R35 Vs Hsv Gts - Strange Bed Fellows

[Birds]

The way i see it, the article itself was a good read, and both are nice cars.. Why not compare em? I have seen worse comparisons. Also as far as price brackets go, sometimes they are beside the point and sometimes cars half the price come out on top. (35 vs 911 turbo etc)

Edit- Also most of us probably knew the outcome before reading it!

Price brackets are only besides the point when no closer competitor exists, or when the flagship vehicle from each stable makes an appearance, e.g. 911 turbo vs. R35. In this case they've taken 2nd on the podium vs. flagship...just doesn't make sense to me. Couldn't care less about the outcome, whether HSV or R35 takes the victory, I'm all for interesting comparisons...but you have to set some variables to make some sense...otherwise it's just a Top Gear fun time test. Might as well compare a Daihatsu to a Lambo; the GTS is not a supercar.

Same taxi body different engine?

7 litres of V8 engine does makes all the difference on the straights

Wheels or Motor (cant remember which) actually did that already. Price bracket was the same.

Yeah...the comparison has been done before. Someone on here actually owned both and posted on here their thoughts regarding both vehicles. But I'd rather see that same comparo done again than put the 2nd in line HSV up against a car worth twice the cost and sharing zero in common with it. Oh well, I guess magazine had it's intended effect...rile up forumers

[Birds]

I still dont get this wank about how the GTR is so "technological" and the GTS and others aren't. All usually (misguidedly) based on the dashboard display which from what you're saying is as high tech on the GTS as it is on the GTR. GTS has traction and stability control and lots of computers as well. Only thing lacking in comparison is a torque vectoring diff. The ATTESA system has been around since the first GTR and last time I looked Ferraris and Porsches all had electronic aids helping distribute power to all 4/2 wheels. Yet no-one accuses Ferrari of having no soul or being tech overkill because of this. The more I read the more think the belief is that noise+ oversteer=soul and jap = soul-less. Well on that basis my 460 XC coupe must be the most emotionally inspiring car in the world.. Shit yeah it's fun..That's if you can keep your licence and car long enough driving like that on our roads. But it's also so much fun feeling that incredible out of this world slingshot when you power the GTR out of a corner flat knacker! Whatever floats your boat. Get yourself a midpipe if noise is what's lacking in your GTR. After years of similar reporting there's too much confirmational bias in this argument now for it to be balanced anymore. GTS isnt slow because of lack of electronics. Its slow because its a big tall 2 wheel drive compromised family car ....

Let's not forget the GR6...very key part of R35 performance IMO. Other than that I agree with you. I think half the "computer car that drives itself" stigma comes about because it comes from the land of the rising technology. But every supercar manufacturer taking themselves seriously these days are using driver aids. If even Holden/HSV are doing it...

[Harey]

As everyone has said 2 very different cars for different purposes. Each have their own merit.

[PranK]

Drove a my mates parents ve gts just yesterday, and its an awesome car.. no doubt about it. Hands down 100x better than any other commodore or hsv i have driven, having said that its not in the same league as a 35 gtr, and i can say that without driving a 35.

Haha, "and i can say that without driving a 35" - really?

Yikes ... Goes to show how easy (and judgemental perhaps?) it is to jump on a 'this car is better than that car' bandwagon ...

[Birds]

At least he admitted it, lots of people make similar claims without stating their inexperience with the cars in question lol.

[Marlin]

I have never driven a Trabant, OR an Aston V12 Vantage. But, I'd venture to say, I'd know the Aston to be superior.

[cannabiscorpse]

Haha, "and i can say that without driving a 35" - really?

Yikes ... Goes to show how easy (and judgemental perhaps?) it is to jump on a 'this car is better than that car' bandwagon ...

Well if nothing else (and there is plenty else) the gtr is suppose to be around 1.5 seconds faster over a 1/4 mile! That to me is enough to say which one i would rather drive. Thats without taking into account corners and braking, which we all know who comes out on top. Im also pretty confident saying it after watching the GTR smoke a porsche 911 turbo and Audi R8 V10, lets see a standard hsv do it.

In fact i think its easy to 'jump on the bandwagon' when one car is over twice the price (with good reason)

After all this is said, what can be expected.. One is practically a supercar, the other a luxo family V8. Also, i f**king loved that GTS!! I am a bit of a holden boy, and a sucker for V8 torque, and i was honestly thrilled to drive the best hsv has offered up, Its a damn beautiful car and miles ahead of anything holden/hsv i have driven in the past. In no way can i knock the car, but its a chalk and cheese comparison.

[dkbcleaner]

I think all you guys are missing the point of this review. It was which one is more fun to drive, not which one is faster or handles better. They covered that is the first paragraph.

[fungoolie]

Haha, "and i can say that without driving a 35" - really?

Yikes ... Goes to show how easy (and judgemental perhaps?) it is to jump on a 'this car is better than that car' bandwagon ...

He doesn't have to. I've driven both and what I expected to be the case based on what I had read etc turned out to be exactly how it was. "Better" is easy to judge once you have the criteria to judge against and when those criteria are all about performance the motoring journalists generally get it right personal biases aside. "More fun" is completely different and totally up to personal opinion and what gets your rocks off. The only thing the GTS did "better" is do cool drifts and consume rear tyres doing burnouts. That's definitely fun for me initially but only because I don't normally get the car or place to do it. I imagine if I had a car that was capable of that I would do it a bit and then stop after a while as it gets expensive and probably boring and hard to do often without getting your car impounded. Disconnect the front wheels and as shown by the video elsewhere on this forum you could get the GTR to do that stuff as well. Other than that, with the GTS the rest of the time, you're driving something that makes you feel totally detached from the car and the road you're driving on compared with the GTR. So when you're not making rear tyre smoke it's no where near as much fun..... But that's just me....Like comparing a Harley with a Jap bike really....People buy both for different reasons...

Edited May 27, 2011 by fungoolie

[Ultimategtr]

Well that was a biased comparison.

[Samuel Leonard]

does the gts actually have an "oversteer-o-meter" as described on the 2nd page of the pdf? that is rather humerous.

anywhoo, gotta agree with the aboves, dont think the hsv's in the same league as the gtr. but im just basing that off dad's r8.

I work at hamilton Holden. Drive many gts's maloo's and plain clubsports. They all feel very similar except for the extra features in the gts. I haven't been in a 35 but I know they have nothing on the r35. Decent car none the less.

[cannabiscorpse]

I work at hamilton Holden. Drive many gts's maloo's and plain clubsports. They all feel very similar except for the extra features in the gts. I haven't been in a 35 but I know they have nothing on the r35. Decent car none the less.

Another one jumping on the bandwagon! Your just a plain idiot.. lol

(if you havent read the previous posts, im joking)

[tridentt150v]

I think the write up pointed out that you got what you paid for!!!! Plus I got the impression [from the write up again] that both auto's gave a lot of car for the money. ie they are likely the bag for bucks bargains of their time.

I know that there are other cars out there that perform and have flowing curves, but you pay a lot more for them.

And to reinforce my thinking on this, neither writer found anything wrong with either car - in fact they grudgingly admitted that they liked both cars for what they could do and in their own way.

And if it was me, I'd own either of them over Porsches and Ferrari's and other exotics - because I know that in 10 years time I would still be driving them and watching the 10 year old exotic being loaded [yet again] onto the tilt tray = mechanical repairs.

Its the one thing that motoring write ups don't cover, the long term reliability of the car. The reason you see Range Rovers winning every award possible from all corners of the earth, but if you drive around Australia, in the outback etc all you will see is Toyota Landcruisers/Hiluxes, and Nissan Patrols etc. Nobody in their right mind would do this in a Range Rover, you'd end up stuck out in the Simpson Desert or something.

[Birds]

But...Clarkson loves Range Rovers? They must be good.

[maclarenf1]

I think the write up pointed out that you got what you paid for!!!! Plus I got the impression [from the write up again] that both auto's gave a lot of car for the money. ie they are likely the bag for bucks bargains of their time.

I know that there are other cars out there that perform and have flowing curves, but you pay a lot more for them.

And to reinforce my thinking on this, neither writer found anything wrong with either car - in fact they grudgingly admitted that they liked both cars for what they could do and in their own way.

And if it was me, I'd own either of them over Porsches and Ferrari's and other exotics - because I know that in 10 years time I would still be driving them and watching the 10 year old exotic being loaded [yet again] onto the tilt tray = mechanical repairs.

Its the one thing that motoring write ups don't cover, the long term reliability of the car. The reason you see Range Rovers winning every award possible from all corners of the earth, but if you drive around Australia, in the outback etc all you will see is Toyota Landcruisers/Hiluxes, and Nissan Patrols etc. Nobody in their right mind would do this in a Range Rover, you'd end up stuck out in the Simpson Desert or something.

+1 this was the point of the review... it not really meant to be one on one compario as that is pointless

[maclarenf1]

But...Clarkson loves Range Rovers? They must be good.

with Tata money they will be good in the future

[domino_z]

my bro had a loaner series 3 GTS a few weeks back

the ride was terrible and would lean far too heavily on its front outside tyre in corners, the exhaust resonated inside the cabin, build quality and materials was crap, it didn't feel all that powerful compared other fast sedans ive owned (c63 being the latest), and i ran out of fingers counting the amount of fake air/brake ducts all over the plastic clad body....worst was the two bonnet scoops cooling down the plastic engine cover

you'd need to be some serious flag waving aussie to spend upwards of 70K+ for these things

Edited July 27, 2011 by domino_z

[domino_z]

I still dont get this wank about how the GTR is so "technological" and the GTS and others aren't.

i agree, every journo jumps on the interweb hater computer excuse bandwagon

comparing it to any other modern day sportscar say for eg the 458 or 997 turbo, even a current m3,

- electronic gearbox - all 3

- electronic traction - all 3

- electronic suspension - all 3

- electronic lc - all 3

this isnt williams f1 1993

teh mind does boggles

Edited July 27, 2011 by domino_z