Mate what sort of quater mile times were you getting in ]ya ba was it auto or manual mine is currently running 14.3 with 176rwkw.

if you really want to get alot more power and spend an arm and a leg you can open the engine up and get aftermarket pistons and rods, crank up the compression (BF's had a compression of 10.3 compared to the BA's 9.5 i think) so that helps. could always try find someone who is keep to stroke and bore it but then you'll be emptying your bank account

Rhyso

I can see a BA making 200wkrw. doesnt the ba have twin cam and 4 valve per cylinder?

I'm interested in this topic.

I'm looking to do big numbers and on LPG too, coz I'm sick of hearing people bag LPG. Should be achievable on vapour injection setup I reckon

theres no reason why it wouldnt be achievable on lpg and im certain there are n/as driving around with over 200rwkw.
it is DOHC VCT and 24v per cylinder.
if anything i wouldnt be boring or stroking the motor any bigger
it has a 99.3 stroke and a 92.2 bore. if anything i would be de stroking it and boring it to try and achieve a more "square" bore and stroke. that way you could rev it harder and it will just bring a nicer platform to work with.
for comparison an os giken RB26 stroker bottom end runs 86x86 so you can imagine the sort of power a falcon would run.

Bore a falcon 30 thou you will have a 92.9 bore and de stroke it to 93mm equip it with the dohc vct and 24v head you will have yourself a smaller capacity motor that will rev of its tits (my estimate would be 8000rpm +) and able to make more power. less torque maybe but the rpm may compensate for that. AND after that it still has a large capacity for a 6 cylinder engine.

if you cant get 200rwkw with the DOHC something is very wrong. The big question is - is it practical to do or is it one of the things you do so you can say "I got 200+..."

Oh, and seeing as how changing cams have been mentioned up - has anyone here actually done it. I am told that its quite an involved process on the DOHC requiring specialised tooling.

A member on FFAU forums has crow cams in an na 6. Rob herrod tuned it.

That is not a feasible mate really if i was to go to those lenghts i would just buy a xr6 turbo.

But in saying that i think with cams head porting and a larger inlet manifold 200 at the wheels and beyond is not out of the question.

have a look at the what people do to their m3's seeing as the engines in question are similar.

Similar but not similar enough the barra is more suited for a truck with its long stroke. remember the XF 4.1 EFI? the ultimate in long stroke slugs, 4500rpm redline and the most boring car to drive. the super long stroke is what gives it that characteristics. like i said if you square up the bottom end on the barra it will be a much wilder engine.

M3
343bhp revs to 8,000 RPM 3246cc 355NM torque
*Cast block DOHC VVT 24 valve alloy head*
87.0 x 91.0 B x S
8000RPM and 11.5:1 comp

Barra
255 HP Revs to ~5500 and 383NM of torque
*Cast block DOHC VVT 24 valve alloy head*
92.2 x 99.3
5500rpm and 10.3:1 comp

The M3 is a much more Square motor where as the barra has sheer displacement and long stroke to thank for its torque figure. the m3 S54 Has a slightly larger stroke than bore but this would help with the torque. 355nm with a massive 343hp is nothing to write home about in the torque region. the power comes from the engines sheer ability to rev and having every other engine element matched.
Like i said if you can get a custom ground crank with a 93-95mm stroke the barra would be one serious motor. it would hinder its torque production slightly but it would scream and have the sheer horsepower to back it up. in excess of 400fwhp is definately achievable.
if the barra had a 93x93 bore and stroke it would effectively be about 3.7 - 3.8 litres. that combination would respond extremely well to forced induction as we all know revs help with forced work.
The barra is a much larger motor than the m3 physically giving us more head room.


who would have every thought wed be comparing aussie ford sixs with the big bimmer powerplant.

while where at it lets bring the godfather of the big 6 the might hemi

At the time of E49s release, it's 302hp treble Weber 6 Pack Hemi was the most powerful production 6-cylinder engine in the world. A little known factory option was a Bathurst cam, which upped the power to a rather healthy 325hp! The 265 Hemi 6 Pack engines also have a magnificent spine tingling howl all of their own.

ya hear that 325HP NA CARBY INLINE 6 ! Sincle cam probalby a 2v head to go with that too. the 150-200k bmw is only 20HP up on the hemi! madness i love it.
E49 recorded 0-60mph in 6.1 seconds, 0-100mph in 14.1 seconds, standing quarter in 14.4 seconds
hear that 100mph in 14.1 seconds meaning its trap speed down the quarter would be 101 or 102. thats a very easy mid 13 second pass with the right gearing and traction.... oh and did i mention 30 years ago?

lol, man, your like another Stockstandard, mountain of knowledge, don't leave the forum anytime soon.

I am not sure if 93mm stroke is enough to make the difference you refer to. For example, if you take the redline of a 99mm stroke engine to be 6000rpm, going to a 93mm stroke only gets you to 6375rpm before you hit the same piston speed and piston acceleration is basically the same.

If you were to go down to a 79mm stroke (use a 3.2L ea based crank for example) you could push the engine to 7500rpm for the same piston speed and also drop the piston acceleration a healthy amount. Of course 3.2 is a big hit in displacement.

Or you could go the opposite way and follow what some of the yanks do with our 250 blocks. They have them running 300-320ci with modified cranks and wet sleeved blocks.

If you run a combination of both - a sleeved block and smaller crank - you could achieve approximately 3.6L with a 79mm stroke.

All that is a lot of work though and isnt needed to get past 200rwkw.

yer just a bit of racking the brain really. whos to say the valve train in our motors will put up with it anyway. 3.2L aint so bad if it was forced. NA needs the cubes

the yanks are just mad.
back on topic though enough dreaming for now till i get a lazy 10 grand lol (never) 200rwkw will need camshafts and valve springs preferable

oh and i like this forum just too many e series

well as of late, i've achieved 178, I reckon with an edit, I would be bloody close to 200 and if not, maybe a manual conversion would just tip it over the mark.

which dyno was that at mate seems like you got a healthy motor on your hands!