22470

Yes it would make a difference, but I was thinking that the difference would have to be very small, because even with maximum possible rollout you've only ran about 15 or 16 inches further than 1320 feet (ie.if your car has a Falcon sized wheel) when you pass through the 1/4 mile end beam. and the car won't accelerate much in that small extra distance. To check that out I've used the Racelogic software (see my last post on my cars performance at WSID) to compare it's Run 2 speed at 1320 feet, with it's speed at 1321.3 feet (15.6 inches later) and it only picked up 0.06 kph in that distance. Interestingly on my last run of the night I opted to just check the cars performance over the last part of third gear, so I launched it slowly in second and then changed early into third. The result was that it hit the rev limiter in third about 3 metres before the start of the 66 foot end speed measurement trap. When I collected the timing slip after the run I was totally confused by the end speed. It was 179.22 kph and that's about right on 4 kph faster than the car can possibly go in third gear. The mystery remained till I found out that apparently the beams at Dragstrips (after the early 60 foot point) are set at around 5 inches above the track and it appears obvious to me that the as the front of the car dropped from hitting the rev limiter, it caused the 66 foot speed trap beam to be broken by the spoiler under the car instead of the front wheels, and final the end beam would have been broken by the front bumper bar as the nose dropped even lower from the engine braking. The car would have travelled around 1.5 feet less than 66 feet, but the timing system would have calculated the speed assuming that my car had really covered the full 66 feet. That would put the speed up by practically 4 kph. Actually from crunching the numbers, I can see that I could get even around a 4 mile per hour (too high) discrepancy if the car tripped the 66 foot beam with the wheels and then tripped the final beam with the front bumper. I guess Dragstrip timing systems are very accurate in measuring the time between beams, but you won't get a totally accurate time slip if the wrong parts of the car break the beams.

On 21/5/14 I ran my standard (and untuned) 2009 FG XR6 Turbo Auto at WSID and I got the following two best timeslips. The car was shallow staged on both occasions, so there was some rollout. 1) Launching in second gear, 12.731 sec quarter, 60 feet 2.026, a bit over 2000 rpm stall up, 4.85 seconds to 100 kph. 2) Launching in first gear (in Drive), 12.509 quarter, 60 feet 1.934, 1800 - 1900 rpm stall up, 4.62 seconds to 100 kph. No apparent wheelspin, new Goodyear Eagle Directional F1 tyres, 38 psi, full sized spare and tools in the boot, 92 kg driver, total load in the car the equivalent to just over half a tank,18 to 19 degrees, 70% plus humidity. I used my GPS based Racelogic Performance Box during the runs and it recorded the following 400 metre and acceleration data (without dragstrip rollout). Run 1, second gear launch, 2000 rpm plus stall...............Run 2, 1st gear launch in drive.1800 - 1900 rpm stall. Speed.......Time.........Metres.............................................Speed.......Time..........Metres 0................0................0....................................................0................0...............0 20..............0.85...........2.40...............................................20..............0.84..........2.25 40..............1.64...........9.01...............................................40..............1.61..........8.65 60..............2.61...........22.54.............................................60..............2.37..........19.37 80..............3.70...........43.78.............................................80..............3.43..........40.07 100............4.85...........72.51.............................................100............4.62..........69.68 120............6.40...........120.46...........................................120............6.19..........117.92 140............8.19...........184.87...........................................140............8.07..........185.94 160...........10.24...........270.74..........................................160...........10.13..........272.14 180...........12.96...........399.41..........................................179.39......12.84..........400 Metres 180.04......12.97...........400 metres...................................12.509 sec Dragstrip timeslip for this run 12.731 Dragstrip timeslip for this run Note how effective the higher 2000 rpm plus stall up was in run 1. Even though the car was in the much higher second gear both times to 40 were almost identical. Previously on a better surface with a heavier load at high altitude, I have used the 2000 plus rpm stall up technique with a first gear launch and the car was exactly 2 tenths faster to 20 than it was in Run 2 (ie. the 12.509 quarter run). The Racelogic software makes it possible for me to apply that fast high altitude launch data to the runs that I did at the Dragstrip. So I've been able to accurately calculate how fast Run 2 would be with the best high altitude launch data applied. As you can see below it would reduce the 400 metre time by nearly 2 tenths. It shows that the car certainly has the power to go at least that fast at WSID, but I don't know about the grip. Perhaps a set of ET Radials would make it possible. 0...............0 20.............0.64 seconds at 1.97 metres achieved in the earlier high altitude test vs 0.84 sec at 2.25 metres in run 2 above. 40.............1.41 60.............2.17 80.............3.23 100...........4.42 120...........5.99 140...........7.87 160...........9.93 179.44.....12.65 sec 400 Metre time with no rollout.

I ran my standard untuned FG XR6 T Auto at WSID on 21/5/2014 and got the following 60 to 100 Mile per hour times. Run1 MPH.......................Time...................Metres 60...........................0.........................0 70...........................1.12....................32.74 80...........................2.54....................80.34 90...........................4.01...................136.25 100.........................5.71...................208.66 Run 2 60..........................0.........................0 70..........................1.15....................33.45 80..........................2.58....................81.66 90..........................4.13...................140.34 100........................5.84...................212.98 Run 3 60..........................0........................0 70..........................1.15...................33.71 80..........................2.57...................81.27 90..........................4.06..................137.70 100........................5.78..................211.03 These times were measured with my GPS based Racelogic Performance Box and the dragstrip 1/4 mile timeslip for run 1 was 12.731 (second gear launch with no wheelspin). The run 2 timeslip was 12.509 (car in Drive and no wheelspin). The run 3 timeslip was 12.841 seconds (car in drive with some wheelspin).

There's quite a lot of time to be gained or lost in the stall, as long as the grip is good. 5.2 is a good result considering the conditions.

I've got a standard untuned FG XR6T Auto (December 2009 build owned by me since new) and it made 262 RWKW on a Dyno Dynamics machine. The engine was treated fairly agressively on the Dyno and it seems clear that the Overboost feature was working, the boost was around 10.5 lbs (it's around 1.6 lbs lower without the Overboost). So if the Dyno's were similar (and that's hard to know of course) that means you've got around 9% more power. This machine was no "Happy Dyno", I've seen quite a few car's run on it. On the subject of the transmission. At just above a 2000 rpm stall up, it seems to move from one mode into another. In saying that I mean that the brakes are likely to creak and you can notice the car pulling harder. An expert tuner has confirmed that this shouldn't hurt the transmission (I'm talking about a standard untuned car here) and that's supported by the acceleration data from the cars first two runs at WSID last Wednesday night, see the 0 - 100 kph data below. The first run was done with a second gear launch (keep in mind that second is high enough to run to over 110 kph) and the stall up was as described above. The next run was carried out in Drive so it was a first gear launch, but the stall up was just a fraction lower. However in spite of the very different gear ratios involved, both times were almost equal to 40 kph, so I think that shows how effective the slightly higher stall can be, provided there is enough grip of course. But does it hurt the transmission in a standard untuned car? Well, notice that the second gear launch 0 - 10 kph time was 0.43 sec, and the acceleration rate improved after that even though the torque multiplication from the Converter should have been reducing, and between 40 and 50 (the point where I believe the converter would have locked up) the acceleration rate was only slightly slower (0,44 sec) and there would have been at least some wind drag at this speed. So the gearbox input shaft appeared to be getting a similar torque load at this point to what it was handling at the start. With your car being modified though, you might want to check on what your tuner has done with the torque management system and what he thinks is safe. I make sure that the stall up is as brief as possible. The times below were measured with my GPS based Racelogic Performance Box. These units are commonly used by car testers around the world and they are very accurate. The Dragstrip 1/4 mile timing system recorded a 12.731 sec time for the run with the second gear launch, and 12.509 for the run in Drive, there was no apparent wheelspin on these runs. 92 kg driver, no burnout before the runs, total load was the equivalent of just over half a tank of fuel, full sized spare tyre and jack etc in the car, temp 18 to 19 degrees C, new Goodyear Eagle F1 Directional tyres at 38 psi. Just prior to arriving at the track the car was driven more agressively than normal to make sure that the transmission would hold onto the gears as long as possible at the dragstrip, and while waiting for the runs the bonnet was up. Also I've found that it's best to have a fairly low fuel load and if necessary put some ballast at the back of the car in the boot. A relatively small percentage of weight at the back can give a good grip yield. Another point to note is that on one occasion just prior to a 0 - 100 kph run, I gave the car a high stall up and the brakes failed to hold, so I eased off and and tried again. The result was a 0 - 100 time that was at least half a second slower than it should have been. It seems to me that the Overboost feature was disabled by what happened. SECOND GEAR LAUNCH............................LAUNCH IN DRIVE 0.............0.............0................................0...............0................0 10........0.43.........0.64............................10............0.45............0.64 20........0.85.........2.40.............................20...........0.84............2.25 30........1.24.........5.13.............................30...........1.23............4.95 40........1.64.........9.01.............................40...........1.61............8.65 50........2.09........14.64............................50...........1.98...........13.29 60........2.61.........22.54...........................60...........2.37...........19.37 70........3.15.........32.35...........................70...........2.88...........28.49 80........3.70.........43.78...........................80...........3.43...........40.07 90........4.25.........56.88...........................90...........4.00...........53.50 100......4.85 sec...72.51 metres...............100.........4.62 sec....69.68 To get an idea of the cars potential (grip permitting of course), I am posting 0 - 40 data from a 0 - 100 run that was carried out at high altitude (0 - 100 in 4.56 seconds with the higher stall) and I'm combining that time with the above 40 - 100 data from the second run. 0...........0 10........0.28 20........0.64 30........1.03 40........1.41 in 8.41 metres 40........1.41 50........1.78 60........2.17 70........2.68 80........3.23 90........3.80 100......4.42 secs to 100 kph in 69.44 metres. I intend to get the car tuned when the hot weather returns and I would be interested in buying a EURO 4 Cat to go with the tune and some F6 injectors that I have purchased. If anybody has one to sell, I'd like to hear from them.

I've got a standard untuned FG XR6T Auto (December 2009 build owned by me since new) and it made 262 RWKW on a Dyno Dynamics machine. The engine was treated fairly agressively on the Dyno and it seems clear that the Overboost feature was working, the boost was around 10.5 lbs (it's around 1.6 lbs lower without the Overboost). So if the Dyno's were similar (and that's hard to know of course) that means you've got around 9% more power. This machine was no "Happy Dyno", I've seen quite a few car's run on it. On the subject of the transmission. At just above a 2000 rpm stall up, it seems to move from one mode into another. In saying that I mean that the brakes are likely to creak and you can notice the car pulling harder. An expert tuner has confirmed that this shouldn't hurt the transmission (I'm talking about a standard untuned car here) and that's supported by the acceleration data from the cars first two runs at WSID last Wednesday night, see the 0 - 100 kph data below. The first run was done with a second gear launch (keep in mind that second is high enough to run to over 110 kph) and the stall up was as described above. The next run was carried out in Drive so it was a first gear launch, but the stall up was just a fraction lower. However in spite of the very different gear ratios involved, both times were almost equal to 40 kph, so I think that shows how effective the slightly higher stall can be, provided there is enough grip of course. But does it hurt the transmission in a standard untuned car? Well, notice that the second gear launch 0 - 10 kph time was 0.43 sec, and the acceleration rate improved after that even though the torque multiplication from the Converter should have been reducing, and between 40 and 50 (the point where I believe the converter would have locked up) the acceleration rate was only slightly slower (0,44 sec) and there would have been at least some wind drag at this speed. So the gearbox input shaft appeared to be getting a similar torque load at this point to what it was handling at the start. With your car being modified though, you might want to check on what your tuner has done with the torque management system and what he thinks is safe. I make sure that the stall up is as brief as possible. The times below were measured with my GPS based Racelogic Performance Box. These units are commonly used by car testers around the world and they are very accurate. The Dragstrip 1/4 mile timing system recorded a 12.731 sec time for the run with the second gear launch, and 12.509 for the run in Drive, there was no apparent wheelspin on these runs. 92 kg driver, no burnout before the runs, total load was the equivalent of just over half a tank of fuel, full sized spare tyre and jack etc in the car, temp 18 to 19 degrees C, new Goodyear Eagle F1 Directional tyres at 38 psi. Just prior to arriving at the track the car was driven more agressively than normal to make sure that the transmission would hold onto the gears as long as possible at the dragstrip, and while waiting for the runs the bonnet was up. Also I've found that it's best to have a fairly low fuel load and if necessary put some ballast at the back of the car in the boot. A relatively small percentage of weight at the back can give a good grip yield. Another point to note is that on one occasion just prior to a 0 - 100 kph run, I gave the car a high stall up and the brakes failed to hold, so I eased off and and tried again. The result was a 0 - 100 time that was at least half a second slower than it should have been. It seems to me that the Overboost feature was disabled by what happened. SECOND GEAR LAUNCH............................LAUNCH IN DRIVE 0.............0.............0................................0...............0................0 10........0.43.........0.64............................10............0.45............0.64 20........0.85.........2.40.............................20...........0.84............2.25 30........1.24.........5.13.............................30...........1.23............4.95 40........1.64.........9.01.............................40...........1.61............8.65 50........2.09........14.64............................50...........1.98...........13.29 60........2.61.........22.54...........................60...........2.37...........19.37 70........3.15.........32.35...........................70...........2.88...........28.49 80........3.70.........43.78...........................80...........3.43...........40.07 90........4.25.........56.88...........................90...........4.00...........53.50 100......4.85 sec...72.51 metres...............100.........4.62 sec....69.68 To get an idea of the cars potential (grip permitting of course), I am posting 0 - 40 data from a 0 - 100 run that was carried out at high altitude (0 - 100 in 4.56 seconds with the higher stall) and I'm combining that time with the above 40 - 100 data from the second run. 0...........0 10........0.28 20........0.64 30........1.03 40........1.41 in 8.41 metres 40........1.41 50........1.78 60........2.17 70........2.68 80........3.23 90........3.80 100......4.42 secs to 100 kph in 69.44 metres. I intend to get the car tuned when the hot weather returns and I would be interested in buying a EURO 4 Cat to go with the tune and some F6 injectors that I have purchased. If anybody has one to sell, I'd like to hear from them.

Yes and I'm thinking that their resale price could quite possibly be enhanced in the long term for that reason. Also, I don't understand why Ford doesn't offer the cars with a high quality tyre option right across the range, prep a small section of their test track (only 20 to 30 metres would be needed as wheelspin shouldn't be a problem once into second gear) and invite some motoring journalists to come and try the cars with that option fitted. I think most journalists would be amazed to see how quick the cars can be and they should get some good publicity out of it. Also Ford should make the overboost situation better known.The cars may only make the advertised power and torque figures over a prolonged engine test period, but in the real world they will overboost up to high speeds and are real rockets. Many buyers have no idea of this. They tend to compare claimed power and torque figures and let that influence their decisions.

From what I can see I think it comes down to this. Both the F6 and the GT have way more power in the real world than the claimed numbers, but in the GT the extra power is in the form of a transient overboost function which gives it around 375kW at the flywheel up to quite illegal speeds. As for the F6 it's probably around 335 - 340kW in the real world. When it comes to torque, both are also well above the claimed amounts, but the F6 starts with a more doughy response and then hits like a sledge hammer (with probably a bit more torque than the GT for a short period) whereas the GT has instant response and very linear performance with almost the same torque (and hence push in the back) right to the cutout. I think they both have similar torque at around the 5000 rpm point, but the F6 drops off soon after and the GT holds the similar torque level for longer, so if you can carry the same torque to higher revs your've got more power, but the driver doesn't feel it as an extra shove in the back. To sum up perhaps you might say that the F6 feels stronger because it starts from a lower base and then it probably pulls a bit harder for a short period but it does run out of breath earlier. However when it comes to a quarter mile run down the dragstrip and the F6 is torqued up with enough revs to get on boost from the start, it may be a touch faster than the GT initially, but the V8 gets a relatively brief advantage at the end of each gear which can add up to say around 6 kmh more speed at the end of the run and say 1 to 2 tenths in elapsed time. However they are both great cars as is also the basic standard FG Turbo. They are better than many realise because they also have a transient overboost feature that Ford claimed was around 10%, but in the case of my own untuned and unmodified XR6 T Auto, it's around 19% and it apparently gives the car approximately 10% more power. The result is a car with practically identical performance to an F6. I can comment on this because I've got a very accurate Racelogic GPS based Performance box (as used by motoring magazines and apparently at least one car manufacturer) and I've collected a lot of Auto FG F6 rolling acceleration data from magazine road tests. It seems that my car has a very slight advantage over the F6 to 5000rpm and falls slightly behind after around 5300 rpm (it is also a touch lighter than an F6). I'm amazed at the torque it's got. To date it's managed a 4.90 second 0 - 100kmh time (5.58 to 110) locked in second gear at around sea level and a 4.56 sec to 100kmh time in drive (distance 71.67 metres). This was at high altitude with a 90 kg driver and a full fuel load, so it's not the cars full potential.. Admittedly high grip surfaces were involved but to put the times into perspective, I've seen tests where HSV's new 340 kW car got to 100 in around 4.9 (using 2 gears to my cars 1) and I believe they are claiming around 4.4 for their new 430kW supercharged cars. I must admit that both the V8's and the F6 cars have an advantage over my car when it comes to mods because I've only got the small turbo, but it's certainly been a great "bang for buck" buy. A pity for Ford I think that so few buyers realise how good all of the FG's are.