|
| GeZza200 |
|
||
|
4dlvr wrote: a vs is 10kw down and 53 nm to its equivalent ef. it also weighs a 100kg less, and as stated before it makes less power and torque everywhere in the rev range. it is by no means a smoother engine the the i6. drive both of them back to back and you will realize how far ahead the i6 is I 2nd that, you boot it in a VS and hope the engine doesn't blow up. Feels harsh and sounds like a jar of bees in high revs
_________________ EL Futura: CVE head, Wolf V500, ICE Ignition and Coil, 36lb injectors, Walbro 255lb, Paci comps, 3" exhaust, T5, Harrop Truetrac with 3.9s. Now with 198.9rwkw, (~185rwkw and 13.80 @99.1mph) with more power to come |
||
| Top | |
||
| brad17djr |
|
|||
|
so has any 1 beaten this yet in a n/a unopened 6?
_________________ 2 FOR TURNING & 2 FOR BURNING |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| DR101 |
|
||
|
brad17djr wrote: so has any 1 beaten this yet in a n/a unopened 6? I've never run mine down the quarter but I think it would crack a 13. It's currently got pacemaker headers (4490), metal cat, custom stainless dual 2.5 inch exhaust, stainless intake piping, K&N, custom tuned (by Autotech, Sydney) and has the ZF 6 speed auto. I've only ever tested its 0-100 times and on a flat road it consistently does 0-100 in 5.8-5.9 which is very quick for a N/A with just an exhaust/tune/intake. It absolutely spanked my friend's BA XR6 turbo so I'm keen to see what it will achieve in 400m. |
||
| Top | |
||
| sd1800 |
|
||
|
It's amazing how far they have come....
Even BA Series 1 XR6 Turbo would struggle to crack a 13 second pass in auto or manual form. Now we have essentially stockers doing it (no offence to OP, my point being same engine config as XT)
_________________ Formerly LV XR5 Turbo, AU Fairmont Ghia V8 & EBII Fairmont I6. |
||
| Top | |
||
| GeZza200 |
|
||
|
sd1800 wrote: It's amazing how far they have come.... Even BA Series 1 XR6 Turbo would struggle to crack a 13 second pass in auto or manual form. Now we have essentially stockers doing it (no offence to OP, my point being same engine config as XT) True, but is the 6 speed manual that is using the falcons power properly now instead of the s**t 4 and 5 speed (mainly the 4 speed)
_________________ EL Futura: CVE head, Wolf V500, ICE Ignition and Coil, 36lb injectors, Walbro 255lb, Paci comps, 3" exhaust, T5, Harrop Truetrac with 3.9s. Now with 198.9rwkw, (~185rwkw and 13.80 @99.1mph) with more power to come |
||
| Top | |
||
| witto |
|
||
|
GeZza200 wrote: 4dlvr wrote: a vs is 10kw down and 53 nm to its equivalent ef. it also weighs a 100kg less, and as stated before it makes less power and torque everywhere in the rev range. it is by no means a smoother engine the the i6. drive both of them back to back and you will realize how far ahead the i6 is I 2nd that, you boot it in a VS and hope the engine doesn't blow up. Feels harsh and sounds like a jar of bees in high revs I own both a VR Executive and a EF2 Fairmont, and I would say that seat of the pants feel,the VR jumps out of the gates alot quicker than the EF. But the EF is alot stronger at the roll on and doesn't run out of puff uptop. |
||
| Top | |
||
| 4dlvr |
|
||
|
i own a ef and iv driven a vr on many occasions, it does feel much quicker then a ef not just on take off but at most speeds, it might leap better off the line, but after a few secs the ef will have it..
note the vr feeling faster is a result of poor chassis design, s**t suspension and less then average build quality.. brad17djr im very keen to see what tires you going to run now that the nights are getting colder
_________________ 96 EF FAIRMONT |
||
| Top | |
||
| sd1800 |
|
||
|
4dlvr wrote: i own a ef and iv driven a vr on many occasions, it does feel much quicker then a ef not just on take off but at most speeds, ........ , but after a few secs the ef will have it.. Slightly contradictory statement? So is the VR faster at most speeds or not???
_________________ Formerly LV XR5 Turbo, AU Fairmont Ghia V8 & EBII Fairmont I6. |
||
| Top | |
||
| 4dlvr |
|
||
|
hell no!! what i meant was in general sitting in a Holden, they feel faster then fords even though they are not.
they generally leap off the line quicker due to less weight and better gearing, but after no time at all the ford i6 will have it
_________________ 96 EF FAIRMONT |
||
| Top | |
||
| brad17djr |
|
|||
|
Im keen to run again im waiting to get my LSD fitted then i will have the first non turbo lsd fg:) then im getting some semi slicks and a dyno tune and i'l run her again on a cold night i'l keep you all posted
_________________ 2 FOR TURNING & 2 FOR BURNING |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| XRCIST |
|
|||
|
Hey mate, i ran my mates car at Calder a few weeks back. BF XR6 6 Spd auto, with full exhaust, underdrives, intake and tune, posted a 13.84@100.7mph.
Next week its getting fitted with cams and hoping to run 13.5/13.6
_________________
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Revo |
|
||
|
brad17djr wrote: Im keen to run again im waiting to get my LSD fitted then i will have the first non turbo lsd fg:) then im getting some semi slicks and a dyno tune and i'l run her again on a cold night i'l keep you all posted Engine will make more power on a cold night, so good luck with that. Dyno testing can be rather deceptive for various reasons. A dynamometer does not measure power [HP or kW], it calculates it. By deceptive I was referring to: 1) The way dyno programs handle atmospheric corrections. 2) The way the dyno hardware looks at the roller speed parameter. We know an engine will [generally] make more power on a cold day with small amount of humidity, everyone will agree on that one. On a hot day the engine will make less power, here most will agree. The dyno takes the actual raw calculated results and then flops a correction fact over the top of these results as a means to get back to some magical standard, that invokes an apples for apples foundation for comparison. At times this works well, but other times it can have you chasing your tail. The same correction factor could apply to a hot day or a cold day, depending on air pressure and humidity. A correction factor is less troublesome when correcting from one dyno test to the next, when the conditions were very similar. Eg Comparing a test done at 9:30 AM Vs another at 10:10 AM. Nascar teams side step this problem by controlling the atmospheric conditions an engine sees at a constant value while testing. So there you go, I an very suspicious of comparisons that were not done one after the other and those not done on the same dyno. Hope I worded that one well. Another issue is that certain dynos generate excessive power data, which is not backed up by the black track dyno. At that I am outa here 
|
||
| Top | |
||
| rumble |
|
||
|
nice times mate, good to see people still like n/a performance with there six's!
|
||
| Top | |
||
| brad17djr |
|
|||
|
well she was back on the dyno today and did 3 runs @208kw at the rear wheels watch out LS1's:) hope to see some 13.6's with the lsd honestly why would you need a v8? i found out that the broad band manifold made it have a flat spot so we disconected the vacum line now it's a smooth power curve
_________________ 2 FOR TURNING & 2 FOR BURNING |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| GeZza200 |
|
||
|
brad17djr wrote: well she was back on the dyno today and did 3 runs @208kw at the rear wheels watch out LS1's:) hope to see some 13.6's with the lsd honestly why would you need a v8? i found out that the broad band manifold made it have a flat spot so we disconected the vacum line now it's a smooth power curve wow, thats awesome power, making me think about getting an FG now. You wont have any problems hosing off LS1's you would probably be beating VE SS's down the strip now
_________________ EL Futura: CVE head, Wolf V500, ICE Ignition and Coil, 36lb injectors, Walbro 255lb, Paci comps, 3" exhaust, T5, Harrop Truetrac with 3.9s. Now with 198.9rwkw, (~185rwkw and 13.80 @99.1mph) with more power to come |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests |
