Gen F HSV GTS Review, 0-100 in 4.4s

[XR Martin]

GTS is the only manual too, so there was probably a gear change just before 200kmh

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

GTS is the only manual too, so there was probably a gear change just before 200kmh

Disappointing they didn't test an auto because it seems there's something of a body of evidence building up that auto's are quicker.

Originally Posted by Chopped

From Motor mag Feb 2014

0-100 kph
3.93 Audi RS6 3.65
4.69 HSV GTS 4.15 (Auto)
4.91 Merc E63S 4.23
4.95 Jag XFR-S 4.60 (regular Jaguar XFR with latest ZF8 speed auto)
4.95 BMW M5 4.35

0-200 kph
12.80 Audi RS6
13.22 BMW M5
13.37 Merc E63S
14.65 Jag XFR-S
14.96 HSV GTS

80 - 120 kph
1.97 BMW M5 2.29
2.19 Audi RS6 2.25
2.31 Merc E63S 2.3, (same)
2.51 Jag XFR-S 2.51, (same), regular Jaguar XFR with ZF8
2.60 HSV GTS 2.28

1/4 Mile
11.89 Audi RS6
12.72 Merc E63S
12.73 HSV GTS
12.87 BMW M5
12.90 Jag XFR-S

Price
$ 97,480 HSV GTS
$230,690 BMW M5
$232,865 Jag XFR-S
$249,545 Merc E63S
$253,040 Audi RS6

For a February publication all this testing must have been done in extreme summer heat.

To give you guys an insight into how much quicker the cars can be in cooler conditions I have posted comparitive figures from N.Z. Autocar's testing where data is avaiable.

Not saying which magazine is right or wrong...just that different cooler conditions and in the case of the GTS, an auto gearbox as well, can make a material difference.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Disappointing they didn't test an auto because it seems there's something of a body of evidence building up that auto's are quicker.




For a February publication all this testing must have been done in extreme summer heat.

To give you guys an insight into how much quicker the cars can be in cooler conditions I have posted comparitive figures from N.Z. Autocar's testing where data is avaiable.

Not saying which magazine is right or wrong...just that different cooler conditions and in the case of the GTS, an auto gearbox as well, can make a material difference.

I'd love to see the times that N.Z. Autocar would get for a Jag XFR-S then. If that's the time they got with standard XFR, the XFR-S also fitted with the new 8 speeder should cut all times down by a few 10th's. All things being equal, one would expect the kiwi publication to get better times with all cars, which it appears as though that's the case, but the missing part to the equation is an XFR-S's times that your kiwi publication would do. I suspect that it's bridge the gap between itself and the German trio compared to the Aussie times for some reason.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Cobra

I'd love to see the times that N.Z. Autocar would get for a Jag XFR-S then. If that's the time they got with standard XFR, the XFR-S also fitted with the new 8 speeder should cut all times down by a few 10th's. All things being equal, one would expect the kiwi publication to get better times with all cars, which it appears as though that's the case, but the missing part to the equation is an XFR-S's times that your kiwi publication would do. I suspect that it's bridge the gap between itself and the German trio compared to the Aussie times for some reason.

Perhaps they could get a 4.4 or thereabouts from an XFR-S and perhaps not, its all about traction and torque application in the 0-100 times, things the XFR-S may not do with any meaningful difference to a regular XFR in that speed range, who knows ? Interestingly their best time with the ZF HP28 6 speed gearbox for a regular XFR in testing in 2011 was 4.9 seconds so the new ZF8 shaved 0.3 seconds of that, not too shabby just for a gearbox change !!

Originally Posted by b0son

The only people it polarizes are those who insist on looking at the FPV with rose-coloured glasses. As you say, by almost any objective measure, the FPV is beaten. The GTS is quicker in a straight line, its quicker on a track, its better equipped, its simply a way better package overall. Of course, it comes at a substantial premium.

Why would HSV price it so? Simple, they don't rate the FPV as its competition for this car. They're gunning for those whose bank balance allows them to aim for an M3/C63. They've priced the car above the psychological 6-figure barrier ... that speaks volumes about their confidence in their product.

Meanwhile, FPV are pricing like they're going out of business..... don't hate on HSV for having the balls to build what their customers wanted, ask FPV why they wouldn't do same for theirs. The 5.0 SC V8 is ample evidence they had the capability, yet no GTHO after all these years.

Yeah I've heard the creative marketing propoganda from HSV that we don't rate FPV as our competition many times before. Up until now it was complete B.S. in my opinion...but now carries some validity IMO.

Originally Posted by Cobra

It's funny you mentioned that as I could have sworn that I had read somewhere that the latest E63 AMG was to be AWD just prior to being released, only to find that every publication of the vehicle I had read afterwards stated that it was RWD. I began to question my recollection, and started to believe that I'd been confused with something else. Since I'm too young to have dementia, it's a relief to find out I'm not losing my mind! So that begs the question, why oh why have Mecedes-Benz/AMG shafted the LHD-challenged market?

Something to do with the gearbox or driveline arrangement from memory didn't make 4WD sutiable for RHD, M Benz apoligises and says this will be the last time this happens and then reams us like a wounded bull for an inferior spec'd model. Hmmm, interesting business plan that one...

[timetaker]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

GTS is the only manual too, so there was probably a gear change just before 200kmh

In the Mag.why does it say that the GTS is a 6 speed automatic in the description specs?

[Rodge]

I dunno Trev, I think we might have uncovered a little flaw in the GTS's armour. It seems from an aerodynamic perspective the GTS stops a heck of a lot of air because I just dug out Wheels September 2013 testing where they compared the GTS with the E63S

Quarter Mile
E63S 12.2 seconds @ 195 K.p.h.
GTS 12.8 @ 183 k.p.h.

0-200 k.p.h.
E63 12.7
GTS 15.1

Another 2.3 seconds to put on another 17 k.p.h.

This was also a manual so it would appear there's definitly a gear change required somewhere in the late 180 - late 190 k.p.h. range but aside from that it appears the GTS has pretty awful aerodynamics.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I dunno Trev, I think we might have uncovered a little flaw in the GTS's armour. It seems from an aerodynamic perspective the GTS stops a heck of a lot of air because I just dug out Wheels September 2013 testing where they compared the GTS with the E63S

Quarter Mile
E63S 12.2 seconds @ 195 K.p.h.
GTS 12.8 @ 183 k.p.h.

0-200 k.p.h.
E63 12.7
GTS 15.1

Another 2.3 seconds to put on another 17 k.p.h.

This was also a manual so it would appear there's definitly a gear change required somewhere in the late 180 - late 190 k.p.h. range but aside from that it appears the GTS has pretty awful aerodynamics.

The GTS manual can hit 235kph at the top of 4th gear (observe below)

88/132/181/235/294/374

That's longer gearing than the Merc's 7-speed auto which tops out at 218kph in 4th so I'd blame the slow manual shifts for those 0-200kph times.

[mcnews]

Can't be right Rodge, unless it was the worst gear change ever etc. It can't just hit a wall at 180. 220 or so I would consider, perhaps, but not 180.

[Rodge]

Normally i'd agree with you Trev and from personal experience we both know our cars don't really start getting seriously affected by air until 200 k.p.h. plus so theoretically it shouldn't be any different for the GTS but two different magazines have done the testing showing two very similar results...

The German's spend big money on wind tunnell testing / aerodynamic efficiency and stability testing at German autobahn speeds and you can see it paying big dividends in the 0-200 speeds compared too the GTS and Jaguar XFR-S. Also noticed this in my weekend with the BMW 750i M Sport...rock solid and uncannily stable at 200 k.p.h. (private road testing of course ).

[fgpsi]

Why on earth would they test the manual vs 3 autos ?

[Blue Roo]

I think you could be on the money there Rodge. As you've said the GTS's Aerodynamics are awful, compared to the E63S. It's like comparing a brick to a bullet.

[1TUFFUTE]

Anyone have numbers for the American cars with this engine? That should show weather it's aero or the engine not designed for higher speeds?

And it's funny how you'd expect all these forced induction cars to go slower in Aussie summer heat.....yet the GTS was the only one to go slower(80-120 acceleration times) then the nz cool air times. All the others either matched or beat there times in hotter climate

[smoo]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

And it's funny how you'd expect all these forced induction cars to go slower in Aussie summer heat.....yet the GTS was the only one to go slower(80-120 acceleration times) then the nz cool air times. All the others either matched or beat there times in hotter climate

I don't believe it has anything to do with the climate and forced induction, when I was a young teen I'd buy Wheels, Motor and NZ Autocar and the kiwi rag generally ran quicker times.

As for the GTS 188 to 200 geez I'm pretty sure the 260kw Caprice rental I had did it quicker. Maybe a journo from wheels was driving it

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jqyf1IDH_5Q

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by smoo

I don't believe it has anything to do with the climate and forced induction, when I was a young teen I'd buy Wheels, Motor and NZ Autocar and the kiwi rag generally ran quicker times.

As for the GTS 188 to 200 geez I'm pretty sure the 260kw Caprice rental I had did it quicker. Maybe a journo from wheels was driving it

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jqyf1IDH_5Q

If your right...then everything I ever read/thought about forced induction, cool air,cai,intercoolers and so on is plain wrong
And nz is notoriously cooler then Australia, so I'd suggest that's why since you've been a kid cars have been quicker over there!

[smoo]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

If your right...then everything I ever read/thought about forced induction, cool air,cai,intercoolers and so on is plain wrong
And nz is notoriously cooler then Australia, so I'd suggest that's why since you've been a kid cars have been quicker over there!

Although it was getting off topic, I was referring to where the Kiwi mag would (generally) run quicker times than Motor on all types of vehicles, hence why I don't believe their time difference have anything to do with FI or the weather - for 4-5 months of the year Vic/NSW is in no way significantly hotter than where NZ Autocar is based anyway. Apart from the NZ VF GTS time being an auto and the Motor a manual, maybe the difference did come down to climate. But on all the others test equipment, techniques/methods, road surface and drivers most likely play a bigger part than a few degrees in temp.

[XR Martin]

At 180kmh there is huge amount of wind resistance, so when you back off the throttle at that speed to change into 4th you will lose quite a bit of momentum.
I imagine most people would also take it easy going from the top of third into forth, you wouldnt want to hit second accidently...

[Benny]

If I was doing the test I would have flat shifted 3rd to 4th.

[gaz084]

I had a look at one of these at auto tech last week...impressive car to say the least 390mm rotors on the front 363 on the back,but the best part of it was the console display. It had whole range of maps and gauges,boost,suspension settings electronically controlled like the tein units,g-force reader with a display of the car showing where the g-forces are present. And what you reach wether it be at the track or drag racing.

It also had an accurate reading on what power and tourqe was at what rpm and a maximum overal wich was 400rwkw as it was just tuned 0-400 timer and a whole bunch of other stuff....no more need for gauges mounted on the dash this thing had it all.

[XR Martin]

80-120kmh test isnt floor the throttle at 80kmh and time it until it gets to 120.
Its floor it at 70 or less, wait until it hits 80kmh then start the stopwatch.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

80-120kmh test isnt floor the throttle at 80kmh and time it until it gets to 120.
Its floor it at 70 or less, wait until it hits 80kmh then start the stopwatch.

Maybe N.Z. Autocar test differently, (just stomp on the accelerator at 80 k.p.h.), that might explain their slightly slower times than the Aussie testing.
I can't think of any other reason why N.Z. testing for rolling acceleration would be slower than the Motor magazine testing especailly seeing as we do get a lot cooler weather. e.g. Hight of summer today and it was fine but only 24 degrees in Auckland.

[Cobra]

Holy smokes that Audi is quick! What an an absolute jet! Imagine that engine in a 500kg lighter body, like an R8 for example. It'd be bye bye Nissan GTR/911 Turbo!

[BHDOGS]

yup holden lost the war big time there brand dies in the **** and is discontinued like a piece of trash while the mighty ford badge lives on long and proud with mustang power.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

yup holden lost the war big time there brand dies in the **** and is discontinued like a piece of trash while the mighty ford badge lives on long and proud with mustang power.

Seriously dude - all bullshit and loyalties aside...THERE ARE NO WINNERS!!!!

[BLU-220]

love to see the vf gts line up with an e55 amg and a test for 0-60, 1/4 0-200
just for a laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8fQJFqo3Cw

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by AU2GHIA

love to see the vf gts line up with an e55 amg and a test for 0-60, 1/4 0-200
just for a laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8fQJFqo3Cw

Porn!

[Chopped]

Just getting back to the 180-200kph times

Audi RS6
180 - 10.37
200 - 12.80
2.43 difference

BMW M5
180 - 11.14
200 - 13.22
2.08 difference

HSV GTS
180 - 12.07
200 - 14.96
2.89 difference

Jag XFR-S
180 - 11.86
200 - 14.65
2.79 difference

Merc E63S
180 - 11.14
200 - 13.37
2.23 difference

[BHDOGS]

Nah landau 15-30 thousand is nothing mate chump change totes worth the extra I mean think about the 3 track days u can do a year for that handling which all Holden lovers suddenly care about Now because hsv say they should now coz Of the new diff uleh

[timetaker]

A standard R8 puts out about 240 rwkw The R8 with the HSV performance package puts out about 260+ rwkw.
The R8 with the performance package should be around 290 rwkw?
Nah! I think I'll give it a miss.

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

[XD ESP! XELR8]

Originally Posted by timetaker

A standard R8 puts out about 240 rwkw The R8 with the HSV performance package puts out about 260+ rwkw.
The R8 with the performance package should be around 290 rwkw?
Nah! I think I'll give it a miss.

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

Sorry mate wasn't meant to go of topic..

It would be GTS or nothing for me..

Was just saying how nice the R8 looked, but on the other hand looked weird too..

[fgpsi]

^They're all crap except for the GTS

Wouldn't mind a VF Senator with the LSA in it