Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodge
Their times for the 340KW version of the R8 were
0-100 4.88
80-120 2.88 (Note, remove traction from the equation and this compared to a real world on road time of 2.51 seconds for the SC FPV), so I'd argue real world performance the FPV's is quicker, at least in a straight line.
Its quite a bit lighter than our SC FPV's, if my memory srerves me correctly its was about sixty something kilo's. about 1760 or was it 1770 kg's with a full load of fuel, (compared to 1839 kg's for our SC FPV's.
Interestingly it appears an R8 HSV is about 130-140 kg's lightr than a GTS !!
Another point that's worth reminding people about is that HSV spent ages working with different tyre brands to select the Continental tyres and their own testing showed on that brand of tyre their cars were about 1.5 seconds a lap quicker than other brands. They're very soft when fully warmed up and will wear very quickly on the track according to anecdotal reports.
There's a lot in the tyres mate, as we all know its hard to get a clean launch with a SC FPV with stock 245 section Dunlops.
I think comparing track times of 340 HSV's to F6's is a little disingenious especially with the relative tyre spec each car gets as standard.
Got to compare apples to aplles, SC FPV's are way easier to modulate power down than an F6 and will be faster than an F6 in most people's hands on most tracks in my experience.
How about lining up an R Spec kitted with proper rubber with a 340 KW R8 and see how they go.
To the best of my knowledge Autocar has never tested an R Spec, probably because only a very small handful made their way over the Tasman.
You're not the only one trying to get their head around the 4.13 second figure for the GTS, seems pretty remarkable when HSV themselves claim 4.6.
|
I would like to see an R Spec v R8 around a track, I think the R8 would do very well against it but I would still have to give the edge to the R Spec. I would be more interested in seeing an R Spec v GTS around a track though.