aps

What a tragic loss, two Aussie icons lost in one week, what a truly horrible week. RIP Peter, you will be sadly missed by all Australians.

I can't see any privately owned "T's" beating the MPH soon. Jeff could go close with the NOS. If 330rwkw's is needed to get 122.3mph I think 380rwkw's would be needed to get 127+mph, maybe Peter could confirm the power needed. I think in winter I could gain a couple mph to maybe 124ish but with out a major change I can't see Rumble going much quicker than that. Mind you HPF have the edit so you never know. Geea. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good stuff Geea and it would be excellent to see both you and Dean go quicker and faster this year, I have some plans for Deans ute and I'm sure you have plans of your own, should be an interesting year for all involved. I think HPF will need more than an edit to go faster than 127 MPH though. :lol: Peter

Hi Rob, We'll give you guys plenty of notice when we go out to Calder next - should be an interesting evening Thanks Peter

Hi Steve, Yeah the silver beast is producing a little over 500 RWkW's and does so consistently, though I have no plans to race this XR6T sedan, it's a test mule only for engine development. Peter

The record has been sitting there for over 14 months now so we're just sitting back waiting to see what transpires. We're ready for more though Peter

A copy of the 127.31 mph pass time slip has just been placed on the web site. See http://www.aps-xr6t.com/falcon/drags/1163.htm Peter

Fair enough Grant. Though in my view fastest is fastest and quickest is quickest, otherwise we will have the people claiming the fastest purple auto ute with 19" wheels privately owned with less than 10k kms on the odo meter with fluffy dice off the mirror. Peter

I think that your good sense of smell is correct. I suspect this person (Dave) is a SCT edit dealer soliciting business (free of charge) from the forum. Peter

Definitely Yes, FMCo and Ford service technicians can read the PCM has been flashed. Peter

Grant, your wrong mate, the fastest and the quickest XR6T in Australia are tuned via Unichip technology. Peter

When I get the chance I'll look up the engineering records regarding the exact fuel specifiactions during that run and report back. Thanks Peter

I do believe that replacing the rear with an aluminium tray brought the weight back around that of the sedan - and it retained the good old ute leaf rear end. Mind you, the driver at the time was, shall we say the size of two Not a bad effort. Peter

There is no doubt that quick 1/4 mile times and fast terminal speeds are hard to achieve, so it's understandable that when someone cuts a good time or fast speed, you want to crow about it far and wide. We have seen claims recently regarding a 126 mph terminal speed from Simon's XR6T and claiming it as an Australian record. In an effort to set the record straight, the fastest 1/4 mile terminal speed is actually 127.31 mph set at Calder on the 19th December 2003. This information has been available in the public domain for over 14 months. You can view the video action of the run at http://www.aps-xr6t.com/falcon/drags/127mph.wmv and other XR6T drag racing records (quickest 1/4 mile ET of 10.98 seconds) at http://www.aps-xr6t.com/falcon/drags/1163.htm Please note that this is presented in the spirit of promoting accurate information - not an attempt to discredit an otherwise fine effort. Thanks Peter

Chris if your looking for a really quick car for the'' twisties'' than you be hard pressed to find a better car than the 350 Z, the handling and braking of the Z track model is just superb, just add a Twin Turbo system then you'll have all of your wants/needs covered. Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couldn't agree with you more there Peter. A friend of mine traded his sti for a 350Z. I've driven both and would have to say that the 350 is one of the best handling rear wheel drive cars I've ever been behind the wheel of. I always thought you couldn't come close to the handling of an all wheel drive sti but the 350 does. Definately needs the TT set up though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No doubt the 350Z has awesome handling and braking, then add another 120 RWkW's (courtesy of the APS intercooled Twwin Turbo system) and this 350Z is a real weapon, not quite a twin turbo Porsche though still an awesome amount of fun for the dollars invested. Peter Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Peter, NOTHING compares to a TT Porsche...nothing... Dave. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair call. The 993 and 996 Twin Turbo Porsches are both awesome cars, (I Drive these Porsches often) the Twin Turbo 350 Z has excellent road performance, (will run the quater mile in the low 12's) handling, and braking, and is a very affordable performance street car. Not quite a Twin Turbo Porsche though not many cars on the planet are. Peter

Chris if your looking for a really quick car for the'' twisties'' than you be hard pressed to find a better car than the 350 Z, the handling and braking of the Z track model is just superb, just add a Twin Turbo system then you'll have all of your wants/needs covered. Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couldn't agree with you more there Peter. A friend of mine traded his sti for a 350Z. I've driven both and would have to say that the 350 is one of the best handling rear wheel drive cars I've ever been behind the wheel of. I always thought you couldn't come close to the handling of an all wheel drive sti but the 350 does. Definately needs the TT set up though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No doubt the 350Z has awesome handling and braking, then add another 120 RWkW's (courtesy of the APS intercooled Twwin Turbo system) and this 350Z is a real weapon, not quite a twin turbo Porsche though still an awesome amount of fun for the dollars invested. Peter Peter

Chris if your looking for a really quick car for the'' twisties'' than you be hard pressed to find a better car than the 350 Z, the handling and braking of the Z track model is just superb, just add a Twin Turbo system then you'll have all of your wants/needs covered. Peter

Please tell me how you figure that? Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mathematically ... can't you do it Peter? I know we've been down this road before but, what the heck, I'll go for another ride with you ... As most tuners/racers agree that a vehicle equipped with manual transmission will absorb between 15% and 20% of engine power - I have chosen the middle figure of 18% (rounded up from 17.5% for my simple sliderule). Thus 450 x 18% = 81 ; 450 - 81 = 369. Now that to me is damn close to the 368 figure you used above while claiming the car couldn't make 450kW at the fly ... Your serve ... :w00t2: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Drive train loss is not a constant and definetly not a calculated % figure, if you really want to know power at the flywheel there is only one way to find out, it's called an engine dyno and has been for many years, this is how every car manufacturer on the planet measures engine power. Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heard all that from you before - I was really hoping you'd have something new to bring to the debate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> New or old, this is an engineering fact and is indisputable, if you genuinely want to know the REAL power of an engine then you need to measure the power to the SAE or DIN standard on an engine dynamometer. Go and ask any car manufacturer on the planet and they will provide you with power and torque numbers measured at the flywheel on an engine dynamometer, not at the wheels on a chassis dynamometer. Thanks Peter

Did you consider ther power loss to drive the dynamometer, I know what this power loss figure amounts to, do you? Peter

Please tell me how you figure that? Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mathematically ... can't you do it Peter? I know we've been down this road before but, what the heck, I'll go for another ride with you ... As most tuners/racers agree that a vehicle equipped with manual transmission will absorb between 15% and 20% of engine power - I have chosen the middle figure of 18% (rounded up from 17.5% for my simple sliderule). Thus 450 x 18% = 81 ; 450 - 81 = 369. Now that to me is damn close to the 368 figure you used above while claiming the car couldn't make 450kW at the fly ... Your serve ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Drive train loss is not a constant and definetly not a calculated % figure, if you really want to know power at the flywheel there is only one way to find out, it's called an engine dyno and has been for many years, this is how every car manufacturer on the planet measures engine power. Peter

Not a problem macka, just a healthy debate to verify facts. Peter

Please tell me how you figure that? Peter

Fair enough Bruce though why did you state 368 RWkW's about 3 posts back? Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the 368 was on a dyno with no shoot out mode the 390 was from the other two dyno dynamics ones <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok that makes sense now, will be intersting to see what MPH your T runs in the future. Peter

for your info the red one is before the edit and the blue is after edit <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah thanks Bruce though why did you state 368 RWkW's in your post previously? Peter

Fair enough Bruce though why did you state 368 RWkW's about 3 posts back? Peter

Your right George, Peter I did not post this to start a fight I was just after some clarification. Still as confused as before. If Craig and Dean are producing 390 Flkw to produce a top speed of 120 mph which I might add are proven, no argument from me on that score. Badxr has 450 Flkw yet still pulled the same mph. With a slipping clutch and no doubt plenty of wheel spin could this effect the mph by that much. If what I'm lead to believe the power of the engine still somehow over comes these problems should'nt Bruces mph still be higher than Craig & Deans. I only use these 3 cars as references as everyone is familiar with their cars and performances. It's nothing personal, just trying to understand the statements made. macka <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well if it's doing 120 MPH over the 1/4 mile (I don't mean that 120 MPH is slow) I can just about 100% guarantee you the car does not have 450 kW's at the flywheel, no direspect intended to Bruce Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I will not get into an argument about what I have or havnt got but two dynos I used here which are prety new dyno dynamics both made the same power with in two kws and another one which does not have shoot out mode it made 368rwkws so I am only posting what I have been told my car has but trust me it shore as hell seems like it has the power it shows but we will have to wait untill the holden/ford show comes to town to back it up <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bruce that's approximately 493 HP at the tyres (not 450 FWkW's) and it's my view that if you really want to know flywheel power pull the engine and measure it on an engine dyno, other wise it's all speculation, in any event the engine is obviously very powerful. Peter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so what you are telling me 390rwks = 493hp <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I'm saying that 368 RWkW's equals 493 Horsepower at the treads. Where did the 390 RWkW's figure come from? Peter