ChargerMal

I have just visited GoPetition and found the following page very interesting: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fair-registration-for-modified-vehicles/signatures.html Guys, I wholeheartedly recommend signing this. Traffic authorities are like sheep, and it won't be long before some numbskull Victorian bureaucrat comes up with the same idea unless we all really glue together on this one. You can sign anon. if you wish. Mal

Anyone know the appx weight of a 9" diff including third member , housing and axles/brakes? A rough estimate will do........ Thanks for your help

Please go to this link, signify your support and if you wnat, contact the guy involved.... http://www.fullboost.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3275

Decoy is correct...but what amazes me is that Wheels could only run a 13.8...whereas Motor claim a 13.3 for the same car.!!! ....something tells me the usual "interference" by Company minders has had an influence... especially when you consider that the VX SS never cracked a 13 on any of the road tests Ive read....and the performances at Calder support this..

Keep your friends close....and your enemies closer....lol!!!!

Just wondering if anyone can explain why a lot of the sigs quote faster times than the scanned timeslips? Have the sigs been updated since? or is a Moderator "gaggin" people? THis is a serious question, I don't get in here often so if theres some foolin going on I wouldn't know.... Anyone? M

Yep I am...Sounds like a tough Fury...don't talk too loud...they'll all want one!!!! :lol: Actually I joined this Forum to get the goss on the Typhoon and the GT-P..wanted to see how they went in the "real world"...don't trust factory "quoted" times...alhtough Ford are more conservative than the "Expensive Daewoo Special People" What has really knocked me out is the incredible improvements that can be had through the aftermarket tuning "kits" with new cars....I mean low 12's is serious times on 17" street tyres.... Now I see the new Clubby is in the low 13's :(...so I'm onto my man in Adelaide about new heads, getting some headers, and we'll see how we go....got plenty of room for improvement b4 it becomes "unstreetable"...just a budget thing.....

Mitsubishi Starion had a 45 sec Turbo cooling Idle cut off.... :cool:

high 13's???? They wish!!!! :headhurt: click on this for the real deal...it's about 4 meg... 04Goatvs05stang

You have to remember that the F6 is carrying 300 kg more than a Charger ringing wet...(that's two VERY LARGE adults, ) AND in additon you're running 17 or 18" wheels instead of 14's, which in effect means the gear ratio on the F6 would be reduced to an equivalent of 2.9's on the Charger running 14's (the E49 ran 3.5's btw) ...if that makes sense...I reckon a 49 would run a mid 15 with 17 " wheels! and lastly you have to consider the torque and how easy it is to get to the pavement... there was a comment made that Wheels testers had no idea what they were doing...I don't doubt that...but so will most of the "Joe averages" who buy this car because they think it's the quickest thing since sliced bread..... IMHO I see the F6 as a real "drivers car", and it will need a good driver to get the best out of it......which at the moment loks to be about a 14 flat.... Also, the E49 was a purpose built Muscle car, not a car trying to meet a market expectation for "family bob and two kiddies" and lastly perhaps this just re-enforces how damn good the E49 spec motor was ......now where did I put my brakes???? :lol:

I couldn't edit my previous post..but I couldn't agree more with this point...it is a completely different style of driving...

After the recent article in The Age newspaper, I rang FPV here in Melbourne asking if they could quote some performance stats, as the article said very little other than quoted Nm figs and KW figs... The guy at the other end stated it was Ford Aust. policy NOT to quote figures, and that I should ring Wheels Magazine and see if they'd tested it!! Well he obviously knew they had...as when I did I got a cadet journo on the line who happily informed me they'd just done the Calder test, and on a greasy track they only got a 14.6 out of it... So me (being the stirrer I am!) rang FPV back and told them this...man were they unhappy!!! ................but the guy there still said they couldn't quote any of their own figures...but that FPV would def. be hurting when that stuff was published! so there ya go...even in the face of bad publicity they won't quote times or speeds... I also thought it was interesting also that Motor magazine got a 14.1(?) out of it...a much more realistic apparaisal I think.... Another point worth considering is that the spread of torque the F6 generates is certain to give the impression of it being quicker than it really is....the comment made in Wheels about an "avalanche of power that keeps coming" is a good summary of what I'm trying to explain...some of you would be aware that this is characteristic of Turbo cars...as opposed to the V8 "wall of torque"...PERHAPS this is why people are assuming it's faster than it really is?

1971 VH.. Interesting about the silicone too....silcone makes my white letters go yellow unfo :(...

Hi there I'm new to the forum..but have an interest in the recent crop of modern "performace cars" currently on offer....and get really NARKED by the lack of real performance figures quoted by papers and some mags.... Here's a couple of interesting stories which you may all be interested in... After the recent article in The Age newspaper, I rang FPV here in Melbourne asking if they could quote some performance stats, as the article said very little other than quoted Nm figs and KW figs... The guy at the other end stated it was Ford Aust. policy NOT to quote figures, and that I should ring Wheels Magazine and see if they'd tested it!! Well he obviously knew they had...as when I did I got a cadet journo on the line who happily informed me they'd just done the Calder test, and on a greasy track they only got a 14.6 out of it... So me (being the stirrer I am!) rang FPV back and told them this...man were they unhappy!!! ................but the guy there still said they couldn't quote any of their own figures...but that FPV would def. be hurting when that stuff was published! so there ya go...even in the face of bad publicity they won't quote times or speeds... I also thought it was intersting also that Motor magazine got a 14.1(?) out of it...a much more realistic apparaisal I think.... Lastly...from what I understand, modern low profile radials are the worst things around to get any real treaction with...something to do with the fact that they don't "patch" under load well...so the surface area of contact remains limited... wonder what people think about this? xtone