Any VF performance figures out there yet?

[Rodge]

I've emailed Kyle Cassidy the editor of N.Z. Autocar and suggested eyebrows have been raised by their time of 4.13 seconds given that HSV themselves claim 4.4 seconds and asked if he can shed any light on this. I'll let you guys know the response if I get one.

All I'm saying is that HSV have a 25+ year history of never under claiming performance times before so these two numbers don't appear possible of reconcilliation.

Lets lay out all the possibilties just for the sake of it, Possibilities are:-
1. N.Z. Autocar used a launch technique or some way of extracting extra traction
2. HSV gave them a "specially Prepped" vehicle
3. It was a freak car
4. Kyle Cassidy is a better driver than any of HSV's test drivers
5. N.Z. Autocar made a mistake
6. N.Z. Autocar were bribed.
7. For the first time in 25 years plus, HSV are under-claiming on their cars performacne capabilities and / or didn't have time in the rushed development process to do sufficient performacne measurement testing.

It hasn't been super cold for this time of year in N.Z. lately so you can rule out performacne gains through super cold temperatures I reckon.

For the record I have a completly open mind as to which of these possibilities it may be and FWIW I've come around to thinking the GTS is a pretty handy bit of kit but for about half the money I reckon a SS-V Redline is heaps better value for money.

[Alan D Segal]

1 or 2, I suspect. Don't really have a horse in this race but they seem the most likely options to me.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

1 or 2, I suspect. Don't really have a horse in this race but they seem the most likely options to me.

Yeap, pretty much I listed the possibilities in the order I see as most to least possible.

Originally Posted by 40RDT

If I remember correctly HSV claim 0-100 in 4.4 seconds. I dont know why you would jump to conclusions and red flag it as a highly controversial time, the GTS has all the hardware to run good times but as soon as it does people come out and say its all BS or its a conspiracy against FPV etc etc. Why would HSV even bother putting a special tune in a car for such a non mainstream media source like NZ Autocar magazine?

It seems that people are trying to find any way possible to try and discredit the GTS because its proving to be better than the FPV's. I cant understand why people just can't accept that the GTS is the new Aussie performance car king and going by whats happening with FPV it doesn't look like they are going to come back with a counter.

I think you're getting a little carried away and many of us are keeping an open mind about this, see my post above. How would you explain the discrepancy in time given that HSV have never before understated their claimed performance times ?

Originally Posted by 40RDT

I dont thinks so only F6 and GT from Rodge has been saying

Yeap, no R Spec tested here, so few made their way across the Tasman.

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I think you're getting a little carried away and many of us are keeping an open mind about this, see my post above. How would you explain the discrepancy in time given that HSV have never before understated their claimed performance times ?

I don't think HSV ever quoted an exact time. Weren't they quoted saying "comfortably under 4.5sec"??

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

I don't think HSV ever quoted an exact time. Weren't they quoted saying "comfortably under 4.5sec"??

Good question, can anyone post a link to exactly what they said ?

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I think you're getting a little carried away and many of us are keeping an open mind about this, see my post above. How would you explain the discrepancy in time given that HSV have never before understated their claimed performance times ?.

Some are keeping an open mind but sending an email to the editor of NZ Autocar magazine for please explains is basically what im getting at. Who cares about CLAIMED times? There is probably plenty or cars that have gotten slightly better times than claimed. Claimed times give a bit of room to account for driver skill, conditions etc there is always going to people running slightly quicker and slightly slower times than claimed.

Maybe NZ Autocar stalled the car enough to get a good launch without losing grip?

Have a look at this vid, it shows the GTS doing 0-100 in 4.4 with minimal or maybe even no stall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mri0y...O1wpY2VH8QgUiA

[turbo4me]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I've emailed Kyle Cassidy the editor of N.Z. Autocar and suggested eyebrows have been raised by their time of 4.13 seconds given that HSV themselves claim 4.4 seconds and asked if he can shed any light on this. I'll let you guys know the response if I get one.

All I'm saying is that HSV have a 25+ year history of never under claiming performance times before so these two numbers don't appear possible of reconcilliation.

Lets lay out all the possibilties just for the sake of it, Possibilities are:-
1. N.Z. Autocar used a launch technique or some way of extracting extra traction
2. HSV gave them a "specially Prepped" vehicle
3. It was a freak car
4. Kyle Cassidy is a better driver than any of HSV's test drivers
5. N.Z. Autocar made a mistake
6. N.Z. Autocar were bribed.
7. For the first time in 25 years plus, HSV are under-claiming on their cars performacne capabilities and / or didn't have time in the rushed development process to do sufficient performacne measurement testing.

It hasn't been super cold for this time of year in N.Z. lately so you can rule out performacne gains through super cold temperatures I reckon.

For the record I have a completly open mind as to which of these possibilities it may be and FWIW I've come around to thinking the GTS is a pretty handy bit of kit but for about half the money I reckon a SS-V Redline is heaps better value for money.

#4...maybe he got a better holiday package than the other HSV drivers.