Is Hsv W427 Worth $150k-$170k?

[m3gtr]

Ha!

How did I know that Roy would get involved in this!

Hey Guys, you seem kind of surprised. Gabbo here drops into the post through the skylight, spraying 'crappy this' and 'Nissan same shit that' everywhere and gets all upset when he gets flamed. Was your crystal ball not working when you looked into the future on this one?

General Automotive discussion area, or the DIY section for 'How to weave yourself a nice hat', statements like these are throwing down the gauntlet (especially with the 'Attitude' switch set to 'Super Stun' like in this case, so don't get all upset by the response. That was no 'peace, love, and mung beans for all things automotive' in that statement.

Hell, Kralster even stole my own insult to him (twit), changed a vowel, and threw it back at me! Despicable! A little originality, please...

Who says I was using 'internet fan boy fodder' to make my statement? Roy, have you been looking through my bedroom window while I'm on the PC again? Next time look to all the racing literature sitting on my bookshelf to the right. That's where I was quoting from.

GT-R's weren't banned? You might have a hard time pushing that one up a hill with a stick. How about if I say that the 'formula' (forced induction and all wheel drive) was banned? That legally admissable enough for you? Not acknowledging something like this is like saying that a Holden Commodore isn't a rear wheel driven car, but is actually driven by it's engine...

Oh, and my final statement...

Your momma!

Now that that's all out of the way, let's all have a group hug, an electronic beer, and toast to all the crap performance Nissans, Holdens, Fords, Toyotas, Mazdas, Hondas, etc... (not Hyundai) out there, while we click on the link below and watch the nice Mr Clarkson hurting himself...

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=zqBBL7WYWIs

Ouch!

Farkin ROFL! Awesome post, coakman.

Im not being left out of this either.

I will say again that the 427 is NOT good value for money. Thats it. It is NOT worth 160k.

Australian car makers and the government due to lobbying, have shot themselves in the foot by closing the door on overseas models to protect the local lineup.

Just take a look at the "grey import R35" thread to get an idea...( yes, i do read. )

Its as simple as that. Because of that, holden have had to place a ridiculous tag on the 427 to justify its conception. It will only work in Oz too, mind you. No one in their right minds will pay that sort of money for a car from Holden outside of Australia.

Clarkson was being a dick when he "pulled his neck out" in the GTR. The bloody ride-on lawnmower appearing should have told you that much.

In dramatic but plebish terms, he was only saying the GTR is neck breaking quick, lol.

Damn, this thread refuses to burn out. Lets chuck a few more logs on it and stoke it up a little more...

[m3gtr]

Would anyone dare to surmise 160k worth of technological development went into the 427?

I dont bloody well think so.

Hmmmm...

M5 - $170k...id pay that. GTR at $160 - theres a sheitload of tech in that beast... M3 - yep, same only cheaper.. AMG C63..? Seriously.

427? Not on your life buddy.

I cant for the life of me understand why, putting aside the logically pointless reasons, anyone would spend that much on a car that was packing so little in the way of improvement, refinement and advancement??!

...go ..Holde...n..?

[Roy]

LOL, i take it that HSV cannot count on your for a deposit then Adam?

But, steady on with statements about the quality of VE Commodores, especially when you have never seen one in the flesh, let alone driven one, or a lesser model HSV for that matter.

Oh, and M5 is 230k, E63 is 225k, Audi S6 is 195k, who knows what the RS6 will be. So perhaps the HSV is cheaper because it doesnt have the fancy AWD systems, mutli diff settings.

Having driven an M3 they are poo if driven in normal mode. You would never drive the thing in any other mode then M and the diff settings on race etc etc. So what is the point of the tunability when you dont want to downgrade the car any further. I trust the M5 could be very similar with all its diff settings etc. Maybe in Europe with ICE on roads etc it is more critical??!!?? I dont know, but HSV is damn expensive, but i can still see why people could buy it.

[baron25]

Little off topic, but:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm sure i read somewhere that the first iterations of the current M cars are having reliability issues now because of people constantly driving them in M mode, where M was designed more for special occasions (track etc) and the engine detuned to protect it's longevity?

A problem the HSV will most likely not face, due to it's simplicity.

[jase-r34]

Having driven an M3 they are poo if driven in normal mode. You would never drive the thing in any other mode then M and the diff settings on race etc etc. So what is the point of the tunability when you dont want to downgrade the car any further

Well that's just your opinion.... And going by your logic, anyone that has a 2 stage boost controller would never run it on low boost mode just because its not performing to its peak?

[Roy]

Well that's just your opinion.... And going by your logic, anyone that has a 2 stage boost controller would never run it on low boost mode just because its not performing to its peak?

Two stage boost controller isnt as pronounced though. Running lower boost just gives you less power. It is surprising just how lethargic the car becomes when it is not in M mode. I didnt play with the diff or suspension settings, but the M button on the steering wheel was easy to play with, it literally killed throttle response and made the car feel doughy. Needed a lot more throttle application to drive the car. Press the M button and the instantly felt more agile and precise, all because of how the car responded to inputs. They was i woudl expect an M3 should always drive. Its almost as though non M model turns it into a 320i hire car from Thrifty I dont know if non M mode does anything to the car outside of engine????

So, i would be surprised if any owner drove their car in non M mode?!?! But it sounds great, goes well and is very nice car. I dont think it is quick as many of the other cars in the price bracket. but it makes the right sounds and belnds in nicely so dont have to put up with too much attention.

[Shaolin242]

Little off topic, but:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm sure i read somewhere that the first iterations of the current M cars are having reliability issues now because of people constantly driving them in M mode, where M was designed more for special occasions (track etc) and the engine detuned to protect it's longevity?

A problem the HSV will most likely not face, due to it's simplicity.

correct. the used BMW M5s here are being sold after one year for a less then 2/3s their price with only 8000km on them..due to being run in M mode all the time...

ridiculous that the car cant cope with it...

[bigslick]

I refer to the cover of the latest Wheels magazine:

"375kw HSV: Australia's first supercar".............

BAHH...HAHAHAHAHA

[benro2]

Man, EVERYTHING than can be said about the W427 has been said... but what the heck? I read about 7-8 pages and got the general gist of what people are saying, and I agree with most of it. But I will attempt to debate the main points I came across (no doubt most are from m3gtr! ):

1. m3gtr, why do you have to have technological breakthroughs in every car? Technology for the sake of technology? Yes, $170k for a Holden is ridiculous, especially when you consider what you can get even from HSV (which I still believe to be too expensive), so I can understand your argument regarding no new technologies being used in the W427. However, the flip side of this is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! If a 7.0L V8 propels a ~2 tonne car quickly, and it gives the V8 punters a rush when it does so, then USE IT! Don't use a 5.0L V10 that is unreliable and needs to be revved to 8000 rpm to generate the SAME power (and MUCH less torque) than the 7.0L V8. This is just one example, yes, but you get the idea.

2. m3gtr, I believe you called said something like "lowly VE" - could have been someone else? Have you actually driven one of these cars? Yes, it's a Commodore, but they aren't bad cars, *especially* for the money. The VE chassis has been commended many times over for its incredible power down, which is obviously important with large RWD cars. The steering, when the car was new, was described as being better than an M5's. The interior is a BIG, *BIG* improvement over the previous model in terms of design, ambience and quality. If you're thinking of Commodores of old, they are NOTHING like current Commodores. The only thing common is the name. Do I own a VE? No. Would I? Probably not right now. I don't have kids and don't need one, so I want and drive a coupe. I'm simply stating what I have read about these cars, mostly by motoring journos who have had the chance to actually drive both late model BMW's, Mercs and Holdens and provide a real world comparison. Say what you want about journos, I don't care, but I still believe a lot of uninformed and biased people need to actually get an drive a VE before piling crap on them.

Oh, and I remember my dad saying that years ago, Jaguar used to be like Holdens, in that they were a cheap, "everyday" kind of car. They were going out of business, so they decided to take another business approach and build up the brand in the "niche" segment. Voila! They are (relatively) successful, I suspect because it's safer to turn a profit from selling less cars at a higher price than more cars at a lower price. Why should Holden be dumped on because they are trying to do the same thing with the W427 (to an extent)? I don't like it either, but can you blame them?

Which also leads me to brand snobbery. Why do it? I have a young friend who wants to buy a Z4 in his first year out of uni because it apparently has "class". I don't know what his definition of class is (can anyone help me here?) but to me, Z4's are butt ugly (as are a lot of BMW's these days unfortunately) and I can't see how a 2nd hand $50k Z4 is any better (in terms of the way the car drives, features, value for money, rarity) than an R34 GT-R, for example. He *refuses* to look at Japanese cars. He HATES my GTS-T and Supra. I think he thinks "class" means that people will perceive him as a "step up" on everyone else - but the funny part is, there are 10 million Z4's around, and far less R34 GT-R's, so I could argue his point in reverse! People like this leave me puzzled...

3. Beancounters. Holden's have hit the nail on the head with theirs. Obviously, an extra $70k for an increase of 1.0L engine size and not much else is stupidity. But people are buying the car. Why did they price it that high? Because they have an idea of how many people are likely to buy it, so they price it appropriately. I forget who it was exactly, but a guy from Ferrari (the last CEO?) once said that they always try make one less car than there is a demand for. Hence them making 499 Enzo's - they believed there was a market for 500. Same with the W427. They believe X cars will be sold - so they make it a limited run of slightly less, work out how much they should charge from that, and hey presto, you've just made a pile of cash! I don't blame them for it. They're a business - they'll take money from wherever they can get it. It just happens to annoy people like you (and me) when they do it. So don't buy the car. I wouldn't, even if I had the cash. Obviously there are enough that will.

4. m3gtr, you said that you'd be better off with an R35 GTR. Well, not necessarily. I would be, no doubt. An R35 GTR is my dream car. But what about the guy who has kids and whose wife won't let him buy a "speciality" sports coupe? So it obviously depends on *who* the car is for. I could also argue the point as to whether I would be better off with a nice, brand new Ford G6E Turbo, or a decent, but several years old, R34 GTR V-Spec with nowhere near the luxury or features. Basically the same price, but which would I buy? The R34 GTR hands down, but that's just me. I would equally love the G6ET, but it's too "middle aged guy" for me (I'm 26 BTW). That car is an absolute rocket and has just about every useful feature you could ever want. But why the R34 GTR? Because I just want one! I don't have kids to worry about, I might want to take it to the track, and I might want to join a cruise and chat with guys there that are my age and share common interests. Do you see my point? You can never say that one particular person would be "better off" with one particular car.

That's about all I've got I probably had more but I can't think of it right now...

[benro2]

I refer to the cover of the latest Wheels magazine:

"375kw HSV: Australia's first supercar".............

BAHH...HAHAHAHAHA

Well, the word "supercar" is being bandied about a little too often these days. I think the old "supercars" are now being known as "hypercars", and "quite fast" cars are now being known as "supercars". Depends on your definition of the word. Some people would say an M5 is a supercar. If you are using that line of thinking, then the W427 is indeed a "supercar". Almost exactly the same power and weight, and I dare say, probably pretty much the same track abilities (wouldn't be surprised if the W427 did better, actually, due to it's sportier suspension setup).

I personally don't believe the W427 should be classified as a supercar. I would consider the R35 GT-R a supercar and it's even getting up there with some of the hypercars in terms of track times (look at the Nurburgring time - FASTER than some "hypercars"!). So can you call the R35 GT-R a hypercar?

Edited July 29, 2008 by benro2

[GTR-N1]

...not after Garth Tander drives it!

I'm not interested in the before pic - just the after pic of his 427 stack.

[marchGTR]

just saw in one of the latest wheels/motor magazines that the 16oK hsv only manages a 13sec 1/4 mile...this is nowhere near supercar times by anyones standards..sure its rolling acceleration seems good (if you can get traction=which they did mention can be a challenge).. my standard turboed rx7 manages quicker than this regularly. Not worth the money for what your getting, IMO.

[m3gtr]

Man, EVERYTHING than can be said about the W427 has been said... but what the heck? I read about 7-8 pages and got the general gist of what people are saying, and I agree with most of it. But I will attempt to debate the main points I came across (no doubt most are from m3gtr! ):

Ben, I was merely stating my case on the sheer ludicrousness of the fact that Holden are doing what you very precisely alluded to when you said " 1.0 liter of extra displacement for 70k"

Enough said there i think, yes? Good to see this discussion has gone past the Holden Vs The World angle...

1. m3gtr, why do you have to have technological breakthroughs in every car? Technology for the sake of technology?

Absolutely. I think the hallmark for a great automotive company is innovation, the cutting edge and new ways of thinking. Think of the most recognizable manufacturers in the world and their flagships will scream "INNOVATION" till they are blue in the...umm...conrods..

Look at BMW. No, I dont like what Chris Bangle is doing with the design department - he has single handedly radicalized the BMW design department faster than Osama in a Jihad conscription call...and the designs are suffering...except for the 3 series. But, they have won engine award after engine award for a huge range of reasons and why?

"Technology for the sake of technology" because its good for us.

[Beer Baron]

Ah comon, Holden and Ford are

After driving the VS commodore (currently driving one for another 2 weeks) Im just appauled by the car...

mate, the VS commodore was released in 1995... so thats a 13 year old car. this may shock you, but things have moved on in 13 years. even at holden.

a 13 year old commodore has absolutely no relevance to a 2008 commodore.

[typevu]

a 13 year old commodore has absolutely no relevance to a 2008 commodore.

Yeah there is... they're both Commodores!

[m3gtr]

lol, got you on that one Richo...