FPV GT and GT E 2011 Review

Price Guide (recommended price before statutory and delivery charges): $71,290 (GT) or $82,540 (GT-E)
Options fitted to test car (not included in above price): Premium brakes $6376, Decal/stripe kit in silver $840, satellite navigation $3231, adjustable pedals $354 and reversing camera $705
Crash rating: Five stars (ANCAP)
Fuel: 95 RON PULP
Claimed fuel economy (L/100km): 13.7
CO2 emissions (g/km): 324
Also consider: HSV GTS (GT) and Senator (GT E)

The GT E is the car for FPV and Ford fans who don't need the world to know where their loyalties lie. It's an understated car, the blue oval equivalent of the HSV Senator or, to put it another way, the supercharged V8 equivalent of the turbo six F6 E from the same stable.

While it's broadly the same, mechanically, as the winged and decaled GT, it features a unique design of alloy wheel, a lip spoiler for the bootlid and such features as a dark woodgrain veneer inside the car. It's altogether more a gentleman's carriage -- outwardly and inside.

Let her rip, though, and it's clear the car remains a hoon's haybaler underneath. Haybaler? If you're going to make hay in this car, best do it while the sun's shining. With the awesome performance potential from the supercharged, all-alloy V8, neither the GT nor the GT E are right at home in wet weather.

It's nigh on impossible to use the full quotient of power and torque on wet roads, as we discovered during the week the GT E was with us. Traction control was not only working overtime, it was negotiating time and a half -- as was the stability control. But provided the driver exercised a little finesse, the two cars can be pushed through corners with a degree of confidence. The steering remains communicative -- although it also exhibits that bane of FG Falcon steering, rack rattle.

Both cars ride on the same suspension specification, which is moderately firm at lower speeds, but well controlled and compliant enough for a high performance sedan, as the speed rises.

Despite the advanced retarding ability of the (optional) six-piston Brembo brakes, they operate quietly and softly. There's an occasional washing sound as they bite down on the cross-drilled discs, but these aren't the performance brakes of old.

The supercharged V8 and the six-speed ZF automatic make a formidable combination. On launch in the dry, the ZF box just pumps everything through to the rear axle and the car will crab sideways as the limited-slip differential and the traction control endeavour to rein in the V8, which is capable of producing 570Nm of torque and 335kW of power in ideal circumstances. In the wet nothing can contain the available torque, to be frank. Anything more than half throttle will leave the car spinning at least one drive wheel and the car barely moving. Fast starts on wet surfaces just plain require a lot more care and patience.

If you're expecting the supercharged engine to wail like a banshee -- and thinking that will detract from the V8 note -- be assured, the supercharger is blatant, but not overwhelmingly loud. It adds to the enjoyment of the engine and its soundtrack. The V8 is a willing revver and delivers plenty of performance across the rev range. When was the last time 'plenty' was an understatement? At low speeds (1500 to 2000rpm), the V8 will generate enough torque to hold higher gears for fuel efficient running around town or on the open road.

An even mix of freeway, suburban, performance and country driving left us with an average economy figure of 17.2L/100km for the week in the GT. Fuel consumption was jaw-dropping when either car was pushed for performance, but the average showed 16.5L/100km in the GT E, mostly in urban driving with about 40km of country work. On the freeways, the GT's trip computer recorded consumption as low as 10.7L/100km.  Obviously those figures are more or less interchangeable between the two cars.

On the freeways, wind noise largely overpowered the remaining vestiges of road and drivetrain noise that could be heard, but both FPV models were quiet enough when cruising. As soon as either car was asked to handle significant torque and power the LSD could be heard grumbling away at the rear, but this component seemed quieter than in a Sportwagon SS V Redline driven recently. On coarse-chip country roads, the FPVs' Dunlop Maxx tyres were the dominant source of noise at 100km/h. The 245/35 ZR19 tyres could be heard clashing with the hotmix, even in the rain. Called upon to cope with prodigious power and substantial weight, they did their best but they're only as good as the rest of the car. In fairness, they provided plenty of front-end grip and feel through the steering.

While the FPVs, in both GT and GT E trim, rode quite well for the type of vehicles they were, the suspension seemed a touch floaty in the rear cornering at extremes. The fast Fords turned in well and provided plenty of adhesion through the front wheels, as mentioned already. There was no sense of camber change or weight transfer during cornering, just a slight sense of 'roly-polyness' about the IRS when the car was keeled over in the bends.

It's been our  experience that Holden's and HSV's sporting sedans can get their power down to the ground a little more effectively, compared spec for spec with a Ford or FPV equivalent. To the credit of the FPVs, they would dig in and propel themselves forward when turning from a side street into an arterial road for instance, with traffic bearing down from the right. This was one obvious point of difference between the more expensive cars with the new, all-alloy V8 and the previous FG XR8 powered by its cast-iron engine.

Whether due to imbalance, cheaper dampers or lesser tyres, the XR8 would cash in its free torque for lateral movement, rather than straight-forward acceleration. With the lighter, supercharged V8 in the FPV variants, that problem seems to have been reduced.

The new engine has imbued slightly better balance in the car, we feel, although one of our staff who owns a 5.4-litre naturally-aspirated FG GT believes the steering in the new models is heavier, with less assistance. Our general feeling is that, leaving aside the weight through the steering, the new models do seem to turn in better. Nonetheless, the FPVs still feel large and slightly ponderous on the road. It's not just a matter of steering and handling, it's the sheer bulk of the cars themselves.

As mentioned already, rack rattle remains a problem in the new cars, which is disappointing, considering it was the one significant dynamic issue raised by most journalists who drove the original FG Falcons back in 2008. While it's fair to say that a lot of Falcon owners won't experience that rattle, FPV owners taking their cars to the track will certainly stumble across it in next to no time.

From the driver's seat, the FPVs are as good as they ever were. If anything, the seats are at least as comfortable as HSV's, possibly less aggressively bolstered than the GM brand's. Nor are they as soft and mushy as the seats in some of the non-FPV Falcons, which is certainly welcome.

Our criticism of the interior is largely limited to the lack of steering rake (height) adjustment and, something observed in the F6 E driven last year: no auto-up facility for even the driver's window. In the case of the former, the problem was also apparent in an XR6 Turbo reviewed recently.

As for the instruments themselves, they're a little fussy, with blue digits and calibrations on a black background. They're pleasant to look at and well styled, but the smaller dials in particular may be a little harder to read for some people.

Comparing FPV's and Ford's centre fascia design (and the 'Human Machine Interface') with the Holden/HSV equivalents, the Blue Oval version looks a little overdone. Granted the rocker switches to adjust the dual-zone temperatures have been on the market now since 2008 in the Fords and won't present any worries even to new users, but the dials in the Holdens are just simpler to operate. In fact, with the advent of the iQ system, Holdens have arguably moved ahead in terms of ergonomic design, although some will counter that the Ford stack looks better. This reviewer has to admit to preferring the on-screen operation of the Holdens' touch screen over the preset buttons under the HMI screen in the Fords'.

Still, Holden and HSV have made much of the new iQ system, but when you compare the GM system with the 'HMI' system in Ford and FPV models, it's not as much of a leap as Holden/HSV would have you believe. Most of the facilities and functions are shared across the rival brands and the only thing that the iQ system has that we would wish for in the HMI system is the alert function that sounds an audible alarm in the vicinity of traffic cameras and school zones.

So where does this leave the FPVs with their supercharged V8? There's no point saying we prefer it to HSV rivals or vice versa, since never the twain shall meet in the two companies' respective showrooms.

However, for the handful who care, here's the summation: Outstanding straightline performance? Go for the FPVs. Safer cornering and point-to-point ability? Choose the HSVs.

And styling? Sorry HSV fans, it's the FPV GT for its cleaner looks or the GT E if you want to fly under the radar.

Where do I start? This thing has grunt, oodles of it. Right there, no matter where the tacho needle sits on the dial. Nail the go pedal from almost any cruise speed and almost instantly the traction control intervenes with "sorry sir, not in those tyres... "

The power is there, on tap, unlike the F6, which whilst it has plenty of grunt, needs some spool up time (lag).

My feeling is also the 'Coyote' GT is loaded with torque tags; it has to be, otherwise I'd expect little bits of Dana diff spread from here to next week. It's probably a good thing the factory Dunlops are retained... It was one of my fears hearing about and reading about the Coyote/Miami package over the last two years that such power will be produced, but the rear end and ability to get the power down would be lacking. FPV has delivered on that.

As noted in previous tests of FGs and I'm sure right back to B series days when this rear end was released, it is a problem. I know full well from my GT.

I expected a bit of induction roar from the new air box, but to be honest, I did not pick it. There was the old supercharger whine present and noticeable. Not too bad, just at a nice level.

Suspension I noted was quite a bit softer than mine, I suspect this is a GT-E thing, as I have been told it is a softer setup than the GT and GT P (Ed: FPV claims the suspension tune is the same for GT and GT E). I drove it along Yarra Boulevard and this really stood out, especially on turn in; it took some correction almost every time to find the right apex and steering feel was not great.

Must say I did not really note the front end or steering as being heavy, just had a lot of "float" -- kind of like running 65-profile tyres with 30PSI of air. Corner exiting seemed good, but I reckon those torque tags held the beast until the car straightened up.

A true back-to-back of a manual GT would be good to do, just to confirm my suspicion on the car's handling and also compare the power delivery -- and how much of it is absorbed by the transmission.

Getting back in mine to drive home reinforced the power delivery and suspension setup. Noise-wise, I'd liken the GT E to a roaring cat: Nice, not so much bass, with a bit of dry crackle. Whereas mine with air box and exhaust mods is an angry gorilla, loud and full of bass.  Previous factory is neither, perhaps a tame baboon.

By no means is the outgoing 5.4-litre engine a slouch, especially once factory breathing restrictions are removed and the engine is loosened up. Once the tacho needle gets to around the 3000 mark it really sings. The new Boss engine is like Pavarotti, dynamic and full of force from the get go. If this thing is only 20kW more and 20-30Nm more than the outgoing 5.4... I'll eat my hat.

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at www.carsales.mobi