been about which car is quicker, it is about the unreliability of 'Published' magazine performance figures.