Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Okay so HSV has officially set the world record for worlds Fastest Ute, their clubsport R8's and their soon to be re-vived GTS isnt anything to shy away from and say "err its just a family car, what a piece of shit"

Why does a ute need to go fast? is the tradie going to be late for work or something?

Typhoon has the highest torque output of any production engine ever built in Australia.

so it's the best of the worst. australia dosent make sports cars.

And as you say 4wd's are better at towing than Commodores etc but they are deathtraps

correct, however most of joe public isnt as car savy as most on SAU and dont realise this. the women who buy or infulence the purchase of such vehicles precieve them to be safe because of their size. Safty (even though there is a lack of) is one of the main reasons consumers listed for purchasing a 4WD, i read that in some RACQ thing ages ago.

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why does a ute need to go fast? is the tradie going to be late for work or something?

so it's the best of the worst.

I would have one, tools in the back for when i go to track days, able to towe a track car. Pick up gear in teh back no probs. My brother had a ute, and didnt need one for work. Once you have one you really get use to the practicality of it.

so it's the best of the worst. australia dosent make sports cars.

LOL...call them what you like...they are fast. The Clubsport Track Spec one is quicker then EVO 8, 350Z etc around Oran Park...so dismiss them if you like, but only reason i dont have one is i cant afford one :)

Get over the FPV/HSV bashing.

I would not be suprised if a FPV or HSV would be faster around a race track compared to a stock Silivia, or GTST Skyline.

Yeah me neither... lol

In order to make that comparison fair, you'd have to use a Nismo modified Silvia or Skyline...

Enough with comparing late model HSVs with old stock Skylines. At the end of the day, the HSVs and Fords whatever are bigass GT sedans, the likes of which Japanese car companies don't sell in this country. So any comparison with something Japanese is going to be irrelivent. The Holdens and Fords appeal to a certain type of person, most of which frequent other boards.

Enough with comparing late model HSVs with old stock Skylines. At the end of the day, the HSVs and Fords whatever are bigass GT sedans, the likes of which Japanese car companies don't sell in this country.

About the closest they've got is the SC430's and some of the other stuff they hurl around in the GT300 and GT500 races. For a 'rough' (very rough!) comparison of sorts, be interesting too see some of the 3U V8's with the taps opened up on them for Australian V8 supercars.

Course, that'll never happen...

About the closest they've got is the SC430's and some of the other stuff they hurl around in the GT300 and GT500 races. For a 'rough' (very rough!) comparison of sorts, be interesting too see some of the 3U V8's with the taps opened up on them for Australian V8 supercars.

Course, that'll never happen...

I was pretty suprised Toyota chose the current UZZ40 Soarer as their SuperGT platform. I would suddenly be interested in Aussie touring car racing if that car was competing next year...

Rezz you slackjawed junkbroad minded person.

If you are going to quote me it means you cannot edit my post.

Since your pulling the cuss words out, I'll change my quoted post right away. In future PM me about it and refrain from name calling.

http://blogs.drive.com.au/2006/07/new_comm...o_you_thin.html

Interesting blog on the Drive website that I came accross whilst trying to suss out what they all think on streetcommodores.com.au

Interestingly about the only thing they are commenting on at the street commy forum is the height of the SS at the rear :wave:

Edited by MintR33

Funny how people automatically bag Holden, Ford and even the struggling Mitsubishi for being inefficient.

Note that the Camry has FWD, 2.4L engine, less power and torque and a lighter body (increased by only 30kg) – yet only gets 9.9L per 100km. The Holden VE has a heavy body (increased by 100kg), far stiffer chassis, more room, more power, more torque and a 3.6L v6 – yet achieves a 10.9L per 100km.

I would call the new Camry as inefficient whilst the 380, Holden and especially the 6speed Ford as being extremely efficient.

Just in from Drive.com.au

New Camry in role reversal

Joshua Dowling, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25/07/06

25camry1M_m.jpg

-Toyota released the new, sixth generation Camry today but it has the unlikely tag of being the thirstiest vehicle in its class.

-The new Camry's fuel rating label shows an average consumption of 9.9 liters per 100km, even though it is now available with a five-speed automatic transmission, which is designed to provide better economy at highway speeds.

-While Holden yesterday announced a fuel saving for its biggest-selling model in the new Commodore range, the new Camry's consumption remains the same as the model it replaced.........The car is a little heavier about 30kg than the old model

-The new Camry's main rivals are more fuel-efficient

-It's an embarrassing move for the maker which prides itself on fuel economy. The Camry is a globally-developed car, manufactured around the world, and the product of a much bigger development budget than the Commodore.

-A week ago, Toyota claimed that its V6 Commodore rival (called the Aurion and due on sale in November) would be more fuel-efficient than the new Holden Commodore

-The new Camry is available only with a 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine; the V6 will be exclusive to the Aurion.

From

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleD...18735&vf=12

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • @Kapr Haha yeah thats the one. I missed that you had a built up engine, I wouldn't want to run it on there either then. It was good in my situation just to replace the original turbo on a stock engine. @MBS206Yep definitely not a replacement for anything name brand
    • You are selling this? I have never bought something from marketplace...i dont know if i trust that enough. And the price is little bit "too" good...
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
×
×
  • Create New...