Motor Sept 2005 - BFYB - Another FPV failure!

[santoitaliano]

i wanna see a 351 with 4v heads and vct.... technologically advance the legend.....

be nice to see...

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

JEM, we must change our way of thinking my friend, mid corner speed is the name of the game! there are no classes, sizes or catagories, only mid corner speed.
All performance cars are ranked according to how fast they go "mid corner". !
mid corner speed, mid corner speed, mid corner speed, mid corner speed ... : :

Just noticed your sig... that is a crack up.

Now, i have a question for Mickey T and for anybody that is upset by the performance of the Ford/FPV's.

What would you all conclude when realising that a Suzuki Swift can not only rape an FPV but also the Clubsport track weapon around the slower of the corners tested in BFYB (and would probably record a higher speed around turn 9 if it had enough power/speed). How would you feel when you learn that an M5 may be 3km/h slower through turn 9 than the AMG E55 or vice versa??

This thread has gone on way too long and i think people have read far too much into this so called measure of performance, it's quite the contrary, just focusing on this point is NOT proving that total performance doesn't exist. It's great sensationalist journalism.

[t2te50]

*** edited by xa coupe** The t3 has NO RELEVANCE to this discussion.
Just remember that just because an engine hasn't got 32 valves, twin cam technology is necesserilly inferior. For road use where low end power and torque is important the 16 valve unit will be better offering better fuel consumption and driveability eg:LS2.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by JEM

Just noticed your sig... that is a crack up.

Now, i have a question for Mickey T and for anybody that is upset by the performance of the Ford/FPV's.

What would you all conclude when realising that a Suzuki Swift can not only rape an FPV but also the Clubsport track weapon around the slower of the corners tested in BFYB (and would probably record a higher speed around turn 9 if it had enough power/speed). How would you feel when you learn that an M5 may be 3km/h slower through turn 9 than the AMG E55 or vice versa??

This thread has gone on way too long and i think people have read far too much into this so called measure of performance, it's quite the contrary, just focusing on this point is NOT proving that total performance doesn't exist. It's great sensationalist journalism.

Well put it this way, its taken hundreds of hours of testing, thousands of corners rounded, countless comparisons with many "performance" cars in BFYB to come up with this piece of sheer brilliance:
FPV products are NOT performance vehicles and only suck because they lack "mid corner speed"....

Now where did i park the Go-Kart....?

[gtfpv]

MAN I HAVE READ ALL OF THESE POSTS AND 95% OF THEM ARE SHEER AND UTTER CRAP . my point is that MOTOR is biased to FPV and ford. and i do not know why .HSV is not my choice of car . for an overall reason . but would i like to own one F 'OATH. why cause i like them . do i like GT better yes . lets turn the tide here . if FPV produced a 4.99 second GT 0-100KM/H and was 2 tenths faster around those corners. would i be happy yeah . would it be ok for motor to say that HSV 'S cars are now sluggish troublesome problem cars . DEFINATELY NOT . i have news for MOTOR GT 's are not slow. and they don't handle worse than HSV . i state again did motor put SH1TE ON HSV for being slower than STi. no .

[gtfpv]

another point . the typhoon gets bagged as well . for loosing traction . 5.7 to 100km's an hour.how dare FPV .

[Bossxr8]

On some corners on the test the FPV's were actually faster or the same speed as the GTO coupe and the SV8/SS. It was only the one corner that the Fords were slower, so it needs to be put in some perspective.
As mentioned earlier, its sheer physics. A 1800kg car with 245 tyres will have more trouble cornering than a 980kg car with 205 tyres. Even a retard could understand that. Who cars if the Suzuki was faster on one corner if it got smashed at the finish line by xxx amount of seconds.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

On some corners on the test the FPV's were actually faster or the same speed as the GTO coupe and the SV8/SS. It was only the one corner that the Fords were slower, so it needs to be put in some perspective.
As mentioned earlier, its sheer physics. A 1800kg car with 245 tyres will have more trouble cornering than a 980kg car with 205 tyres. Even a retard could understand that. Who cars if the Suzuki was faster on one corner if it got smashed at the finish line by xxx amount of seconds.

But according to Mickey T it is essesntial in the name of safety and evassive manuevering ability that the FPV be as fast as the HSV.

Could somebody point me to the stats that suggest that an FPV wasn't travelling FAST ENOUGH through a corner and inevitably having an accident????
:

It's no use JEM. We still haven't had an answer why there has been no comment from MT regarding how the GT had better "mid-corner speed" than the Coupe 4.

[CSV_LS1]

Originally Posted by JEM

I see the coupe4 had an even slower speed through the corner, yet there is no questioning its ability by MOTOR?? What the hell did HSV even bother with an AWD coupe then?

Originally Posted by RATT

It's no use JEM. We still haven't had an answer why there has been no comment from MT regarding how the GT had better "mid-corner speed" than the Coupe 4.

I think i know why the Coupe`4 was slower in the mid corner. I think it might be because it wasn't there:

[XA-Coupe]

Let's not get all bent up about Motor and their testing. Really, they test all the cars the same way on the same day and use the same criteria. It's a magazine for God's sake. They run their competition the way they want and it'll sell magazines and get discussion going.
I don't agree with the mid corner focus either but that's the way they have decided to go and we should just move on. 99 out of 100 people will never get their FPV, HSV or Suzuki Swift any where it's mid corner limits .. ever ... so who really cares?

[Dominator]

There's been bad blood between Motor and FPV ever since the F6 clutch episode, just look at the little snipes and jibes they take at FPV in the mag since then.
I think we'll have to live with it for a while till it fades in their memories...
Its rather interesting that BFYB focuses so heavily on the only area they seem to fault the FPV products. Pure coincidence im sure...

Originally Posted by CSV_LS1

I think i know why the Coupe`4 was slower in the mid corner. I think it might be because it wasn't there:

Righto it was the GTO then!

I'd love to not get ****ed at Motors testing but it is plain obvious that they find it quite easy to target FPV any chance given. Yes the GT isn't perfect but neither is any car for similar dollars.

I'll ask this question. If you were to buy a GT and plan on taking it on the odd track day, wouldn't you have a different shock/ spring set up?
I know of two who do it and have done just that and just so happen to stick it to GTS's on the track

But it's also damn obvious that Bates does not like big cars anyway as he practically bagged everything that was bigger a Subaru Impreza.

Although these mags shouldn't be taken as gospel, alot of people live by them and use them to make decisions on which car they would buy. Sad but true.

[Citric GT]

[QUOTE=RATT]But it's also damn obvious that Bates does not like big cars anyway as he practically bagged everything that was bigger a Subaru Impreza.QUOTE]

Yeah, Bates is a rice boy. If my memory serves me correctly, he has never given any big cars a good report. Only ever the little buzzboxes.

As much as I'd like to see FPV improve thier results in BFYB and PCOTY, I also think that a bit less focus on track performance and more on ROAD performance would be better. Not just because FPV would probably get better results, but also because the MAJORITY of us that buy these cars DO NOT use them on a track and if so, very rarely.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by RATT

Although these mags shouldn't be taken as gospel, a lot of people live by them and use them to make decisions on which car they would buy. Sad but true.

I gave up buying these magazines a while back, not because I was deeply offended by anything said about Ford/FPV, but simply because they had nothing to offer me other than 10 minutes of light reading and some eye candy half obscured by a grinning scribe.

I still buy an annual gift subscription for one family member who loves it cover to cover, and yes he'd fit into the category Ratt highlights, drive the thing to 4/10ths (CV8R Monaro) wash it, service it, polish it, trade it. Motor is still however no way his bible on car purchase, just some eye candy and a few good pics and some basic info to decide what you drive next.

As far as I see it the magazine performance tests are pretty much irrelevant to the target market and more so to the dedicated performance nut. Motor should really consider a more pics less jibber presentation lest they begin to believe their own hype.

Currently I see a motor bias against FPV, but equally I have seen motor offer a real caning to Holden over power steering pump issues piston slap etc. There is often bias present in articles which could easily assumed to be biggest lunch/best article.

I see little relevance to any any cars performance ability by having the living be-jeezes hammered out of it in stock form. Those pic of the Factory loaners all crossed up may be spectacular but it all points to sensationalism and photo opportunity rather than any real world consideration of the vehicles actual abilities. And do I really need the opinion of the mechanically unsympathetic?

As for using Race and rally identities being enlisted to test, I fail to see the relevance, asking a guy with sponsor logos on his overalls to be objective is liking asking me to offer a fair hearing about the Monaro. We both declared our bias long ago, but with no dollars involved I do not have to be as guarded about presenting my biased opinions.

We all know FPV in factory form is behind in the raw grunt stats of its rival, but that margin is far from a chasm and I can see how some can get very worked up by comments made. FPV/Ford has to work on this, there needs to be some models that offer bragging rights, it sets the tone.

Biased magazines, ford behind in the go/fast stats, am I unhappy or running for the door, hell no. Call the XR8 a taxi, a family hack whatever call the GT an XR8 with stripes. It doesn't change a thing. And as we well know a few mods can transform these cars, even in stock form they are a very desirable and well performing motor cars.

Would I like Ford/FPV to address these few tenths performance issues? You betcha!
Would I like Motor to revise its test procedure and drop some of the can't test it, it was in last years issue nonsense, the mid corner madness etc? Hell yeah, I might even start buy myself the odd magazine!

[mickey t]

Originally Posted by Dominator

There's been bad blood between Motor and FPV ever since the F6 clutch episode, just look at the little snipes and jibes they take at FPV in the mag since then.
I think we'll have to live with it for a while till it fades in their memories...
Its rather interesting that BFYB focuses so heavily on the only area they seem to fault the FPV products. Pure coincidence im sure...

that's a fairly big assumption. We have a very good working relationship with FPV, and work with them on plenty of issues, and it was one of the few positives to come out of the F6 Typhoon issue.

Did you guys know about the pics of Dr Bacon in the (whisper whisper) prototype that we ran a few issues ago? well, that's up on a board at FPV and the other engineers have a smart alec quote competition going with it.

They got details of the mid-corner data three weeks before the mag hit the news stands, and we spoke to them in some depth about it. And they listened, and so did we.

I'm pretty comfortable with our relationship with FPV, and i reckon they'd say the same about us.

If you think BFYB unfairly focussed on mid-corner speed, you clearly haven't read it. The mid-corner speed was mentioned here and there as we covered different cars, but was in the main covered in one data panel. Out of 41 pages of coverage!

A lot of people seem confused here about its relevance. Are these the same people who'd rather have a V8 or turbo six because they have the POTENTIAL to go faster than a four or an atmo six?

What we are trying to measure is the depth of the engineering of the car. As drivers and motoring journos, i'd hope we understand how deep a car's engineering runs by driving it. What we have done is to gather some quantifiable data to back that up.

If you're happy with your car, fine. we're happy for you. don't look to us to validate your purchase or ownership decisions, because that's not what we're here for.

The truth is the holden and ford products are bloody close, with neither brand having a demonstrable advantage, but both have slight philosophical differences in outlook.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by mickey t

that's a fairly big assumption. We have a very good working relationship with FPV, and work with them on plenty of issues, and it was one of the few positives to come out of the F6 Typhoon issue.

Did you guys know about the pics of Dr Bacon in the (whisper whisper) prototype that we ran a few issues ago? well, that's up on a board at FPV and the other engineers have a smart alec quote competition going with it.

They got details of the mid-corner data three weeks before the mag hit the news stands, and we spoke to them in some depth about it. And they listened, and so did we.

I'm pretty comfortable with our relationship with FPV, and i reckon they'd say the same about us.

If you think BFYB unfairly focussed on mid-corner speed, you clearly haven't read it. The mid-corner speed was mentioned here and there as we covered different cars, but was in the main covered in one data panel. Out of 41 pages of coverage!

A lot of people seem confused here about its relevance. Are these the same people who'd rather have a V8 or turbo six because they have the POTENTIAL to go faster than a four or an atmo six?

What we are trying to measure is the depth of the engineering of the car. As drivers and motoring journos, i'd hope we understand how deep a car's engineering runs by driving it. What we have done is to gather some quantifiable data to back that up.

If you're happy with your car, fine. we're happy for you. don't look to us to validate your purchase or ownership decisions, because that's not what we're here for.

The truth is the holden and ford products are bloody close, with neither brand having a demonstrable advantage, but both have slight philosophical differences in outlook.

Good response!, i can certainly live with and largely agree with what you say, my only question or point is this:
Do you believe Ford have designed the BA with the future in mind ie: crash testing strength, fuel efficiency and emmisions standards rather than develop a "non complient track car", where as Holden are yet to address these issues with current model designs? and are possibly living in the sun for as long as possible?
Are the BA's on track "short comings" a by product of Ford looking to the future and making the changes now rather than delaying it?
Is it possible that in a few years of development we may see a much better product as a result of this forward thinking?
Remember the performance Mercs and BMW's are no light weights either...

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Where as Holden are yet to address these issues with current model designs? and are possibly living in the sun for as long as possible?

Your forgetting about the VE next year, which will be compliant.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Your forgetting about the VE next year, which will be compliant.

I don't think he was talking about VE, he was talking more about the VT-VZ Commo's. Remember, BA (and the soon to be released BF) is still part of the current generation of Falcons, which started with the AU.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Your forgetting about the VE next year, which will be compliant.

Steffo is correct, VE doesnt exist yet, so it isnt in the mix for consideration. BA has some considerable structural upgrades and design differences over AU too, for example a BA chassis is about 50mm longer than an AU chassis, compare dog leg panels to see the difference, and its considerably stiffer due to extra structural reinforcement to pass tougher crumple and rear collission tests.
These safety improvements add weight, its unavoidable.

And when the VE is released it will be a closer match in stiffness and weight to current BA.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by RATT

And when the VE is released it will be a closer match in stiffness and weight to current BA.

Exactly, and this is my point, maybe Ford got the jump on Holden by being brave enough to "go early" with these changes now to give their engineering team more time to refine the car? Its a great package already, time and refinement will only improve it.

[russellw]

... just put me down for one of those go-karts, with Sat-Nav, stripes and a big CAI thanks so I can be happy in my senility.

Russ

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Steffo is correct, VE doesnt exist yet, so it isnt in the mix for consideration.

That wasnt my point.

You were suggesting that the BA's weight was due in part to its safety/emissions compliances going forward, and the suggestion that Holden is currently lagging behind Ford.

My response was that it would be uneconomical for Holden to spend any money on the current VZ to meet the future safety and emission quotas as it's an outgoing model. In fact Holden is in the best position of all at the moment in reaching or exceeding the new safety and emission laws and vehicle dynamics.

[YOOT]

I'd much prefer my BA the way it is then to have it intolerable to drive on the road for the sake of going 5kmh faster mid apex on a race track at over 100kmh! :

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

That wasnt my point.

You were suggesting that the BA's weight was due in part to its safety/emissions compliances going forward, and the suggestion that Holden is currently lagging behind Ford.

My response was that it would be uneconomical for Holden to spend any money on the current VZ to meet the future safety and emission quotas as it's an outgoing model. In fact Holden is in the best position of all at the moment in reaching or exceeding the new safety and emission laws and vehicle dynamics.

The Holden is laging behind Ford with emmissions and safety. Whats your point? :
Ford has upgraded and improved their car one model ahead of holden.
That puts them at an advantage doesnt it? Ford get real life feedback and research time with the BA, Holden are still on the drawing board.

[mickey t]

Originally Posted by YOOT

I'd much prefer my BA the way it is then to have it intolerable to drive on the road for the sake of going 5kmh faster mid apex on a race track at over 100kmh! :

you've missed the point. i don't much feel like explaining it again.


just tell me this: why do you need 241rwkW?

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by mickey t

you've missed the point. i don't much feel like explaining it again.


just tell me this: why do you need 241rwkW?

To catch up to the Holdens AFTER the corners.:

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by RATT

And when the VE is released it will be a closer match in stiffness and weight to current BA.

I'm not so convinced that the VE will put on a heap of weight. Wheels believes the weight difference won't be much, they are still going to use crappy strut front suspension and may even use plastic front guards to save weight. They have the advantage of designing weight out of the car, something Ford couldn't do as they only had the AU bodyshell to work with, and Ford won't get the chance to design the weight out until the all new model.
I want to know how Holden charge roughly the same price for a Commodore as Ford do for a Falcon but the car is about 100kg lighter, has crappy cheap front and rear suspension and a weaker bodyshell, and the Ford is more technologically advanced and a better overall package.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by mickey t

If your car can't carry any speed across the face of the apex, or get its power down on the way out of a corner, or gather any bite on turn in, then it's severely hampered in its performance, isn't it?

Ok what I don't get about this is that in the same issue (actually it may have been a couple of issues before) you put up $350K worth of Porsche against a $18K Suzuki GSXR1000 around a track and the Porsche still got its **** handed to it on a plate. This is despite the Porshe (and most cars) having higher cornering speeds than bikes. So in your own words you are saying the GSXR is "severley hampered in its performance" :

What was my point again?