FPV

[Macktheknife]

Well if its running 8lb boost, which I think it is reported to be doing so, it should be around 300fwkw at least. 270 may just be a number ford gave it so that the GT looks the bigger in numbers.

I'm with you Geeseman.

I reckon that Ford will have made a very deliberate move here in understating outputs.

It's not the first time.

The big 2 will not want to get into a public power race to give fuel to a sensational newspaper story.

Acceleration times are easier to allay fears by saying its just a function of ideal gearing etc. The sensationalist factors in the media cant hang their hat on anything technical.

[FINER6]

Those times could be true... but I am a little hesitant to believe them till there in print.

e.g. as per Motor testing

V6 3.2-litre S/C Merc E32 with 260kw and 450Nm and 1635Kg

runs 5.12 0-100 and 13.49 0-400

4.2 -liter V8 DOHC S/C Jag S Type R with 298kw and 553nm and 1800kg

runs 5.80 0-100 and 14.05 0-400

if the typhoon is 30kg off a S Type R Jag then I would have expected the performance figures to be similar. However there are a lot more factors than just power and weight that contribute to fast 1/4 mile times.

[vuster]

: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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The HSV VZ specs in carsales.com.au and carpoint.com.au says that the 0-100 times for it is 5.1 seconds. Is this a whole lot of garbage?

If it is true then isn't this the fastest production car made in australia?

[Turbo6man]

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.

[Geeseman]

Well according to DrZ's spreadsheet a Phase II T has over 600n of torque and gets to 100ks in 5.2s so I would not expect a typhoon to touch this.

Phase 1 has 535nm of torque, but more power and no limit in the boost on its revs and it does 5.4 to the 100 and a 13.6 quarter. Given this you'd expect the Phoon to do around 5.5 to the 100 and high 13's especially considering it's a manual.

[Blown BA]

:lol: 0-100KPH 5.21 secons

:lol: 0- 400 METERS 13.03 @ 186.7KPH

Times motor mag out 10/11/04

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the times come out on the 10 of Nov .......where did you get those times you stated from

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mate its some inside info I have come across I hope its also true I know some one that works close with motor mag

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's always inside info with you guys :lol:

[P.S.I]

Well according to DrZ's spreadsheet a Phase II T has over 600n of torque and gets to 100ks in 5.2s so I would not expect a typhoon to touch this.

Phase 1 has 535nm of torque, but more power and no limit in the boost on its revs and it does 5.4 to the 100 and a 13.6 quarter. Given this you'd expect the Phoon to do around 5.5 to the 100 and high 13's especially considering it's a manual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geeseman,

what theory do you apply to my T with 183rwkw & factory limited torque doing 13.6?

Cheers

PSI

[FORDXR]

Well according to DrZ's spreadsheet a Phase II T has over 600n of torque and gets to 100ks in 5.2s so I would not expect a typhoon to touch this.

Phase 1 has 535nm of torque, but more power and no limit in the boost on its revs and it does 5.4 to the 100 and a 13.6 quarter. Given this you'd expect the Phoon to do around 5.5 to the 100 and high 13's especially considering it's a manual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geeseman,

what theory do you apply to my T with 183rwkw & factory limited torque doing 13.6?

Cheers

PSI

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would assume the majority of members in this forum are not race car drivers, and often over look driver ability and track circumstances and focus on Kw's and Nm's.

The difference between 30-40Kw’s and the addition of slick tyres may see a 2sec advantage around a race track, but the difference between a race driver and average Joe is much greater and may see a 10sec advantage.

A good example would be look at Motors BFYB where they test a lot of cars around a race track using a controlled driver for all the times (usually Cam) if you look at the times between a XR6T and a HSV GTS may be about 2sec, but I would bet my life savings Cam could drive that XR6T around any track about 10sec quicker then the average Joe.

Overlooking driver ability is easy to do, and if you think drag racing is easy you just press your right foot on the green light you are wrong.

[P.S.I]

FORDXR,

Do I take that as compliment

Cheers

PSI

[Geeseman]

Geeseman,

what theory do you apply to my T with 183rwkw & factory limited torque doing 13.6?

Given that motor will be conducting the tests and that their previous times are in line with the average XR6T quarter mile, my theory is that my existing theory based on DrZ's stats will stand true.

The simple fact that the drags usually yeild a good discrepancy between times in modified cars when they have the same power level suggests that FORDXR's theory is correct. I think that 0-100 times are a better indication of car power than quarters, and even then cross referencing dynos may even be better. It's all stats that can be affected by so many variables that in the end you have to look at the average of the combined results.