FPV

[ms700]

Those times at first glance look too fast. BUT, remember it is not the KW that get you moving. 550NM at 2000 rpm will do it though!. And the "low" rated KW of this motor is due to Ford purposely limiting the motor's potential by restricting boost above 4000rpm. I would actually expect no worse than 5.5 for 100kph and 13.5 for 400m based on my own experience with cars around the same weight and torque output. Now, if Motor got one of those "freak" runs in a "good" car that FPV have given the press for testing, then the figures quoted could be close.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spot on Jeff.

Most of the guys on this forum haven't been around long enough to understand that it's torque delivery that is one of the main factors, not maximum power or torque, ceterus parabus.

The torque generated by the F6 at much lower revs will make a huge difference.

For others who quote Dr Z torque figures they are wasting our time.

Brian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Geeseman]

For others who quote Dr Z torque figures they are wasting our time.

Brian

If it's waisting your time perhaps you shouldn't be replying to the thread...

Turbosixman's own assumptions back up the stats of DR.Z which back the times of the typhoon at around 13.5 for the quarter given the comparitive torque figures

[Geeseman]

I also think those figures are to quick(I hope not ) would expect anywhere between 13.3 to 13.7 which would still be very enjoyable

We can only go on what we know at the moment as ford are not releasing official figures as yet. Either way, it's exciting times. If the typhoon does well then all the better for us all

[londas]

Guys, these are times very close to a merc E55 (which does 4.81 an 12.94), which has 350kw and 700nm of torque, although its about 100kg heavier than the falc. If the times are accurate, then there is no way the 270 kw and 550nm figures are correct.

[saleen]

:lol: 0-100KPH 5.21 secons

:lol: 0- 400 METERS 13.03 @ 186.7KPH

Ladys and gents fpv have done it thay have made australias fastest production

car in histroy I am so happy        

Times motor mag out 10/11/04

I don't believe it one bit unless you can scan the page from the Motor mag to prove me otherwise.

The Typhoon is heavier and has less power the than a Z series HSV and is .5sec quicker? I don't think so!

But it's got more torque.

[Phido]

I don't think the HSV are any lighter than a typhoon. As I recall the HSV GTS was well into the 1700 + range.

4 days now... Its painful.

[Venom XR6]

In the Herald Suns cars quide they said the F6 is a smidge quicker to 100 than the MkII GT but the GT is quicker down the quarter due to its superior top end power, so those times must be incorrect. 13.5 to 13.7 would be about it.

[Dr Z]

Those times at first glance look too fast. BUT, remember it is not the KW that get you moving. 550NM at 2000 rpm will do it though!. And the "low" rated KW of this motor is due to Ford purposely limiting the motor's potential by restricting boost above 4000rpm. I would actually expect no worse than 5.5 for 100kph and 13.5 for 400m based on my own experience with cars around the same weight and torque output. Now, if Motor got one of those "freak" runs in a "good" car that FPV have given the press for testing, then the figures quoted could be close.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spot on Jeff.

Most of the guys on this forum haven't been around long enough to understand that it's torque delivery that is one of the main factors, not maximum power or torque, ceterus parabus.

The torque generated by the F6 at much lower revs will make a huge difference.

For others who quote Dr Z torque figures they are wasting our time.

Brian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For further clarification, Dr Z's APS Power/Torque figures are those supplied to him by APS, while the performance times are those sourced from the collated spreadsheet by Turbodewd.

Thanks APS and Turbodewd!

Unless there is some serious power downgrading happening at higher RPMs with boost or ECU management, if you do the Power/Torque maths, I agree with Geeseman that the originially quoted times in this thread:

0-100KPH 5.21 secons

0-400 METERS 13.03 @ 186.7KPH

..do not appear to be consistent with the APS kit performance times based on the APS claimed Power/Torque figures.

Brian mentions "Ceteris Paribus" (Latin for "all other things being equal"), and if the F6 had the same auto transmission as the XR6T, with those claimed Power/Torque figures, in order to be consistent with what we know from the APS kit outputs, I would expect the F6 to have approximately 5.3s/13.5s. However, all other things are NOT equal. The 6 speed manual introduces a new variable and is expected to slow those times considerably (perhaps even up to 0.3s-0.5s) together with a small increase in weight of the F6 over the XR6T.

As for Brian's comment:

Most of the guys on this forum haven't been around long enough to understand that it's torque delivery that is one of the main factors, not maximum power or torque, ceterus parabus.

..I would direct him and others to this thread how fast do you expect?

..to see that back in August 30, 2004 I made the same important point about Torque he is making now while inferring that I do not know about any of this because somehow power/torque delivery knowledge is highly positively correlated to the length of time spent on this forum.

In addition, this thread clearly evidences my estimates of F6 performance times based on comparisons with APS kit times.

In short, I am so glad I did not shell out uber-dollars on exchanging my XR6T for the 6 speed F6.

Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

[Cobra]

manual turbo car

get your act together Henry !!!! auto auto auto auto ..... where is it ???

[Geeseman]

..to see that back in August 30, 2004 I made the same important point about Torque he is making now while inferring that I do not know about any of this because somehow power/torque delivery knowledge is highly positively correlated to the length of time spent on this forum. 

BAHAHA! Well said, Dr.Z