Look Out Xr8/gt

[Turbo6man]

  DBOSS said:

  Turbo6man said:

- certainly a long way better than the BOSS motors.

Come on Jeff pretty bold statement for someone with little or NO experience with Boss motor's,put a 290 into a car with the weight of a crapadoor and see what it can do

I did'nt have any trouble with any Hsv in the straights and around the twisty's on the last cruise and I've only spent $2100 on mods p1ssing off the Dunlop's is a big improvement for the handling alone and if the Boss motors where in the AU series they probably would'nt have the reputation that they do

Chris from Bluepower is running 11.7 in his xr8 with only bolt on's And std GT's have run a 13.8 also not bad for nearly 2 Tonne of car and driver

CYA JEFF

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hang on a bit - are you talking about fuel economy? Because that is what my statement was referring to - but you have pulled it out of context and started waffling on about an entirely different thing.

By your own admissions in many posts on this forum you have touted the woeful fuel economy of your BOSS. And you aren't alone -everyone who owns one has the same opinion. I don't need to own one myself to know the facts.

Anyhow, just to answer a couple of points you made - you say you spent just over $2000 on mods - but WHAT did the others have done to them? Let's compare apples to apples - standard car to standard car. After all 90% of buyers will not modify their cars so in the real world a standard to standard comparison is more significant to most people.

Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (performance wise) is crapping on the BAs in all but the base versions. Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (fuel economy wise) is crapping over the BA in EVERY model comparison.

However the Ford is still better on the road and the interior is up to date whereas the Expensive Daewoo is about a decade old.

[DBOSS]

  Turbo6man said:

The car is lighter for a start and the GEN range of engines are recording quite good fuel economy - certainly a long way better than the BOSS motors.

Dooh!! sorry Jeff your right I did'nt read the post correctly

[Romulus]

  Turbo6man said:

Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (performance wise) is crapping on the BAs in all but the base versions.  Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (fuel economy wise) is crapping over the BA in EVERY model comparison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it's the base model they sell the most off, therefore making fuel economy an important marketing tool for the fleet buyers. The BA has better fuel economy that the VZ.

I don't see too many HSV's running mid/low 13's in stock trim - as I stated in a previous thread a stock BF XR6T auto will do a 13.3 - 13.4, and we haven't had any times posted from a stock BF F6 Auto yet. My money is it would have to run a flat 13 to hi 12 in stock trim. Then if that's not enough for a mere $995 - $1300 you can pickup up to 50rwkw and definately see a 12 in an auto Turbo.

No way does the Expensive Daewoo vehicle crap on the BA.

[saleen]

  DBOSS said:

  Turbo6man said:

The car is lighter for a start and the GEN range of engines are recording quite good fuel economy - certainly a long way better than the BOSS motors.

Dooh!! sorry Jeff your right I did'nt read the post correctly

With all your spare time, one would think you would at least take the time to read other member's posts properly before jumping the gun. Anyway, it's not like it's the first time you've publically humiliated yourself.

[DBOSS]

  saleen said:

Dooh!! sorry Jeff your right I did'nt read the post correctly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyway, it's not like it's the first time you've publically humiliated yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right all thanks to your mum

[Flukey]

  M6 XR6T said:

  Turbo6man said:

Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (performance wise) is crapping on the BAs in all but the base versions.  Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (fuel economy wise) is crapping over the BA in EVERY model comparison.

I don't see too many HSV's running mid/low 13's in stock trim - as I stated in a previous thread a stock BF XR6T auto will do a 13.3 - 13.4, and we haven't had any times posted from a stock BF F6 Auto yet.

I think you'll find the Gen4 Clubsport does 0-100 in 5.65 and a 13.61 for the 1/4.

I dont think any stock BFXR6T's are running 13.3 or 13.4. There are a few examples of stock Typhoons running these times though.

[Romulus]

  flukeyluke said:

  M6 XR6T said:

  Turbo6man said:

Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (performance wise) is crapping on the BAs in all but the base versions.  Standard to standard the Expensive Daewoo product (fuel economy wise) is crapping over the BA in EVERY model comparison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see too many HSV's running mid/low 13's in stock trim - as I stated in a previous thread a stock BF XR6T auto will do a 13.3 - 13.4, and we haven't had any times posted from a stock BF F6 Auto yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you'll find the Gen4 Clubsport does 0-100 in 5.65 and a 13.61 for the 1/4.

I dont think any stock BFXR6T's are running 13.3 or 13.4. There are a few examples of stock Typhoons running these times though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right, I misread the other topic. It was a stock BF F6 that ran 13.3 1/4 mile.

Quicker than the GEN 4 Clubsport, even without a tune up

[Turbo6man]

  M6 XR6T said:

But it's the base model they sell the most off, therefore making fuel economy an important marketing tool for the fleet buyers. The BA has better fuel economy that the VZ.

Oh, are you sure - well that is news to me.

  M6 XR6T said:

as I stated in a previous thread a stock BF XR6T auto will do a 13.3 - 13.4,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well yes, you did state that before. But that doesn't make it correct. A stock MkI will do very low 14s. MkIIs are a little slower. I believe that ONE standard car has run under 14 secs but it was definitely a freak and not representative of the model in general. The best I've seen reported for a stock BF 6 speed auto is 14.1 secs. which is marginally quicker than the BA MkIs.

[Romulus]

  Turbo6man said:

  M6 XR6T said:

But it's the base model they sell the most off, therefore making fuel economy an important marketing tool for the fleet buyers. The BA has better fuel economy that the VZ.

Oh, are you sure - well that is news to me.

  M6 XR6T said:

as I stated in a previous thread a stock BF XR6T auto will do a 13.3 - 13.4,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well yes, you did state that before. But that doesn't make it correct. A stock MkI will do very low 14s. MkIIs are a little slower. I believe that ONE standard car has run under 14 secs but it was definitely a freak and not representative of the model in general. The best I've seen reported for a stock BF 6 speed auto is 14.1 secs. which is marginally quicker than the BA MkIs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes the fuel consumption figures are correct for a BF 6-speed auto. They use less fuel than the Commodore. I was looking at the fuel comparisons at a Ford dealer yesterday.

Also, we're not talking stock MkI BA turbo's here, we're talking stock BF F6 auto's. It's probably fortunate for FPV that marketing restrictions prohibit them quoting performance times of the F6 and the GT/GT-P. The F6 would put the V8 to shame no doubt.

Edited 14/02/06 07:58 AM by M6 XR6T

[F6 UTE]

  M6 XR6T said:

I don't see too many HSV's running mid/low 13's in stock trim - as I stated in a previous thread a stock BF XR6T auto will do a 13.3 - 13.4, and we haven't had any times posted from a stock BF F6 Auto yet. My money is it would have to run a flat 13 to hi 12 in stock trim. Then if that's not enough for a mere $995 - $1300 you can pickup up to 50rwkw and definately see a 12 in an auto Turbo.

No way does the Expensive Daewoo vehicle crap on the BA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What times do yopu think F6_Tornado is capable of with 300rwkw in his new Camel??

The times we recorded suggest a very high 12. Just like the manuals. Traction being the issue.. again.......................... But his best run saw very little tyre turning come to think of it.

Nice ET, but down on mph I think. If he runs in the next few weeks, I think he'll go 12.80 at best @ 114mph, with his current tune and tight engine.

Then again, manuals ( 14.30 stock ) then with 300 rwkw picked up 1.50 seconds from stock power and times.. If the same applies to the auto, will we see an 11.90??

XR6T's with 300 rwkw run dead low 12's don't they? Even High 11's.