GTHO conundrum - Page 2

FPV · 17-12-2005, 01:00 PM

Some people are thinking HSV will also be sitting back and relaxing at 297kw, and i'm pretty sure they will be pushing the boundaries in the coming years. It's not a time for FPV to be complacent, they need to also be pushing ahead. There should not be a 300kw barrier these days, it really is not necessary considering that some europeans are producing well above that barrier, and if the GTHO was to have a price of 120K it would be out of reach of most of the population. If FPV were to implement DSC on there cars it would take there range more towards a total package, cause afterall safety is a key factor and needs to be developed continually.

To prove that HSV won't be sitting back here is a quote i got from the LS1 forums:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickles

HSV executive Chris Payne told a meeting of the HSV Owner's Club (Vic) this week, that, amongst lots of exciting future plans, HSV was looking at ways of taking the performance of HSVs to a higher level, for those who would be interested.
He also mentioned that it was HSV's aim to produce "at least 2 GTHO legend type cars in the next 10 years"!Cheers, Pickles.

This post was made recently in the past 2 months or so.

I really hope FPV release a road ready concept BF MKII GTHO come AIMS 2006.

Also if you want to gauge what effect a new GTHO will have on the old GTHO's, all you have to do is look at when the monaro was released, in wheels magazine it said that the old monaro's resale values increased or well thats what i thought i read.

4Vman · 17-12-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Homologation Option? I thought HO stood for "Handling Option" .....

or "High output" etc etc...

Truth is it was definately a Homologation Option by design, its sole purpose or reason for being built was to homologate the go fast stuff to race, but to keep the focus off its power and purpose Ford was happy for people to think it was a "handling Option"..

flappist · 17-12-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Homologation Option? I thought HO stood for "Handling Option" .....

This has been argued 50 gazillion times on here and ff.septic.
The other thought was "high output".

Steffo is correct.

Now the other ones:
Is the P in GT-P for premium or performance?
What does TE TS & TL really mean?

Yes I know all these have been done to death...... ah so thats what the search button is for.

FPV · 17-12-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Now the other ones:
Is the P in GT-P for premium or performance?

I think the P was initially defined as performance, however i think something changed behind closed doors and they realised it was sending the wrong message due to the GT-P no longer having an increased power output over the GT. Therefore the meaning was then changed to premium.

Deadman · 17-12-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV

This post was made recently in the past 2 months or so.

HSV are just dreaming with that garbage

Won't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Now the other ones:
Is the P in GT-P for premium or performance?

Premium

I always thought GT-P sounded a bit dicky...

Anyway, back on topic. Would be interesting do do a thread as a poll (might have already been done) - should Ford bring back the GTHO badge (yes, no, candy).

My vote would definately be yes, it's their final trump card to push out Holden/HSV - imagine the hype and publicity if ford could sucessfully pull it off? would be the biggest news in Aus Motoring this decade.

Ford now have a great lineup of BF cars, awesome FPV range, great recent race sucess - a GTHO would complete the Ford revival since the AU if you ask me...

Bossxr8 · 18-12-2005, 11:47 AM

The problem for Ford and FPV is as soon as they release a GTHO then HSV will bring out a 7 litre version from the Vette with 370 odd kw, making the HO its in the process. They can't win, as awesome a GTHO would be, it probably won't be the king like the original HO's were. If its not the king of Aussie muscle cars then its not worth doing. They do need a range topper though, but calling it a Sprint or another name would mean Ford had chickened out and didn't have the balls to call it a HO, another reason they won't be able to please everyone. How can you replace the greatest and most legendary Aussie muscle car of all time. You can't, not in todays climate, unless you have a massive budget and may be prepared to make a loss on the sales.

Steffo · 18-12-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

You can't, not in todays climate, unless you have a massive budget and may be prepared to make a loss on the sales.

Exactly right...

Look at the Bugatti EB 16/4 Veyron... fastest production car in the world, a statement by VW that says "yes, we can..."

$5,000,000 US to build each Veyron, that sells for $1,300,000 US. That's a $3,700,000 US loss on each car, and they're building 300. 300 x 3.7 million = $1,110,000,000 US loss for the entire Veyron program. FPV can't do something like that... be nice if they could.

b2tf · 18-12-2005, 01:43 PM

G,T,H and O have to be the 4 most worn out letters on some people's keyboards by now.

Realistically I can't see it happening again. Both sides of the argument have merit - it would be fantastic to see a new version out there, but in the same vein, it would also be in some ways more fitting to let the legend rest.

Regardless of how many cylinders, kilowatts, superchargers, batteries, turbos and whatever else it had on it, it would never be enough for some. I think it would be a V8 (have to be, all you Turbo advocates - seriously, a 6 cylinder GT? I dont think so), and thats as far as I care to gaze into the crystal ball.

Then of course you take into account the backlash when Holden makes something faster or more powerful, all the Ford fans start saying Ford has betrayed the name etc etc, needs more go, never should have been built etc, and you have to ask yourself is it really worth it.

And if Holden doesnt screw it over, the Govt will. Supercar scare all over again, Bracks leading the charge to add speed limiters so no matter how hard you floor it the most you get is 101km/hr, just enough to get pinged by a camera. Is it worth it? No.

EfiJy · 18-12-2005, 02:22 PM

why would ford want to introduce gtho when it will be almost certainly blown away by hsv. ford don't have the engines. not in gms league im afraid. :(

big_pete · 18-12-2005, 02:45 PM

i think this thread is a good example of why a new GTHO isnt on the cards for ford/fpv.

there is too many opinions on what it should/shouldnt be that Ford could never get it right.

however i would love to see the GTHO badge on a new falcon again.

Deadman · 18-12-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EfiJy

ford don't have the engines. not in gms league im afraid. :(

You're being sarcastic, right?

chief · 18-12-2005, 03:27 PM

With the HO's, the claim was the fastest 4 door sedan in the world. So you could argue that the HO's were the fastest V8 N/A powered sedan in the world. So could it be possible for Ford to go for the fastest V8 N/A powered sedan in the world, in line with its heritage and that cuts cars like the V12 Bi Turbo Merc out. Just a thought.

Personally I think that the HO should be left alone. Ford should not build another one with a HO badge, especailly a FPV built HO.

Bucknaked · 18-12-2005, 03:45 PM

GTHO this, GTHO that. I think theres a song that best sums up this argument. "I'm living in the seventies"

They can never replicate the original. they can try. All FPV has to do is stick a GTHO badge on a GT, give it an extra 50kw from factory, and stick an over inflated price tag on it, and the legend lives on. People will be queing for miles. But who cares. Its just a GT with a few extra options.

big_pete · 18-12-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

GTHO this, GTHO that. I think theres a song that best sums up this argument. "I'm living in the seventies"

They can never replicate the original. they can try. All FPV has to do is stick a GTHO badge on a GT, give it an extra 50kw from factory, and stick an over inflated price tag on it, and the legend lives on. People will be queing for miles. But who cares. Its just a GT with a few extra options.

true, i think we need to be asking what sort of car Ford/FPV needs in there line up? before they go and make a HO just for the sake of building one.

what are they missing? could the HO fit that criteria?
i mean does FPV really need a Mercedes beating supercar?

FTGAutosalvage · 18-12-2005, 04:01 PM

i say bring it on . but they would need to make it more powerful than anything weve had offered in the past . and built for Homologation purposes just because we all follow v8 supercars doesnt mean its the only racing that happens every week! i would love to see ford release a 500kw GTHO with a carbon fibre front , live axle diff and no electrics or luxury just pure race car specs.

parawolf · 18-12-2005, 04:03 PM

Still reckon that there should be two new GT's as FPV range toppers.

both supercharged 5.4L V8's with the ultimate brembo packaging and lightweight wheels

GT-S : GT-P variant with all the luxury parts, super performing engine.

GT-R : Lightweight seats, supplied with 4 point racing harness and carbon fibre panels supplied and commisioned by AWC (bonnet, bootlid, fenders, etc).

Perhaps things like stuff on the ICC display, and with the GT-R include a track timing kit.

Just suggestions.

Deadman · 18-12-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parawolf

Still reckon that there should be two new GT's as FPV range toppers.

both supercharged 5.4L V8's with the ultimate brembo packaging and lightweight wheels

GT-S : GT-P variant with all the luxury parts, super performing engine.

GT-R : Lightweight seats, supplied with 4 point racing harness and carbon fibre panels supplied and commisioned by AWC (bonnet, bootlid, fenders, etc).

Perhaps things like stuff on the ICC display, and with the GT-R include a track timing kit.

Just suggestions.

Love your thinking. If you asked me - the GT-P should have been called the GT-R. Always sounded nicer

GT-S sounded to 'HSV' in my books...

I love the thoughts - but don't see FPV doing it :(

big_pete · 18-12-2005, 07:00 PM

to me i dont see the point of the GT-P, really why the hell is there a GT-P??
oooh its s tiny bit better, whooopidydoo

**Falcon Coupe** · 18-12-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EfiJy

why would ford want to introduce gtho when it will be almost certainly blown away by hsv. ford don't have the engines. not in gms league im afraid. :(

Is that so, care to enlighten us ?

:

I think the engine is this will do it easily :
http://www.news10.net/video/player2.aspx?aid=24242&bw=

Bucknaked · 18-12-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadman

Love your thinking. If you asked me - the GT-P should have been called the GT-R. Always sounded nicer

GT-S sounded to 'HSV' in my books...

I love the thoughts - but don't see FPV doing it :(

Didn't holden have that GTR at one time. It was I think a VP commodore painted yellow with Black Rims and a big adjustable rear wing. I think it was called the GTR. Think there was also the torana called that too

Psycho Chicken · 18-12-2005, 07:30 PM

That's the GTS-R.

Bossxr8 · 18-12-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EfiJy

why would ford want to introduce gtho when it will be almost certainly blown away by hsv. ford don't have the engines. not in gms league im afraid. :(

Do some research before you make a dumb comment like that. The supercharged 5.4 litre modular engine from the Ford GT with 410kw and 600 odd nm of torque is a lot more powerful than any engine that GM has. Their best performance engine only has 373kw. Being similar to the Boss engines in the Falcon means Ford could use this engine if they were prepared to pay the big price tags for them.

If Ford did make a GTHO this is their only option to make the HO a true legend, although i'm sure they would probably use the iron block version from the upcoming Mustang GT500 as it would be cheaper and also uses a dry sump which would remove some complications.

Bossxr8 · 18-12-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chief

With the HO's, the claim was the fastest 4 door sedan in the world. So you could argue that the HO's were the fastest V8 N/A powered sedan in the world. So could it be possible for Ford to go for the fastest V8 N/A powered sedan in the world, in line with its heritage and that cuts cars like the V12 Bi Turbo Merc out. Just a thought.

Personally I think that the HO should be left alone. Ford should not build another one with a HO badge, especailly a FPV built HO.

It wasn't really that hard to make the GTHO the fastest 4 door in the world back in the late 60's, early 70's, it didn't have much competition as nearly all performance cars were 2 doors. Things are different these days, there is a lot of competition from BMW, Mercedes, Bentley etc.

Steffo · 18-12-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Do some research before you make a dumb comment like that. The supercharged 5.4 litre modular engine from the Ford GT with 410kw and 600 odd nm of torque is a lot more powerful than any engine that GM has. Their best performance engine only has 373kw. Being similar to the Boss engines in the Falcon means Ford could use this engine if they were prepared to pay the big price tags for them.

The Ford GT engine is at 410kW 678Nm (550hp 500lb/ft). The GenIV LS7 V8 is at 377kW 657Nm (505hp 485lb/ft).

The GT's engine is similar to the Boss, but then again it also isn't. Dry sump lubrication and that alloy block are two very major differences. Plus it has a positive displacement supercharger nestled on the top. The Boss engine already required the bonnet to be modified to fit in the Falcon, what about the s/c? It would be a difficult fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chief

With the HO's, the claim was the fastest 4 door sedan in the world. So you could argue that the HO's were the fastest V8 N/A powered sedan in the world. So could it be possible for Ford to go for the fastest V8 N/A powered sedan in the world, in line with its heritage and that cuts cars like the V12 Bi Turbo Merc out. Just a thought.

Great idea in theory, but, in a year or so, the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG will be out, so there go any possible n/a GT-HO's chances of holding that title....

C63 = C-Class with AMG's new 6.2litre DOHC 32-valve V8 with 380kW of power and 630Nm of torque. They were speculating having it detuned to about 310kW for the C-Class version, but AMG already has fully operational prototype C63's with the full 380kW 630Nm. Plus the E63 (E55 replacement) with that engine won't exactly be slow either.

HLC · 18-12-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myxr6

Why not use the all allumiinum s/c 427 that unique use in the elenor mustang.

damn good idea.

FalKeen · 18-12-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parawolf

...and carbon fibre panels supplied and commisioned by AWC (bonnet, bootlid, fenders, etc).

love your thinking

:

chuckles · 18-12-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Great idea in theory, but, in a year or so, the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG will be out, so there go any possible n/a GT-HO's chances of holding that title....

C63 = C-Class with AMG's new 6.2litre DOHC 32-valve V8 with 380kW of power and 630Nm of torque. They were speculating having it detuned to about 310kW for the C-Class version, but AMG already has fully operational prototype C63's with the full 380kW 630Nm. Plus the E63 (E55 replacement) with that engine won't exactly be slow either.

i work for mercedes benz and the official word from amg is that there is no plan to build another c-class amg in the near future

parawolf · 18-12-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

The GT's engine is similar to the Boss, but then again it also isn't. Dry sump lubrication and that alloy block are two very major differences. Plus it has a positive displacement supercharger nestled on the top. The Boss engine already required the bonnet to be modified to fit in the Falcon, what about the s/c? It would be a difficult fit.

Buzz think again... remove that intake manifold and put the S/C in it's place. It has already been done and i'm pretty sure that the bonnet required minimal if any changes

Steffo · 18-12-2005, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parawolf

Buzz think again... remove that intake manifold and put the S/C in it's place. It has already been done and i'm pretty sure that the bonnet required minimal if any changes

Mmm.. interesting. I wonder what the underbonnet heat would be like. From what I've heard about XR6 Turbo's, they get pretty toasty... and there's more room in the i6 bay then the DOHC V8.

parawolf · 18-12-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Mmm.. interesting. I wonder what the underbonnet heat would be like. From what I've heard about XR6 Turbo's, they get pretty toasty... and there's more room in the i6 bay then the DOHC V8.

Yeah, but your problem with the XR6T is that you are running a high speed turbine already based off very hot exhaust gases. Supercharged V8, the headers are already in the underside of the engine with cool air passing over it, no difference to normal. Far less of a problem.

Then you only have a problem if the supercharger is then running too hot, minimally modified bonnet could fix this - however i figure that intake temperatures are not too much of a problem at the moment because then you will be having a very hot intake manifold anyway - which is undesirable.

I'd hazard a guess it wouldn't be a problem.