WhichCar By Wheels

Australia’s Marcos Ambrose has finished fourth in the Aaron’s 499 in one of the most spectacular finishes in NASCAR history, a result that will do wonders for his growing reputation as well as catapulting him to 19th in the overall Sprint Cup standings.

On the wide open spaces of the Talladega superspeedway, Ambrose, who qualified only 34th, ran well all day in his JTG Daugherty Racing Toyota Camry.

In his most competitive oval outing yet, the Tasmanian was comfortable among the lead pack, running much of the race in the top 10.A multiple-car crash on the back straight in the closing stages set up a four-lap sprint to the finish for the field, with Ambrose facing the restart in seventh position.On the last lap came the spectacular and frightening shunt on the mad, jostling run to the chequer, when Brad Keselowski made contact with Carl Edwards, who had moved down on his rival’s car in a defensive blocking tactic. Edwards’ car became airborne, was hit by third place driver Ryan Newman and then catapulted violently into the catch fencing.Eight spectators received various minor injuries from the debris.The popular Edwards climbed injury-free from his wrecked, burning car, and jogged across the finishing line to the cheers of the fans.Ambrose, lucky to miss the wreck, crossed the line in fourth place to record his best Sprint Cup finish on an oval in what was his first Sprint Cup race at the 2.66-mile Talladega tri-oval.“That was a wild finish,” said Ambrose.“I just hope everyone is all right. It was the most spectacular thing I’ve ever seen in my life coming across the finish line looking at a car upside down like that.“This is crazy racing, it really is. We can try and legitimise as much as we’d like but it’s insanity on four wheels.”Keselowski took his first Sprint Cup victory ahead of Dale Earnhardt Jr, Newman in a wrecked car, Ambrose, former Formula One driver Scott Speed, and series leader Kurt Busch.Ambrose is back in action next weekend in at Richmond International Raceway.

RESULTS: Aaron’s 499 at Talladega Superspeedway Race 9 in the 2009 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series 1. #09 Brad Keselowski 188 laps 2. #88 Dale Earnhardt Jr 3. #39 Ryan Newman 4. #47 Marcos Ambrose 5. #82 Scott Speed 6. #2 Kurt Busch 7. #16 Greg Biffle 8. #83 Brian Vickers 9. #20 Joey Logano 10. #31 Jeff Burton2009 NASCAR Sprint Cup Driver’s Standings – After Race 9 of 36 1. Kurt Busch 1299 2. Jeff Gordon 1294 3. Jimmie Johnson 1235 4. Tony Stewart 1232 5. Denny Hamlin 1193 6. Kyle Busch 1124 7. Carl Edwards 1119 8. Clint Bowyer 1098 9. Jeff Burton 1092 10. Greg Biffle 1081 19. Marcos Ambrose 937

Given the current global credit crunch this is hardly the best time for Jaguar to be launching its new $250K XKR, the marque’s fastest accelerating current production car: 4.8sec to 100km/h. That’s 0.3sec quicker than the old XKR and into 911 territory. Besides, given the hype over the new XFR, it’s easy to forget the XK range has been significantly enhanced, though the new GTs won’t reach Oz until November. Obviously the XKR gets the same mechanical upgrades as the sedan, together with new headlights, LED tail-lights and a front bumper that all conspire to make it even more handsome. Inside, Jaguar has cleverly incorporated the XF’s cylindrical gear selector and made a number of design and material upgrades.

The aluminium-bodied XK – it weighs 138kg less than the equivalent steel XF sedan – also integrates the same chassis mods as the XFR: the new continuously variable damping system and electronic diff. We loved the old XKR and the new one is much improved, with far more accessible performance. It’s tractable – running down to 1200rpm in sixth and then pulling away fluently. There is so much torque that between 80-113km/h, the new car is 24 percent faster.In terms of character the XKR always sat cleverly between the hard-edged Porsche 911 and the softer Mercedes SL500. However, the new car moves closer to the 911 in terms of agility and sharpness, while remaining far more relaxed and comfortable. It encourages the driver to go quickly from the moment you twist the tranny selector. The linear power delivery starts at 2500rpm and goes on and on, all the way to the cut-out at 6700rpm. The exhaust sounds epic, too.Drive the new XKR and it’s difficult to make any case, beyond exclusivity, for the $360K Aston DB9 or $400K Bentley Conti coupe. In these tough times that makes Jaguar’s new GT great value for money.

Jaguar XKR

Body aluminium, 2 doors, 2+2 seats Drivetrain front engine (north-south), rear drive Engine 5000cc V8, dohc, 32v, s/c Power 375kW @ 6000-6500rpm Torque 625Nm @ 2500-5500rpm Transmission 6-speed auto Size l/w/h 4791/1892/1322mm Wheelbase 2846mm Weight 1753kg 0-100km/h 4.8sec (claimed) Price $250,000 (est) On sale November

More than any other cars in this issue – and maybe more than any other cars this year – you’re going to have strong opinions on these two. Some of you will be delighted that BMW has had the brass balls to give the full M-treatment to its X5 and X6 off-roaders and launch these 395kW monsters into an economic and environmental hurricane. I’d partially agree. Drifting them over a frozen Swedish lake, V8s blaring and sucking their way through litre after litre of premium unleaded seemed gloriously, wilfully contrary to the current popular mood. I felt like a latter-day Nero, fiddling with the traction control while modern Rome burns. Some of you, however, will be outraged that BMW is building these cars, or at least puzzled as to how it hopes to make any money from them right now, or repair the damage they’ll do to the green image it’s trying to nurture. But the majority of you, we suspect, will focus less on how the X5M and X6M relate to current global economic and environmental crises, and worry instead about the most pressing issue facing us today: what these two SUVs mean for the reputation and future of BMW’s fabled M badge.

We’re the first people outside BMW to drive them, and we’ve come to Arjeplog, its winter test centre in northern Sweden, to do so. Yet as our twin-prop plane shimmies down onto a perilously white runway, BMW still hasn’t officially owned up to them. Both will be revealed in April; the X5M at the Shanghai show, and the X6M a few days later in New York.We have a prototype of each to drive. Both still wear camouflage, but underneath they’re pretty much finished.Arjeplog is as weird as its name suggests. It lies at the centre of a vast wilderness with 8000 lakes and just 2000 people. Each winter around 1000 car engineers pass through, working on the 40-odd test tracks that are carved out on the lakes from December, once the ice is 30cm thick. It’s indescribably beautiful up here – and indescribably cold. At minus 33°C, the moisture in your nostrils freezes as soon as you step out of the car. But that’s why the engineers come.The work is mostly dull; fine-tuning of braking, traction and stability control systems on the ice, and proving that a car’s systems work in real cold climates and not just the giant fridges back at base. At least the M engineers get to drive something interesting to relieve the boredom.The two big controversies around the X5 and X6M – timing and credibility – are closely linked. The implosion of the car market has already made BMW bin the 7 Series-based Concept CS four-door coupe and the stretched X7 SUV. Both of those vehicles would have needed extensive and expensive re-engineering of the platforms on which they’re based and wouldn’t have sold enough to cover their costs. Like those two cars, work began on the M SUVs in happier times, but BMW can afford to continue because they’re not costing as much to create. The real issue for M obsessives here isn’t just that the division is breaking all its cardinal rules at once by abandoning naturally aspirated engines, rear-wheel drive and manual gearboxes, and putting its badge on an SUV. It’s also that the X5 and X6M just aren’t that different to the standard cars underneath. They have the same engine, same ‘box, same driveline as the standard turbocharged V8s; all tweaked by the tuning division, but lacking the ‘otherness’ that has come to define an M car.M’s people are unapologetic about the new cars, and they make two good points about the engine. The first is that few anticipated how quickly turbocharged engines would improve; they’re smaller, greener and quicker, and there’s little cost to response or linearity. Expect more turbocharged engines from M in future, they hint, perhaps using this V8 in the next M5 and allowing the next M3 to go back to a straight-six. Secondly, they point out that what works in a road car might not be right in an SUV. Re-engineering the M5’s V10 for four-wheel drive would be expensive and pointless when its ‘thin’ 520Nm at 6100rpm is already outgunned by the standard X6 V8’s 600Nm between 1750 and 4500rpm. The V10 just wouldn’t have got an M-badged SUV (carrying 400kg more than the M5) up and hustling fast enough.They also reveal that M has, contrary to the message circulating, been considering an SUV for a while. It built the one-off, 514kW X5 Le Mans in 2000, and secretly fitted both a tuned 335kW E39 M5 rear-drive powertrain and the V10 from the current E60 M5 into X5 bodyshells. But why put one into production now? Because BMW needs to make money. The launch of the new M3 boosted M’s sales by a staggering 50 percent last year. At best, the SUVs will sell ten percent of the M3’s 18,000 units, but they’ll be popular in markets like the Middle East and China where car sales are holding up better, and BMW is hoping they’ll replicate just a fraction of the M3’s mojo.And don’t be confused by the nomenclature; the fact that the M comes after the number is simply because the X was there first and in no way makes them second-tier offerings. “This is a real M car, with real M feel”, a staffer told us, so they won’t be shy with the styling. There are a couple of oversized air intakes at the front and a pregnant bonnet bulge. The hallmark M side vents have been covered over on our test cars, but are present. There are big rims and quad pipes at the rear, and in one car the beginnings of the full M interior treatment, with carbonfibre inlays, an expensive-feeling leather toproll, active seats and an M button on the wheel, even if it is just a sticker for now.But what’s under the hump? A version of the 4.4-litre V8 from the X6 50i, revised to make at least 395kW at first, rising to 410kW later, and around 700Nm. Same gearbox too; the six-speed ZF auto, with the mapping revised to give faster, later shifts. Same xDrive four-wheel-drive system, but with more torque dialled to the rear to give the illusion of what BMW calls ‘standard drive’, and less desire to shift it forward to counteract oversteer. The X5M will also get the clever Dynamic Performance Control rear diff, which accelerates the wheel with grip rather than braking the one that spins and until now was only offered in the X6. Brakes, suspension and steering will all be reworked, but they won’t tell us how, wanting to keep a few secrets for the shows.Nailed from rest on one of the few clear tarmac surfaces up here, the X6M is shockingly fast for such a deliberately solid, heavy-feeling car. A fat, instant gob of torque hits all four wheels and makes the nose rear up before booting the car off the mark, the needle surging evenly to the 7000rpm redline, where a quick, smooth change briefly knocks it back. The pace is definitely there; the standard 300kW X6 hits 100km/h in 5.4sec, and these cars’ main rivals, the Merc ML63 AMG and Porsche Cayenne Turbo manage it in five dead. The X6 feels quicker still – maybe by a fifth of a second – but more tellingly a BMW engineer let slip that the X6M is fractionally quicker around the Nürburgring than a current M3. We’re not sure if we believe him, but we’re going to enjoy finding out.But the way the pace is generated is unfamiliar in a BMW. The aristocratic, slightly manic engines in M cars usually require you to work them and their gearbox hard, for which you’re rewarded with an edgy metallic rasp which speaks of high crank speeds and fine tolerances. This X6M is more like an AMG used to be, before AMG ironically went naturally aspirated. You just floor the gas, get a deep, loud burble overlaid with a little crackle on the overrun and instant, any-gear, any-revs thrust; more FPV F6 than V10 M5.Limit handling is difficult to assess on sheet ice but there’s clearly a lot right with the chassis and driveline of each car. With winter tyres and all aids engaged they turn and accelerate almost as if they’re on tarmac. Like other M cars, the M button on the wheel allows you to choose your power output (300 or 395kW), damper setting and stability control level; all on, a Dynamic mode, allowing greater freedom to get the tail out, and all-off. In the latter, and in these conditions, you can feel the torque going to the rear axle and staying there as the cars pull long, composed drifts of which they show little sign of wishing to pull themselves out.Any vagueness in the throttle, brakes or steering is magnified on ice, but the X5 and X6M are capable of absorbing and executing the most delicate instruction. Haters of sporty SUVs used to be able to fall back on the argument that a big wagon would always drive infinitely better, or they could until the X6 arrived. The standard version steers and handles with near-unbelievable precision and security. Sending more power to the rear axle seems to make it better yet, and makes overpowered SUVs a little harder to find absurd.So what do we make of these cars? They’re going to be titanically fast. They’re probably going to redefine, again, how well you thought an SUV could drive. They are not going to feel as bespoke as M cars have until now. Dynamically – simple speed excepted – they will have little in common with an M3 or M5, but hint heavily at how future versions of those cars might be powered. They will also be among the least relevant cars to be launched this year, and we suspect they’ll be an infrequent sight outside of Miami or Dubai. We still wonder why you’d pick an X6M over the already damned-quick X6 V8, or any X6 over an X5, or any X5 over a 5 Series wagon. But we can’t help but like these two for standing facing into the overwhelming grey-green tide of public opinion, middle fingers extended, misguided, brave … and probably doomed.BMW X6M Body steel, 4 doors, 4 seats Drivetrain front engine (north-south), AWD Engine 4395cc V8, dohc, 32v, twin turbo Power 395kW @ 5500-6400rpm Torque 700Nm @ 1750-4500rpm Transmission 6-speed auto Weight 2240kg (estimated) 0-100km/h 4.8sec (estimated) Price $200,000 (estimated) On sale Late 2009BMW X5M Body steel, 4 doors, 5 seats Drivetrain front engine (north-south), AWD Engine 4395cc V8, dohc, 32v, twin turbo Power 395kW @ 5500-6400rpm Torque 700Nm @ 1750-4500rpm Transmission 6-speed auto Weight 2270kg (estimated) 0-100km/h 5.0sec (estimated) Price $180,000 (estimated) On sale Early 2010

The Germans have ruled the hi-po sedan roost for a couple of decades now, but the British – and even the Americans with the impressive Cadillac CTS-V – have recently laid down the gauntlet to the tough Teutons. We knew what to expect when a modified version of Jaguar’s new XFR – running a tweaked supercharger, improved aerodynamics and remapped ECU – ran 363km/h on the Bonneville salt flats in November. Then, at the international launch, we belted the car on marvellous, unencumbered Spanish roads and discovered this is simply the best-ever Jag – exciting, rewarding and almost certainly a better all-rounder than the more expensive motorsport-inspired BMW M5, autobahn-tuned Mercedes E63 AMG and über-powerful Audi RS6.

The supercharged version of Jaguar’s all-new direct-injection 5.0-litre V8 features a Roots-type twin-vortex system blower – the same unit used by the Corvette ZR1 – with twin intercoolers. It delivers 375kW from 6000 to 6500rpm, a vigorous 23 percent increase over the superseded 4.2-litre blown V8 and yet still meets tough Euro V emission levels. Maximum torque of 625Nm (up 12 percent) arrives from just 2500rpm and runs to 5500rpm; not surprisingly, from little above idle the performance is relentless. The 0-100km/h dash is dispatched in a claimed 4.9sec and the standing 400m in 13.1sec, but really telling is that 80 to 113km/h (50-70mph) is demolished in just 1.9sec, proving the XFR a devastating overtaking tool. Top speed is limited to 250km/h. Without the leash the engineers admit that 300km/h is painless.The XFR rips forward with a storming midrange delivery that allows you to tackle most twisting roads in just third and fourth gears. The performance is intoxicating, as is the new V8’s delicious repertoire of sound which doesn’t, for the first time on a supercharged Jag, include a whine (except for a distant, hardly discernible hum on full throttle). Perhaps the new V8 lacks the high-rpm sonic thrills of the V10 M5 and RS6, but this is still an absolutely magnificent engine. The powerplant is allied to the latest six-speed 6HP28 ZF auto ‘box which shifts 10 percent faster yet with utterly fluent changes in both Drive or via the paddleshift manual mode. It’s the engine’s torque and the effectiveness of this gearbox that defines the character of the XFR, so that it is both crushingly effective and superbly refined and docile. Put your foot down, however, and you enter a new world for Jaguar.Regardless of whether you’re leisurely wafting or using the performance, the XFR is relaxing to drive. On first movements the steering (10 percent quicker) is light, but the car turns in brilliantly and the system soon adds some reassuring weight once into the corner, all while retaining its lovely delicate feel. The car settles quickly and remains agile and composed whether through 150km/h sweepers or tip-toeing into a village at 50km/h. The XFR immediately feels like an easy car to live with, unlike the M5 and RS6. The electronic differential, which can vary its locking torque between zero and 90 percent, allows you to play with the throttle to adjust the line, noticeably reduces understeer, and also means you can get on the throttle early in tight corners. If you’re pulling away from a damp intersection there’s none of the wheelspin commonly associated with many rear-drive muscle sedans.The new electronic damping system does a great job of keeping the body taut and flat even on undulating roads that demand the maximum amount of wheel travel. Despite 30 percent stiffer spring rates, thicker anti-roll bars front and rear, and standard 20-inch Dunlop SP Sport Maxx 225/35 front and 285/30 rear rubber, the ride never deteriorates into harshness. Selecting Dynamic mode, via a button on the console, sharpens the Cat’s claws further: the dampers’ response is faster and firmer, throttle response is quickened, and the transmission allows the engine to hit the 6700rpm limiter without upshifting. Dynamic Mode is best left for the track; the basic chassis set-up is so good you notice the sharper vertical body motions more than any increase in point-to-point speed.An underlying firmness of ride suits the XFR character, yet the continuously variable damping set-up is trick, soaking up road acne with aplomb. The secret is the variable-rate magneto-rheological dampers, governed by sensors which monitor body motions and steering inputs up to 100 times a second and individual wheel positions 500 times a second, as well as throttle and braking inputs, and adjust accordingly. The brakes, once a problem on hot Jags, are hugely effective via massive 380mm vented discs.There’s a little more tyre noise than the old SV8 and Jaguar still hasn’t managed to eliminate wind flutter around the wing mirrors above 140km/h. But one of the great car cabins has been made even better in the R. The changes are subtle but include special dials, dark wood and more heavily bolstered, multi-adjustable and extremely comfortable seats that are so much better than the standard pews they should be optional across the XF range.By now you will have noticed the predictable exterior mods: a lower front bumper with larger air intakes, deeper sills, bi-xenons, a vented hood, new alloy wheels, a discreet bootlid spoiler and quad tailpipes. By any measure, this is a great-looking car.On paper the XFR may be a few clicks slower than the hot-rod E63, ferocious M5 and monstrous RS6, but even before driving the car on our ratty roads I suspect that the XFR trumps them all to be the best all-round hi-po sedan currently on sale. It matches the M5 dynamically and is almost line-ball for sheer pace; yet is far easier to live with as a daily drive and more amenable when you’re not on maximum attack. It also has considerably more finesse than either the Audi or Mercedes-Benz, at a minimum of $30K less. Add the Jag’s beauty, the obvious attention to detail and exceptional build quality to the equation and I’d argue the XFR sets a new standard for Jaguar. Stay tuned for the inevitable comparo test once the XFR arrives in mid-June. Jaguar XFR Body steel, 4 doors, 5 seats Drivetrain front engine (north-south), rear drive Engine 5000cc V8, dohc, 32v, s/charged Power 375kW @ 6000-6500rpm Torque 625Nm @ 2500-5500rpm Transmission 6-speed automatic Size l/w/h 4961/1877/1460mm Wheelbase 2909mm Weight 1816kg 0-100km/h 4.9sec (claimed) Price $210,000 (estimated) On sale June

Pontiac was a car before it was a potato. As is typical of US brands, Pontiac has often been marked by two or more emblems, including the silver streaks and from 1959 the famous split grille.

The first Pontiac badge was a literal affair, reflecting the fact that the brand name was purloined from the chief of the Ottawa Indians. It featured two overlapping circles, one containing the left profile of an Indian chief. Above this head was the word PONTIAC with CHIEF OF THE SIXES around the bottom. (Unlike cheaper Chevrolet in Alfred P. Sloan junior’s elaborately masterminded product hierarchy, the 1926 Pontiac came with a six-pack, but this differentiation was short-lived.)The other circle (tails, as it were, to the Indian’s head) carried a laurel wreath and PRODUCT OF GENERAL MOTORS lettering.In 1929, this fussy arrangement was replaced by a Pontiac bonnet emblem and Pontiac script on the radiator grille. Many 1930s models ran the logo on the bonnet sides, by now picked out in bright red; Chief Pontiac’s head in silhouette with flowing headdress. Appropriately, this racist theme was dropped on the radical-looking ‘Wide Track’ 1959 models with a downward thrusting chrome-enclosed red dart splitting the grille sections.

The F6 is a V8-killing non-linear torque-delivery weapon. It should come with a warning label – ‘may bite if cornered’. Especially if you turn the ESP off. Doing so is potentially rewarding (that’s not advice) although the caveat implicit in declining to accept ESP’s protection is that you’d better be running the same version of the driver ‘software’ as Steven Richards.

Sadly, though, the only place most of us are eligible for that upgrade is in our dreams. Stability control either protects average drivers from themselves, or it costs great drivers five seconds a lap like it did in the F6 – easily the difference between being a back-marker and taking the chequered flag.Calling the F6 ‘punchy’ isn’t the half of it. The right boot goes down, torque production spools up, amplified by the turbo. Suddenly, you might have more squirt on hand than you’d reckoned on, which can be interesting. It has a superior power-to-weight ratio than the FPV GT, weighs less, and brings 2.5 percent more torque to the party. And $66,590 for all that mayhem? The term ‘bargain’ comes to mind.It’s just as fast as a GTS from zero to 100km/h, but significantly quicker from 80km/h to 120km/h, and from 120km/h to 160km/h.Okay, so it’s 1.5km/h slower than the GT through turn two and onto the main straight, yet it’s 8km/h faster on the straight and generates more braking both in terms of peak G and average G down the other end. It’s almost 6km/h faster through the kink, and 4km/h faster on the back straight. Being 50kg lighter than the GT is likely to have played a significant role here.The F6 also pulls exactly the same top speed down the main straight (209.3km/h) as the $12K-dearer HSV GTS, even though the GTS carries 3km/h more speed through turn two and, notionally, offsets its slightly higher mass (24kg) with seven more kilowatts of peak power. The F6 is also 2km/h faster than the GTS through the kink. And all this despite a slight (on paper, at least) tyre deficit – the F6 runs 245/35ZR19 Dunlop Sport Maxx on all four corners compared with the GTS’s 245/35 (front) and 275/30 (rear) 20-inch Bridgestone Potenzas.Most impressive feature? For the briefest instant, at 199.4km/h coming off the end of the main straight and on the way into turn one, its brakes generated more than one million watts of raw power. Moment of silence, please. That’s 1000kW, and not even the HRT ride car managed that.The F6 pulled its 1805kg mass into just over one G of deceleration at just under the double-ton – crunch the high-school physics on that trinity of parameters, and you get in excess of a megawatt – that’s more than triple the output of the engine. Price $66,590 Engine in-line 6, dohc, 24v turbo Capacity 3.984 litres Bore/stroke 92.3/99.3mm Compression 8.5:1 Power 310kW@5250rpm Torque 550Nm@1950-5200rpm Transmission 6-speed manual Kerb weight 1805kg Power-to-weight 172kW/tonne Tyres Dunlop SP Sport Maxx, 245/35ZR19 (f&r)

The GT is, relatively, the least-inspiring car here. But in some respects it’s almost the GTS’s equal, and on offer at a 15 percent price discount.

To 100km/h and over the standing 400m, the GT is half a second slower than both the F6 and the GTS. However, in overtaking, although it’s slaughtered by the F6 from 80-120km/h and 120-160km/h, it line-balls the GTS from 80-120, and beats it by about 0.1 sec from 120-160.Lap times see the GT about 0.1 seconds in front of the F6, but in an actual race against the GT, the result would be 100 percent down to racecraft, as the GT has an edge in places where the F6 does not, and vice-versa. The driver better at exploiting the other’s weaknesses would win. This might not be the case in a race between it and the GTS, however.Daylight – more than a full second of it – separates the GT’s 70.23 from the GTS 69.13-second lap time. The two cars manage to pull virtually identical peak cornering loads both left and right around the circuit – about 1.1G in both cases. Yet the GT is slower in both corners, both doglegs and the kink. It’s also slower down both straights (on the main straight by 7.5km/h and on the back straight by only 0.2km/h – and despite emerging onto the back straight from the kink almost 4km/h behind the eight-ball). The pair also recorded identical maximum longitudinal accelerations during their fastest laps – both 0.58G.The brakes on the GT are characteristically different to the brakes on the GTS. The GT tends to deliver a lot of braking early, while the GTS’s stop is more even. How much of this is down to the style of Richards versus Tander is unclear. Peak brake applications by the GT on both the main straight and the back straight (which we analysed but haven’t tabulated) are as much as 18 percent higher than the GTS’s, though the averages (0.53G for the GT versus 0.58G for the GTS on the main straight and 0.67, GT, and 0.63, GTS, on the back straight) are quite similar.The GT slices almost 141km/h from its 201.8km/h maximum speed on the main straight in the space of 240 metres. This process takes 7.5 seconds. The GTS reduces its 209.2 Vmax by 139km/h in about 260 metres, in just 7.1 seconds. At its best, at a speed of about 183km/h and with full brakes applied, the GT generates 936kW of braking power. The GTS’s peak was 895kW. (Note that although the two stops are very similar, the GT’s is slightly less severe – it involves losing about 2.65 million joules, about three percent less energy than the GTS lost.)Least inspiring? Perhaps. Uninspiring? Nope; it’s an elite club. In performance terms, does the GT represent good value compared with the GTS? That depends who you ask. There’s no such thing as bipartisan support in the Ford v Holden debate. Price $66,590 Engine V8 (900), dohc, 32v Capacity 5.408 litres Bore/stroke 90.2/105.8mm Compression 10.8:1 Power 315kW@6500rpm Torque 551Nm@4750rpm Transmission 6-speed manual Kerb weight 1855kg Power-to-weight 170kW/tonne Tyres Dunlop SP Sport Maxx, 245/35ZR19 (f&r)

You could have ‘his & hers’ GTSs for the $155K price of the W427. But the top-gun HSV model catapults you considerably closer to V8 Supercar performance … with none of the extreme race-car compromises. It’s an affordable supercar.

It not only matched, but beat, the average deceleration of the HRT ride car into turn one (0.66G for the W427 versus 0.61G for HRT).The W427 almost matches the HRT car on peak deceleration as well – 1.10G (W427) versus 1.11G (HRT). Impressive … but not as impressive as it first seems, since the HRT car is pulling 1.11G at almost 235km/h while the W427 is doing its 1.10 at ‘just’ 208km/h. Mass, speed and deceleration combined determine braking power – so the HRT car is making 994kW of braking power at its peak (almost a megawatt) while the W427 is managing ‘just’ 944kW under maximum braking.Interesting to note, too, that while the decelerations are very similar, it takes the W427 240 metres of track to slow from 220km/h to about 70. The HRT car requires 65 metres more to slow from 246km/h to 67km/h. The difference in speed lost is just 30km/h. Makes you think about the relationship between speed and stopping distances in the real world…Braking performance is similar off the back straight. The W427 manages 1.08G maximum versus the HRT car’s 1.12G, with the averages at 0.59G (W427) and 0.64G (HRT). Crucially, however, the HRT car is managing it at 210km/h, while the W427’s speed at peak braking off the back straight is 170km/h.The W427’s performance simply eclipses that of the other three road cars. On lap time, cornering speeds and maximum speeds on the straights, only the V8 Supercars were faster. Amidst all these stellar performances, one really stood out: its ability to get the power down. It managed a peak of 0.72G straight-line acceleration (FPR: 0.73G) in not one but two places on the track – coming out of turn one and out of dogleg one. A brilliant result for a 1874kg car (compared with a 1355kg V8 Supercar) running on road tyres and hamstrung by nearly 100kW.The W427 couldn’t match the V8 Supercars for straight-line acceleration elsewhere on the track, however. Just before belting the brakes into turn two, the W427 is managing to accelerate towards the turn at 0.4G (at 106km/h). Both race cars are all over it – the FPR car is still accelerating towards turn two at 0.67G and 119km/h, while the HRT car is pulling 0.5G and 120km/h.The difference is, of course, that the W427 is about $350,000 cheaper than either race car. You don’t need a half-million-dollar transporter and five technicians to get it to the track and give it a damn good go, either. Price $155,500 Engine V8 (900), ohv, 16v Capacity 7.008 litres Bore/stroke 104.8/101.6mm Compression 11.0:1 Power 375kW@7000rpm Torque 640Nm@5000rpm Transmission 6-speed manual Kerb weight 1874kg Power-to-weight 200kW/tonne Tyres Bridgestone Potenza RE050, 245/35R20 (f); 275/30R20 (r)

If the opportunity ever presents itself to have yourself strapped into the Holden Racing Team (HRT) ride car, embrace it (I did for half a dozen laps … purely in the name of research, you understand). It is very close to the real thing, as our comparisons between it and the Ford Performance Racing (FPR) race car demonstrate.

One myth to dispel is the notion that race cars brake later into corners. They don’t, because they’re invariably travelling at greater speed. Compared with the GTS, for example, the HRT ride car gets on the picks 20 metres earlier at the end of the main straight. The reason? It’s doing 246km/h; the GTS 209km/h. Consider the energy that’s required to be dissipated: the HRT car has to shed 7.5 percent more energy than the GTS to get around turn one.It happens again on the back straight – the HRT car, doing 219km/h, brakes 26 metres earlier than the GTS, and is still doing 207km/h when the GTS hits the anchors at 185km/h.You might wonder if this is in fact a liability. It isn’t. One of the coolest things you can do with the AX22’s analysis software we’re using here to burp up the all-important data, is overlay the graph of one car’s speed against position around the circuit, and overlay the graph of another’s upon it. Do that with the GTS and the HRT ride car, and the HRT car is faster everywhere – and the gulf between them grows as speed increases. In other words, the HRT car is travelling much faster than the GTS just before the track’s key braking points.Do the same thing with the HRT car and the W427, and watch the speed difference shrink. In fact, well into the braking zone at the end of the main straight the difference is minimal – there’s less than 2km/h in it. Then, on the way into turn two, off the straight but before the apex, the two graphs appear to touch. Closer examination revealed the HRT car doing 67.6km/h where the W427 achieved 66.8km/h – too close for comfort from the race car’s point of view, but a shot in the arm for anyone who stumped up $155,000 for the W427…The third informative overlay exercise pitted the HRT ride car against the FPR racer. The two speed and position graphs might as well be carbon copies, yet look closely and the FPR V8 Supercar is fractionally ahead in many places. In particular it carries significantly more speed during brake manoeuvres. Into turn one, for example, at one point on the track the HRT car manages ‘only’ 229km/h against the FPR’s 252km/h.Through the kink the HRT records 171km/h, while the FPR is a remarkable 10km/h faster through the same section of track. The end of the back straight sees the HRT ride car at 207km/h when the FPR car is storming along at 222km/h. Farther into that stop, just before cranking the wheel right into dogleg two, the HRT car (doing 106km/h) out-paces the FPR (99km/h).Both the HRT and the FPR exit turn one at 126km/h onto the straight, but a bunch of small differences (as well as two big ones, under brakes) sees the HRT ride car shaded by the real-deal FPR V8 Supercar. Price $500,000 (est) Engine V8 (900), ohv, 16v Capacity 4994cc Bore/stroke 101.6/77.0mm Compression 10.0:1 Power 483kW@7000-7500rpm Torque 665Nm@6100rpm Transmission 6-speed manual Kerb weight 1355kg Power-to-weight 356kW/tonne Tyres 17-inch Dunlop racing slick on 11-inch wide magnesium alloy

The FPR V8 Supercar totally out-classes the HRT ride car on a hot lap of Calder Park. Before either V8 Supercar had turned a wheel in anger, I asked Garth Tander and the boys from HRT what the performance difference between the ride car and the FPR racer was likely to be. The consensus view was: “about a second per lap” – a frank and on-the-money appraisal as things turned out.

So, what aspect of ‘real’ V8 Supercar performance do you miss out on, from the passenger’s seat of the HRT ride car? The answer is, essentially, that the FPR car is a braking virtuoso, while the HRT ride car is merely impressive.Off the end of the main straight, the FPR car starts its braking 20 metres closer to turn one. And, during those 20 metres, you have to ask yourself what it spends its time doing. The answer is, of course, accelerating – increasing speed. When Richards hits the anchors in the FPR racer, he’s doing 255km/h. At this exact same point on the track, the HRT ride car has already wiped 5km/h from its maximum speed of 246km/h. If you stare at the overlaid straight-line acceleration graphs long enough, you actually see the FPR Supercar carve up the HRT ride car under brakes.Then, still on the straight, the FPR racer goes on to brake a lot harder. It gets to its peak brake application (1.3G) early, and at this point the HRT car is managing ‘only’ 0.85G. Around 120 metres later, the FPR car is still pulling 1.2Gs under brakes at 147km/h – at which point Richards starts easing off the brakes in the set-up for turn one; the HRT is managing 0.7G at 139km/h, and Tander won’t start easing off for another 30 metres.The braking duel into turn one repeats itself – albeit not on such a grand scale – off the end of the back straight into dogleg two, highlighting the two places on the track where the FPR car has a real edge.Elsewhere, its gains are incremental. The two cars are very close on corner entry and exit speeds around the entire circuit. At one point on the way into turn one, for example, the FPR racer is carrying 116.5km/h while the HRT carries 117.3km/h. On the way out, the FPR car is doing 88.2km/h at the point where the HRT car is level-pegging at 88.3km/h. However, at the apexes, the FPR racer carries slightly more speed (and therefore more lateral G) in each of the turns.For 600 metres of the main straight, the two Supercars really are nose-to-nose. At the second-third gearchange on the way out of turn two, the FPR car pulls 122.0km/h while the HRT car, hypothetically beside it, manages 121.1km/h. Then, 350 metres before the entry to turn one, the FPR car starts to inch ahead. One hundred metres after that, Tander in the HRT car hits the anchors; Richards won’t for another 20 metres, and the FPR car gallops away.This braking performance adds up to a 1.2-second per lap difference in the favour of the FPR. That’s a two percent advantage to the Blue Oval racer, a gap that the HRT car lacks the ability to close. Price $500,000 (est) Engine V8 (900), ohv, 16v Capacity less than 5000cc Bore/stroke team specific Compression 10.0:1 Power 470kW@7250rpm Torque 630Nm@5750rpm Transmission 6-speed manual Kerb weight 1355kg Power-to-weight 347kW/tonne Tyres 17-inch Dunlop racing slick on 11-inch wide magnesium alloy